NationStates Jolt Archive

For those that are religious, I am curious to know if you think religion is something that someone must have in order to have a good sense of morality, or have a valid opinion. I await your answers.

Not at all.

I base all my principles on a mixutre of Virute Ethics and Rule Utilitrianism. Both made by complete Athiests, Aristotle, and J.S Mill and they are both a lot more compassionate ethics than something such as the relgious natural law.

For those that are religious, I am curious to know if you think religion is something that someone must have in order to have a good sense of morality, or have a valid opinion. I await your answers.

Nope. In fact, I think many people have skewed value system and sense of morality due to their religious beliefs. Did the skewed values cause the religious beliefs or did the beliefs cause the skewed values?

No.

For those that are religious, I am curious to know if you think religion is something that someone must have in order to have a good sense of morality, or have a valid opinion. I await your answers.


Nope, I'm not religious though so I'm not guite answering your
guestion.

Not at all.

I base all my principles on a mixutre of Virute Ethics and Rule Utilitrianism. Both made by complete Athiests, Aristotle, and J.S Mill and they are both a lot more compassionate ethics than something such as the relgious natural law.

Same here.

Definitely not. Good parenting can provide most with strong morality. I say most because there is no way anything short of psychotherapy could deal with some people.

I think that someone must have some spiritual side to them to be a complete human being. Looking at the world completely objectively belies its' inherant beauty.

Looking at the world completely objectively in such a manner, with NO appreciation of "hey that's pretty" or "hey that's beautiful" means that you are not a complete person.

Wonder is a quality of humanity, people would do well not to forget that.

NB.

This does not require conformation to any religion.

I think that someone must have some spiritual side to them to be a complete human being. Looking at the world completely objectively belies its' inherant beauty.

Looking at the world completely objectively in such a manner, with NO appreciation of "hey that's pretty" or "hey that's beautiful" means that you are not a complete person.

Wonder is a quality of humanity, people would do well not to forget that.

You don't have to be spiritual to see the beauty in the world.

To be honest I think organized religion is dangerous. It allows for absolution without morality and takes away yet another reason for people not to think. That being said I think having a moral code that you preach and follow make for a more complete human being, not religion.

Atheist here.

And no.

I think that someone must have some spiritual side to them to be a complete human being. Looking at the world completely objectively belies its' inherant beauty.

Looking at the world completely objectively in such a manner, with NO appreciation of "hey that's pretty" or "hey that's beautiful" means that you are not a complete person.

Wonder is a quality of humanity, people would do well not to forget that.

NB.

This does not require conformation to any religion.

I have no spiritual side what so ever,

nada zip, hell I have actually sold my sold to some one for cash. ( i was broke, he was an idiot), I refuse to sing in church and even on my death bed I will never submit to the idea, let alone cheek that another intelligent being has the right to be my ‘god’.

I appreciate beauty, more than most people my age id say, I’ve seen all kinds of things in my short life that I recognise as beauty, mainly in the east, ancient pagodas, Hong Kong at night. or even looking out onto the sea at sun set.

Beautiful yes, divine no.

Just a bunch of atoms, and sub atomic particles

No.

You don't have to be spiritual to see the beauty in the world.

I would say that's a matter of opinion, I'm not saying it's any great spirituality by any stretch of the imagination.

But I've got a funny definition of spiritualism so that's probably to be expected:p

I think that someone must have some spiritual side to them to be a complete human being. Looking at the world completely objectively belies its' inherant beauty.

Looking at the world completely objectively in such a manner, with NO appreciation of "hey that's pretty" or "hey that's beautiful" means that you are not a complete person.

Wonder is a quality of humanity, people would do well not to forget that.

NB.

This does not require conformation to any religion.

I don't believe I need assistance from spirituality to see the beauty in anything. I see existence as a random occurence, no intelligence involved, our world was created out of pure circumstance. In that, I am amazed at how so much beauty can come from something that wasn't even composed in any particular manner.

That is also the reason why I value life so much. There was an equally good chance that our world did not take shape and life did not form upon it. That makes me enjoy life because I see it as a gift with no giver, it just plain exists.

why does everyone keep going on about religion, but its a reason to have an argument so... what the hell.

all i have to say is, if god is good, why do people dobad things in his name??
answer that churchy!!

You see, Kejott, this is why you'll be the eighth person up for my Special Award!

You see, Kejott, this is why you'll be the eighth person up for my Special Award!

Why thank you! :D I am honored!

I think that someone must have some spiritual side to them to be a complete human being. Looking at the world completely objectively belies its' inherant beauty.

Looking at the world completely objectively in such a manner, with NO appreciation of "hey that's pretty" or "hey that's beautiful" means that you are not a complete person.

Wonder is a quality of humanity, people would do well not to forget that.

NB.

This does not require conformation to any religion.


Why is spirituality required to enjoy beauty? I can sit on a mountain top for hours and soak in everything around me and find inner peace--but it isn't spiritual. It's just me. Atheism does not equal pure objectivity. Religion isn't required for emotion, creativity, or joy.

Well, you probably shouldn't be... I mean, I don't know how to work metal, nor do I have the tools to do so. Or the raw materials.

...But, it's the thought that counts, isn't it?

Well, you probably shouldn't be... I mean, I don't know how to work metal, nor do I have the tools to do so. Or the raw materials.

...But, it's the thought that counts, isn't it?

Just slap some paper and tape together and call it a day. That should do it.

Why is spirituality required to enjoy beauty? I can sit on a mountain top for hours and soak in everything around me and find inner peace--but it isn't spiritual. It's just me. Atheism does not equal pure objectivity. Religion isn't required for emotion, creativity, or joy.

You see, this is why I have a screwed up idea of spirituality, stopping to enjoy the beauty in something, even if it IS random and has no design bar that laid out by scientific laws IS a spiritual experience.

To me spiritual experience doesn't have to involve God, or any form of religion.

Not at all.

I base all my principles on a mixutre of Virute Ethics and Rule Utilitrianism. Both made by complete Athiests, Aristotle, and J.S Mill and they are both a lot more compassionate ethics than something such as the relgious natural law.

Interesting that you think of Aristotle as an atheist. He certainly believed in destiny, and for the Ancient Greeks this was closely tied to their religion> He refers explictly to the fates etc. Not a Christian (it would br anachronistic) nor a Jew (wrong family) but definitely religious as far as his writings go.

You see, this is why I have a screwed up idea of spirituality, stopping to enjoy the beauty in something, even if it IS random and has no design bar that laid out by scientific laws IS a spiritual experience.

To me spiritual experience doesn't have to involve God, or any form of religion.


LOL, okay whatever :)

Interesting that you think of Aristotle as an atheist. He certainly believed in destiny, and for the Ancient Greeks this was closely tied to their religion> He refers explictly to the fates etc. Not a Christian (it would br anachronistic) nor a Jew (wrong family) but definitely religious as far as his writings go.


Just as an interesting side bar. The word atheist is actually commonly misused. A Theist is a person who believes in a god with a distinct personality who actively created the universe and controls it (or could if he chose to do so). An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in this type of god. Therefore many pagans could actually be classified as atheists, people who believe in destiny could be atheists, and the Jedi from Star Wars certainly would be, I even know of some Christians who consider themselves atheist be that definition (granted, they are considered heretics in most quarters).

Anyways, not to argue semantics, just trying to interject an interesting though.

Humans are the only living being that is capable of consciously recognizing Morality, Spirituality, and Religion. Nearly every Human culture has reflected this to some degree. Where does denial leave you?

Take that however you wish.

I am moderately religious, and I think that there are many more variables to morality etc than religion. IMO, some religions actually make you less of a 'complete' human, and there are plenty of people (my best friend, and my girlfriend included) who are anti or not religious, and they are 'complete' IMO.

LOL, okay whatever :)

Ok then, you look at something like a crystal formation, and you go wow that's beautiful, and it evokes a strong emotional response inside you that increases your wonder and respect for the beauty and intricacy of the natural world, how can that not be a spiritual experience?

Interesting that you think of Aristotle as an atheist. He certainly believed in destiny, and for the Ancient Greeks this was closely tied to their religion> He refers explictly to the fates etc. Not a Christian (it would br anachronistic) nor a Jew (wrong family) but definitely religious as far as his writings go.

He was determinist and beloved in a soul yes,

Was he religious, that’s going a bit far.

Doesn’t matter what he believed , because there no mention of fate or soul or anything in virtue ethics.

Both ideas are based around eudemonia/hedonism aka achieving a happy life

Ok then, you look at something like a crystal formation, and you go wow that's beautiful, and it evokes a strong emotional response inside you that increases your wonder and respect for the beauty and intricacy of the natural world, how can that not be a spiritual experience?

Because I don't believe in spirits. . . . . ?

Mind you, I wasn't meaning to be insulting with my "ok, wahtever" thing (which I realize now could've been taken that way). Mostly I just meant that we can easily just agree to disagree on semantics because I think we do agree on what we mean--behind our different ways of expressing it and some of the different "fluff" we dress it up with. Or at the very least, even if we don't agree, our beliefs aren't at odds.

I think I do alright without religion, but apparently my local hospital doesn't.
On my admission form it asks for my religion, and I said atheist. So on the part where it asks for my morals and values the hospital staff put "none." :rolleyes:

For those that are religious, I am curious to know if you think religion is something that someone must have in order to have a good sense of morality, or have a valid opinion. I await your answers.
not at all. sadly, i know some christians with lower morals than many atheists, althought of those who have low/no morals, the majority are not theists...

Let's for one second admit that was true...

Admitting that people who founded religions, had no previous religion, or didn't have one at the time they created a new one, then all religions would have been founded by "incomplete" human beings (whatever that may be).

That would make religious people, followers of an idea created by the ones you call incomplete...now, you don't really believe that, do you ? ;)

Developing that idea just would make gods incomplete, most of them weren't churchgoers, as you know.

Nooooo sir !

For those that are religious, I am curious to know if you think religion is something that someone must have in order to have a good sense of morality, or have a valid opinion. I await your answers.First point: You've specifically asked those who are religious to answer your question, and the way you have phrased it seems to leave out those who are not religious. You are therefore going to get a skewed response at best. (you have in effect asked a question similar to this: "Of those of you who believe in UFOs, is a belief in UFOs necessary in a person in order to consider that person among the most intelligent?")

Second point: Do you really mean to ask if people think "Religion" is necessary to a sense of morality? Or, do you really mean to be asking this question about "Spirituality"? Religion by definition being organized worship, spirituality not necessarily organized, and open to individual or group.

Third point: My response(s) -

1. If you mean "is religion necessary" - No.
2. If you mean "is spirituality necessary" - I think so, yes.

not at all. sadly, i know some christians with lower morals than many atheists, althought of those who have low/no morals, the majority are not theists...

You really love getting those digs in at atheists any chance you get, don't you?

You really love getting those digs in at atheists any chance you get, don't you?

We all enjoy gettings digs at people we disagree with.

First point: You've specifically asked those who are religious to answer your question, and the way you have phrased it seems to leave out those who are not religious. You are therefore going to get a skewed response at best.

Second point: Do you really mean to ask if people think "Religion" is necessary to a sense of morality? Or, do you really mean to be asking this question about "Spirituality"? Religion by definition being organized worship, spirituality not necessarily organized, and open to individual or group.

Third point: My response(s) -

1. If you mean "is religion necessary" - No.
2. If you mean "is spirituality necessary" - I think so, yes.

Basically my question is directed towards anybody who feels that there is a "higher power" or "higher meaning".

Just as an interesting side bar. The word atheist is actually commonly misused. A Theist is a person who believes in a god with a distinct personality who actively created the universe and controls it (or could if he chose to do so). An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in this type of god. Therefore many pagans could actually be classified as atheists, people who believe in destiny could be atheists, and the Jedi from Star Wars certainly would be, I even know of some Christians who consider themselves atheist be that definition (granted, they are considered heretics in most quarters).

Anyways, not to argue semantics, just trying to interject an interesting though.

An athiest does not believe in a god(s). It is not limited to a specific incarnation of a god, much like theology refers to all discussion relating to god(s). The base of atheist is ATHEOS (greek) godless.

An athiest does not believe in a god(s). It is not limited to a specific incarnation of a god, much like theology refers to all discussion relating to god(s). The base of atheist is ATHEOS (greek) godless.


An athetist is someone who is not a theist. Look at the word--the prefix 'a' which means not (ex: amoral) followed by the word theist--one who believes in a theistic god.


Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

One can believe in an impersonal god--such as the power of nature or the ground of all being--and still be an atheist.

Again, I'm not saying that this is the commonly accepted definition, just interjecting a thought.

From the Religious side of things (though not overly so) I don't think that you need religion in order to have morality, see beauty around you or just to know right from wrong. I do believe that religion does give you some more understanding of what God has in store for you and wishes you to do, but this is still your choice to follow it or not.

When I look at this beautiful earth I get more of a confirmation that it was created by an intelligent being. The reason we do not see God interfering is that he gives us free will; this means that he will not force us to do anything he will just give us commandments lets us choose to follow them.

I hope that this does not spark too much debate as I will not be able to respond to any soon (I am going into the Military and will not have access to a computer for a while).

I would see it as Religion vs. Relationship.
Religion necessary to be a complete human? No.
Relationship with my Lord and Creator? Yes.
I was raised without any religion, but had morals and high values taught to me. However, I spent many unhappy years, once I left home, feeling as though I had no purpose or direction. Thus, began my journey in life seeking "something" and finding everything. My relationship with God has made all the difference in the world for ME. But that's me and my situation. If people ask why I seem different and happy now than years prior, I tell them why, but I don't go on a personal crusade to shove what works for me down their throat. People will let you know if they are searching for the same thing and will be drawn to you because of it.

Basically my question is directed towards anybody who feels that there is a "higher power" or "higher meaning".Thank you. Then, you are asking about spirituality, and not religion. Between those who believe in specific religions (the religious) and those who do not believe in any god at all (the atheists) there is another group who believe in a "higher power" or "god", but not in any specific religion (the agnostics). I, for example, am an agnostic.

I would still recommend that you open your question to all - atheists, agnostics, and those who chose to follow a specific religion. Although your question seems to have opened itself up in that way already. You'll get a better result, I think.

An athetist is someone who is not a theist. Look at the word--the prefix 'a' which means not (ex: amoral) followed by the word theist--one who believes in a theistic god.



One can believe in an impersonal god--such as the power of nature or the ground of all being--and still be an atheist.

Again, I'm not saying that this is the commonly accepted definition, just interjecting a thought.

Because a theist can believe in that god as described in your definition does not mean that all theists must as the definition clearly states. Look it up again on dictionary.com. There is a second definition further down the page that does not include the bolded portion and instead considers it a secondary definition. Also on dictionary.com, look up atheist (it's YOUR source).

Now if you want to debate what it means by god(s) it also says that. It is a being ascribed with supernatural attributes or characteristics that has been believed in/worshipped. So that means, mother nature, Zeus and Doggy the barking supernatural observer (if someone worships/believes in Doggy) all count.

We can't label as "atheist" those who do not accept our own particular brand of religion or belief in god or gods - only because it is semantically inaccurate, and causes confusion. We only have words with which to communicate - if we use them in confusing or incorrect ways, it inhibits rather than enhances communication.

Atheist means one who is without a belief in a god or gods.

It does not mean one who believes in a different god or gods than "me".

Because I don't believe in spirits. . . . . ?

Mind you, I wasn't meaning to be insulting with my "ok, wahtever" thing (which I realize now could've been taken that way). Mostly I just meant that we can easily just agree to disagree on semantics because I think we do agree on what we mean--behind our different ways of expressing it and some of the different "fluff" we dress it up with. Or at the very least, even if we don't agree, our beliefs aren't at odds.

Fair enough, agree to disagree :)

Thank you. Then, you are asking about spirituality, and not religion. Between those who believe in specific religions (the religious) and those who do not believe in any god at all (the atheists) there is another group who believe in a "higher power" or "god", but not in any specific religion (the agnostics). I, for example, am an agnostic.

I would still recommend that you open your question to all - atheists, agnostics, and those who chose to follow a specific religion. Although your question seems to have opened itself up in that way already. You'll get a better result, I think.

Agnostics believe it is impossible to know whether there is a god(s). Agnostics can believe what you believe but it is not part of being agnostic. In fact, many, perhaps most, agnostics lean toward their being no god(s) or supernatural beings whatsoever.

Agnostics believe it is impossible to know whether there is a god(s). Agnostics can believe what you believe but it is not part of being agnostic. In fact, many, perhaps most, agnostics lean toward their being no god(s) or supernatural beings whatsoever.I was about to disagree, but stopped to look up "agnostic" in my dictionary. To find that, after 53 years, I've been using the term incorrectly.

You're right, and I apologize.

Now, what the heck is the correct term for someone who does not believe in any form of organized religion, but does believe in the existance of god?

I was about to disagree, but stopped to look up "agnostic" in my dictionary. To find that, after 53 years, I've been using the term incorrectly.

You're right, and I apologize.

Now, what the heck is the correct term for someone who does not believe in any form of organized religion, but does believe in the existance of god?

theist

There is a big difference between a moral person and a complete person.

Just because you are moral doesn't mean that you will go to Heaven.
Jesus said that "No man comes to the Father but through me."

Moral people are better than non moral people.
Just becuase you say you are a Christian and you go to church doesn't mean you are one. You have to live the life. I felt a constant void in my life until I found Jesus and learned what he did for me. I don't see how your life could be complete if you go to Hell.

I was about to disagree, but stopped to look up "agnostic" in my dictionary. To find that, after 53 years, I've been using the term incorrectly.

You're right, and I apologize.

Now, what the heck is the correct term for someone who does not believe in any form of organized religion, but does believe in the existance of god?

I believe to correct term is a "human being".

I believe to correct term is a "human being".

does that mean an atheist or an adherent to organised religion is NOT a human being?

does that mean an atheist or an adherent to organised religion is NOT a human being?

Hmm, I have to think about that.....

Noooo, I'm just kidding of course. I hate all these labels and designations, however without them nothing would be organized. Can't live with them, can't live without em.

does that mean an atheist or an adherent to organised religion is NOT a human being?

If you take the idea of a human as tabula rasa, then yes, they'd be humans, just different kinds.

In the case of that guy, I doubt that's what he's saying.

There is a big difference between a moral person and a complete person.

Just because you are moral doesn't mean that you will go to Heaven.
Jesus said that "No man comes to the Father but through me."

Moral people are better than non moral people.
Just becuase you say you are a Christian and you go to church doesn't mean you are one. You have to live the life. I felt a constant void in my life until I found Jesus and learned what he did for me. I don't see how your life could be complete if you go to Hell.So, in your opinion, everyone who doesn't believe in and practice your particular brand of christianity is going to hell? And you and all those who do believe in and practive your particular brand of christianity are not going to hell?

This is what leads to fanaticism, and fanaticism leads to religious wars. Which, I suppose, is a quick way to find out who's going to hell and who isn't.

This attitude that there is only one specific way to believe in god, and only those who follow that specific way are "saved" and everyone else is "damned" - this is the reason I reject all religions.

OK, first of all, Atheism is a religion in and of itself.

A religion is a cultic set of practises that one outwardly performs in accordance with an inner spirituality or belief. Not believing in God or gods is a belief, no matter how you slice it. Human beings, by their very nature, ALWAYS believe in something, whether it's some sort of spirituality or science, or something else entirely. Even believing in nothing is believing in something; Get it?

I personally don't think that RELIGION is necessary to human existance; in fact, I think religion is detrimental to human existance, because religions draw the sharpest imaginable line between people: us and them. When you are not "US", you're "Them", and it's a short leap from "Them" to sub-human. If "They" are not considered human, "WE" can do to "THEM" whatever "WE" choose. After all, "THEY" are only Hell-bound heretics anyway, right? Bear in mind, this is coming from someone who strives to be a Christian in the truest sense of the word; in other words, I try my hardest to live a life that is compassionate, forgiving, gentle, tolerant, joyful, peaceful, and respectful of others and this planet that is our "Mother".

I DO, however, think that, in order for a person to be a well-balanced, healthy human being, there needs to be some level of deep belief in the sanctity of life in all its forms. If a person doesn't believe that life is sacred, s/he is likely to be the type of person who would callously snuff out a life for a short-term gain, whatever that may be. We call these types of people sociopath or psychopath, and we shun them for the abberations they are. However it got here (and I am so far unconvinced by ANY of the theories for the origin of life on this planet), the simple fact is that, as far as we KNOW, this planet is the ONE place in all the cosmos where there is life. Sure, it is overwhelmingly likely that there is life elsewhere (created, evolved, seeded; does it really matter?), but we have no knowledge of it. Therefore, we have a truly sacred duty to see that life here continues, even when our part in it is done.

So, I guess I'd have to say that no, religion is not necessary for a person to be a "complete" human being, but a deep commitment to the idea of life as a gift most certainly is. Those people who truly embrace life as a gift are obligated to act in accordance with that belief, whatever their "religion" or "spirituality" are. This means that killing is out. Rape is out. Assault is out. War is out. Pollution is out. Hunting for sport only is out. Environmental destruction is out. In fact, just to make it easy, anything that results in the destruction of life is a sin, in the truest sense of the word.

Now, don't get me wrong; destroying harmful diseases is not a sin, because it's done in the service of life. Swatting a mosquito is not a sin because, in the grand scheme of things, it's not done maliciously; hell, often, it's not even done consciously. Eating meat is one of those touchy issues that ultimately comes down to individual choice. My personal belief is that there are only two reasons to kill an animal: either to eat it, or because it's trying to eat you. Either way, you are part of the circle of life, and therefore not sinning.

In the end, everyone has some sort of deeply held belief system that can be called "spiritual"; it's simply inherent in the human condition. You don't have to believe in God to be spiritual, but a belief in God (whatever your definition of the word) often comes part and parcel with a true sprituality, because of the recognition that existance is something much bigger than any of us. My attitude toward the belief systems of others is this: If you are doing something in your life that offends God, it's GOD'S job to deal with you about it, either here or in the afterlife (whatever that may be). My job on this planet is to love my fellow man, not walk in judgement of him, forgive him when he wrongs me, and do to him as I would have him do to me. Everything else is just ritual.

If you take the idea of a human as tabula rasa, then yes, they'd be humans, just different kinds.

In the case of that guy, I doubt that's what he's saying.If "that guy" is this guy...this guy doesn't define who is a human being by their particular theistic (or atheistic) beliefs.

For those that are religious, I am curious to know if you think religion is something that someone must have in order to have a good sense of morality, or have a valid opinion. I await your answers.

Depends on what you mean by "religion", since it can encompass any "world-view" even if non-spiritual. Basically a set of "doctrines"

For example, while atheism is not specifically a "religion" it is the theology involved in secular humanism, which most certainly, even though not specifically institutionalized, is a religion, atheism merely being the "theology proper" of the secular humanist.

Basically, to one extend or another, everyone is "religious" in my view.

As for the principle of "good sense of morality" such a term is nebulous at best. Even seperate religious institutions will question the "morality" of one another.

I don't, for instance, even being christian myself, question the morality of many self-professing christians.

And in general, I am more concerned with ethics than morality.

as a religious person, nope, it is'nt required. it helps, but it's not a requirement.

For those that are religious, I am curious to know if you think religion is something that someone must have in order to have a good sense of morality, or have a valid opinion. I await your answers.
for me, it is the opposite; i believe it is impossible for any human being to fully experience their life if they assume the existence of God, gods, spirits, an afterlife or lives, et cetera. i also believe that somebody who believes in these supernatural factors is going to be incapable of making moral decisions on the same level as a person who remains agnostic. just my belief, though, and damned if i'm going to waste time trying to convert people to my perspective.

OK, first of all, Atheism is a religion in and of itself.

A religion is a cultic set of practises that one outwardly performs in accordance with an inner spirituality or belief. Not believing in God or gods is a belief, no matter how you slice it. Human beings, by their very nature, ALWAYS believe in something, whether it's some sort of spirituality or science, or something else entirely. Even believing in nothing is believing in something; Get it?I haven't yet absorbed everything else you've said, but I have absorbed what I've quoted. It's wrong. While not believing in god or gods is in fact a belief, it is not a religious belief. Atheism is certainly a belief, but it is not a religion.

For those that are religious, I am curious to know if you think religion is something that someone must have in order to have a good sense of morality, or have a valid opinion. I await your answers.

I'm a christian. I believe that if you have no moral compass or guide, then you can not have a good sense of morality. In my case it would be The Holy Bible, The Holy Spirit, my earthly mother and father, and true friends, in that order.

But what is a moral, what someone believes to be good or correct. We are all influenced by society, weather we are religious or not. A prime example. My daughter was a very compasionate little girl. Always willing to share, and to give, because that was how she was brought up. But now that she has started school, she has lost some of that, because of her peers at school. She has become more selfish, because others have acted in kind. Now I'm not saying that she is by any means been corrupted by our public school system, but she has definately been influenced, and thus her morals have changed.

I haven't yet absorbed everything else you've said, but I have absorbed what I've quoted. It's wrong. While not believing in god or gods is in fact a belief, it is not a religious belief. Atheism is certainly a belief, but it is not a religion.

And I would have to disagree with you on the basis that depends on which defininition of religion that you are referring to. If I was a pro basketball player, and was extremely devoted to playing the sport, then it could be stated that I play basketball religiously. Just as someone who holds the belief that there is no God, or gods, and they adamently believe it, they religiously believe that. Religion isn't necessarily always about a supernatural being, and the belief in them.

In your opinion is religion required to be a "complete" human being?
For those that are religious, I am curious to know if you think religion is something that someone must have in order to have a good sense of morality, or have a valid opinion. I await your answers.
I couldn't help but notice that the question changed after I opened the post, from "...to be a complete human being" to "...have a sense of morality or a valid opinion". Why's that?

So, in your opinion, everyone who doesn't believe in and practice your particular brand of christianity is going to hell? And you and all those who do believe in and practive your particular brand of christianity are not going to hell?

This is what leads to fanaticism, and fanaticism leads to religious wars. Which, I suppose, is a quick way to find out who's going to hell and who isn't.

This attitude that there is only one specific way to believe in god, and only those who follow that specific way are "saved" and everyone else is "damned" - this is the reason I reject all religions.

Call it what you want, but it is the truth. I said nothing about the various brands of Christianity, but some brands are a little on the borderline.

I am not a Zealot of sorts. I would go to war to defend my Father and his sacredness. I don't understand why many consider religion a bad thing. What harm can it cause?

If you acknowlege that you do not believe in something, you must believe in it. If you say " I am an atheist and I do not believe God is real" then you acknowleged that you believe in him.

Ockam's Raiser doesn't always apply.

I haven't yet absorbed everything else you've said, but I have absorbed what I've quoted. It's wrong. While not believing in god or gods is in fact a belief, it is not a religious belief. Atheism is certainly a belief, but it is not a religion.

And yet there are Atheists, even online, who would attack religion with all the passion, furvor, and zeal of a religious fanatic.

My friend, religion is as religion does.

If you do not believe in anything (as pertains to God or gods), you believe in nothing. Believing in nothing is just as much a religious belief as believing that Jesus is God, or that there is only one God; Allah is his name and Mohammed is his prophet. The only difference is that Atheists don't generally have a set of cultic practices that go along with their belief. If you look at religion as a scale, Atheism would be on one end, Fundamentalism on the other, and Agnosticism in the middle. But Atheism is still on the same scale as all other religious beliefs. That fact is even built into the name of the belief: aTHEism. It is, by definition, the belief that there is no higher power, whatever you choose to call it. But, it is still a religious belief.

For those that are religious, I am curious to know if you think religion is something that someone must have in order to have a good sense of morality, or have a valid opinion. I await your answers.
No, but recognition that you have a spiritual side is.

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
(Don Hirschberg)

I'm non-christian and against most religions, what i use for morality is nature. natural things are good. artificial things are bad. that's basically it.

By Czech:

>>Call it what you want, but it is the truth.<<

No, my friend, it is the truth for YOU. Be careful; absolutism in the idea that your faith is the one and only truth is a dangerous thing. Besides, how does Christianity have a monopoly on the truth? If Buddhists believe in the Golden Rule (and they do), how is it any less true for their being Buddhists?

>>I am not a Zealot of sorts.<<

Your next statement belies you.

>>I would go to war to defend my Father and his sacredness.<<

See what I mean?

>>I don't understand why many consider religion a bad thing. What harm can it cause?<<

Spirituality is not a bad thing; religion, at least, Zealous Fundamentalism, is a blight on mankind, precisely because of the attitude that you have conveyed with your post. Religion has caused an ENORMOUS amount of harm throughout recorded history. (spirituality is a different story) I'm not saying you're a bad person, so don't think that, please. I'm just saying that when a person has an absolute belief that his religion is the ONLY way to believe in God and that all others are wrong, it is very easy to justify killing those who "impugn" the "sanctity" of one's God. If one TRULY believes in Christ, one would not kill for him. True Christians understand that killing is anathema to everything that Jesus stood for.

>>If you acknowlege that you do not believe in something, you must believe in it. If you say " I am an atheist and I do not believe God is real" then you acknowleged that you believe in him.<<

I ALMOST agree with you here, but I should point out that saying that you do not believe in God is NOT an acknowledgement of a belief in God. If you say you don't believe in God, you are saying that you don't believe in God. Period.

If you acknowlege that you do not believe in something, you must believe in it.

um, HUH?!

so if i acknowledge that i don't believe in Santa Claus, that means i really must believe in Santa Claus? how do you figure that?


If you say " I am an atheist and I do not believe God is real" then you acknowleged that you believe in him.

therefore, if you say "I am a Christian and I do not believe that Zeus exists," then you acknowledged you believe in Zeus.

>>"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
(Don Hirschberg)<<

I'm afraid I would have to disagree with Mr. Hirschberg. As I said earlier, religion is as religion does. Most of the atheists I have encountered are as militant and uncompromising as the most ramrod-stiff fundamentalists. Maybe for some few intellectual atheists (The late, great Carl Sagan comes to mind), atheism isn't so much a religion as a mindset, but there are also Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and even Satanists who feel the same way about their religion. If you feel the need to argue to support your belief, you can be pretty sure you're religious. You don't have to believe in God to be religious.

>>"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
(Don Hirschberg)<<

I'm afraid I would have to disagree with Mr. Hirschberg. As I said earlier, religion is as religion does. Most of the atheists I have encountered are as militant and uncompromising as the most ramrod-stiff fundamentalists. Maybe for some few intellectual atheists (The late, great Carl Sagan comes to mind), atheism isn't so much a religion as a mindset, but there are also Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and even Satanists who feel the same way about their religion. If you feel the need to argue to support your belief, you can be pretty sure you're religious. You don't have to believe in God to be religious.
Sigh, a religion requires some beliefs in the divine and supernatural. Atheism is a belief about religion, or more specifically a dismissal of religion. A dismissal of religion requires you to not have a religion. For atheism to be a religion would be contradictory.

I absolutely think that you need spirituality see beauty to its fullest. A qoute by C.S. Lewis, a famous author, is, "I believe in Christianity as I believe in the sun, not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else." I found this to be true. Before, when I wasn't spiritual I thought I knew beauty too but know that I converted to Christianity I see the true beauty of God's creation.
I don't think that one church is the way because no church is perfect but in the Bible it says straight is the way and narrow is the gate to enter into Heaven and many will not enter through it, and therefore they will all go to Hell who do not enter through the narrow gate but the wide. Also there is only one way to believe in God but you can't just believe that there is a god you must surrender yourself to Him and that is when you find peace and beuty in what he calls good.

No, religion cannot be re-defined to suit your tastes. Use of the term religion to describe a set of dogma/beliefs/rituals includes the assumption of belief in a god or gods being worshipped.

Religion / regliously is used with poetic license to describe sets of beliefs / sets of behaviors that are as if a religion or religious behavior. That does not make basketball a religion, nor does it make atheism a religion.

I will grant that there are atheists (and basketball players) who could easily be described as taking their point(s) (pun intended) religiously...

>>Sigh, a religion requires some beliefs in the divine and supernatural. Atheism is a belief about religion, or more specifically a dismissal of religion. A dismissal of religion requires you to not have a religion. For atheism to be a religion would be contradictory.<<

No, a religion does not require a belief in the supernatural. I would argue that Red Sox fans who define themselves by hating the Yankees, go to or watch every game, and kick the ass of any Yankees fan they can find are deeply religious.

Religion only requires that its adherants buy into the practices of the religion. If you buy into the idea that there is no God, your religion is Atheism. Now, if we were discussing SPIRITUALITY, I would agree with you 100%; but religion and spirituality are two different things.

>>Sigh, a religion requires some beliefs in the divine and supernatural. Atheism is a belief about religion, or more specifically a dismissal of religion. A dismissal of religion requires you to not have a religion. For atheism to be a religion would be contradictory.<<

No, a religion does not require a belief in the supernatural. I would argue that Red Sox fans who define themselves by hating the Yankees, go to or watch every game, and kick the ass of any Yankees fan they can find are deeply religious.

Religion only requires that its adherants buy into the practices of the religion. If you buy into the idea that there is no God, your religion is Atheism. Now, if we were discussing SPIRITUALITY, I would agree with you 100%; but religion and spirituality are two different things.
You have absolutely no idea what the definition of a religion is, do you?

Read the post above yours.

No, a religion does not require a belief in the supernatural. I would argue that Red Sox fans who define themselves by hating the Yankees, go to or watch every game, and kick the ass of any Yankees fan they can find are deeply religious.

Religion only requires that its adherants buy into the practices of the religion. If you buy into the idea that there is no God, your religion is Atheism. Now, if we were discussing SPIRITUALITY, I would agree with you 100%; but religion and spirituality are two different things.

Actually, the primary definition of religion (and that used by the majority of society) does require a belief *IN* the supernatural. It is only when one is taking poetic license and employing, simile, metaphor, and hyperbole that religion is put on things without a supernatural connotation. Deliberate belief that there is no god is a belief ABOUT the supernatural, not IN it. These are two different things. One is a religion. . .the other is more of a philosophy.

Science is not a religion.
Atheism is not a religion.
Secular humanism is not a religion
Basketball is not a religion.
Conservatism is not a religion (no matter how hard Falwell and Robertson try).
Math is not a religion.
Soccer is not a religion.
Liking pizza better than any other food in the world is not a religion.

You can pursue work in them as IF they were a religion (note the use of the word AS which makes this a simile) because you follow them closely and with dedication. However that does not make them a religion.

Christianity is a religion.
Wicca is a religion.
Hinduism is a religion.
Judaism is a religion.
Islam is a religion
Devil Worship is a religion.

Note the common thread here. . . .they are all based on the belief in a supernatural power.

Religion:

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Definition number 4 is what I am discussing. As you can see from the definition I've provided, "Religion" CAN imply a belief in God. In fact, I would grant that, in MOST cases, it does. However, as I've said, you don't have to believe in God to be religious; you just have to believe in SOMETHING. Atheism - Pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion - is a religion. Not ALL atheists are religious, just as not all Christians are religious. But an atheist can be every bit as religious as a Christian.

But, we are arguing semantics, here. Whether or not atheism is a religion is not the issue of this thread.

Actually, the primary definition of religion (and that used by the majority of society) does require a belief in the supernatural. It is only when one is taking poetic license and employing, simile, metaphor, and hyperbole that religion is put on things without a supernatural connotation.

Science is not a religion.
Atheism is not a religion.
Secular humanism is not a religion
Basketball is not a religion.
Conservatism is not a religion (no matter how hard Falwell and Robertson try).
Math is not a religion.
Soccer is not a religion.
Liking pizza better than any other food in the world is not a religion.

You can pursue work in them as IF they were a religion (note the use of the word AS which makes this a simile) because you follow them closely and with dedication. However that does not make them a religion.

Christianity is a religion.
Wicca is a religion.
Hinduism is a religion.
Judaism is a religion.
Islam is a religion
Devil Worship is a religion.

Note the common thread here. . . .they are all based on the belief in a supernatural power.
this is a very important distinction, so i hope people were paying attention :).

it is possible to follow any belief "religiously," just as one can be a fanatic about pretty much any belief, but that doesn't mean all beliefs are inherently religions.

Christianity is a religion no matter how you go about following it, as is Judaism, Wicca, etc. atheism, agnosticism, secular humanism, and so forth may be pursued "religiously," but they may not; they are not inherently religions.

Religion:

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Definition number 4 is what I am discussing. As you can see from the definition I've provided, "Religion" CAN imply a belief in God. In fact, I would grant that, in MOST cases, it does. However, as I've said, you don't have to believe in God to be religious; you just have to believe in SOMETHING. Atheism - Pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion - is a religion. Not ALL atheists are religious, just as not all Christians are religious. But an atheist can be every bit as religious as a Christian.

But, we are arguing semantics, here. Whether or not atheism is a religion is not the issue of this thread.


Then why do you keep fighting a point that only comes in last in dictionary.com and which is a use we've already explained is poetic license. Perhaps proving atheism is a religion has become a religion to you? By your definition of course. Isn't that a violation of the commandments?

this is a very important distinction, so i hope people were paying attention :).

it is possible to follow any belief "religiously," just as one can be a fanatic about pretty much any belief, but that doesn't mean all beliefs are inherently religions.

Christianity is a religion no matter how you go about following it, as is Judaism, Wicca, etc. atheism, agnosticism, secular humanism, and so forth may be pursued "religiously," but they may not; they are not inherently religions.


Hey Bottle, glad to have you here as always :)

Do you also find it interesting that the word religiously is basically synonymous with fanatically? Definitely one of those words that fits.

>>You have absolutely no idea what the definition of a religion is, do you?<<

Actually, I have a very clear idea of what the definition of religion is, as you can see from my last post.

As an aside, I would argue that when a person makes personal attacks (however veiled) during a discussion, that person is arguing religiously (remember, religion can mean following an idea zealously). If you attack someone who disagrees with your position, you have crossed the line into zealotry.

>>You have absolutely no idea what the definition of a religion is, do you?<<

Actually, I have a very clear idea of what the definition of religion is, as you can see from my last post.

As an aside, I would argue that when a person makes personal attacks (however veiled) during a discussion, that person is arguing religiously (remember, religion can mean following an idea zealously). If you attack someone who disagrees with your position, you have crossed the line into zealotry.

You still seem to be missing that there is a difference between doing something religiously and something being a religion.

Excuse my language here. . .but its like the fact that I can say something bitchily without being a bitch.

And on that note, I have to hop a shower and get dress for the Board meeting tonight. I'll try to check in before I leave.

>>You have absolutely no idea what the definition of a religion is, do you?<<

Actually, I have a very clear idea of what the definition of religion is, as you can see from my last post.

As an aside, I would argue that when a person makes personal attacks (however veiled) during a discussion, that person is arguing religiously (remember, religion can mean following an idea zealously). If you attack someone who disagrees with your position, you have crossed the line into zealotry.
Well, I would have you know that I don't appreciate being spoken to like an infant. You've spent the last 4 posts trying to explain something to us that we already knew.

>>Sigh, a religion requires some beliefs in the divine and supernatural. Atheism is a belief about religion, or more specifically a dismissal of religion. A dismissal of religion requires you to not have a religion. For atheism to be a religion would be contradictory.<<

No, a religion does not require a belief in the supernatural. I would argue that Red Sox fans who define themselves by hating the Yankees, go to or watch every game, and kick the ass of any Yankees fan they can find are deeply religious.

Religion only requires that its adherants buy into the practices of the religion. If you buy into the idea that there is no God, your religion is Atheism. Now, if we were discussing SPIRITUALITY, I would agree with you 100%; but religion and spirituality are two different things.Glad we agree on the difference between religion and spirituality.

You're still wrong, though. Religion requires a deity. Fanaticism is what you are describing. And while there can be (sadly, there seem to be quite a few) religious fanatics, fanaticism does not require a deity or a religion - only at least one fanatic.

>>Christianity is a religion no matter how you go about following it, as is Judaism, Wicca, etc. atheism, agnosticism, secular humanism, and so forth may be pursued "religiously," but they may not; they are not inherently religions.<<

Now see, this I agree with...mostly. Indeed, atheism is not INHERENTLY a religion by the common definition of the word. I have been arguing, however, that it very well CAN be a religion by the common definition of the word. In fact, in some belief systems, the idea of "god" is more closely associated with the idea of nothingness than our traditional concept of God. In such belief systems, to believe in "god" is to believe in nothing. If you believe this way, the only true thing you can say about "god" is that it doesn't exist...at least, not as we exist.

Now, by the first three parts of the definition of Religion, Christianity is a religion. However, the practice of it does not have to be religious. I call myself a Christian, but I am in no way religious as the term is being applied here (definition 4). Keep in mind that inherent in the statement that someone is religious is the implication that they are also, on some level, cultic and uncompromising in their belief. If anything, I would be considered a heretic in most Christian circles for my belief that there will be people other than "Born-again Christians" in Heaven (whatever and where ever Heaven may be), among other "heretical" beliefs.

No, no. I am Wiccan and I think you can have no religious beliefs and still be a great person. :D Why not? Sure, my beliefs shape what I think but having 'no beliefs' is a belief in itself.

For those that are religious, I am curious to know if you think religion is something that someone must have in order to have a good sense of morality, or have a valid opinion. I await your answers.

Nope.

I don't feel like I'm 'missing something', and I'm irreligious. So no, I don't believe religion is required.

Note the common thread here. . . .they are all based on the belief in a supernatural power.

what about buddhism?

I believe so, read Eclesiasticies for why

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=25&chapter=1&version=31

what about buddhism?
Buddhism involves concepts that could be considered supernatural or divine, such as reincarnation and nirvana.

But you are right, sometimes buddhism is referred to as a philosophy, but for the most part, can be definitely be considered a religion.

Heinlein said that there is no such thing as morals...only customs.
For instance, most of us would believe that the very idea of eating the dead is repulsive, horrible, and maybe even demeaning to the memory of the person, but throughout history, there have been cannibals who felt that the eating of the dead showed them the ultimate respect. After all, if they are eaten, then their bodies are not left to rot and decay like a bit of carrion.

I have only read arguements against Religion so I am here to back up religion.

Well I absolutely think that being religious is importians to being a complete person, also it is importiant for the sake of ethics. In order to be perfectly ethical one has to have a perfect set of moral rules.

I will use a arguement baised on Plato. He would argue that there is always only one Moral position on anything no matter what anyone belives. This perfect set of moral rules have to come from somewhere. How are we to learn these moral beliefs and know what they are? This is where I differ from Plato; he beive that we can just learn this stuff on our own through philosophy. I have to disagree with him on that.

God is omnipotent so he knows this stuff. How are we to know what is right and wrong? He must tell us in a set of moral rules; and he has in the Torah (old testament). (I am Jewish so this is what I believe but catholics should believe the same thing, exept replace Torah with the Catholic Church.) He may not have told us every moral rule there is but he has definitly given
us the most importiant beliefs.

I have read arguements saying that they use John Stuart Mill's Theory of Utilitarianism. I must argue that this is flawed. I mean take the example of doing gay acts. Using Immanuel Kant's catigorical imperitive, he would say that A world where every one did this couldn't exsist because there would be no offspring, therefore it is our duity not to do this. But there are also flaws in his method theory, that is because it is done by a man therefor it is flawed.

I will to have a perfect set of moral rules you need to believe in a God to give you these moral rules.

Heinlein said that there is no such thing as morals...only customs.
For instance, most of us would believe that the very idea of eating the dead is repulsive, horrible, and maybe even demeaning to the memory of the person, but throughout history, there have been cannibals who felt that the eating of the dead showed them the ultimate respect. After all, if they are eaten, then their bodies are not left to rot and decay like a bit of carrion.There is a lot of truth in this. We use "moral" to mean "acceptable in the culture/society" frequently, and much less often to mean one of a few baisc tenets of good. We use "immoral" frequently to mean "unacceptable in the culture/society" and much less often to mean "a basic evil thing".

There are, after all, only a few truly basic morals and immorals, if we leave aside those cultural taboos and all.

I'll give one example of a basic moral and one of a basic immoral, as I see it:

Moral: Treat other's as you would yourself wish to be treated.

Immoral: Killing a person who is not threatening someone's life.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of behaviors that one culture or another, one religion or another, would have us accept as either "moral" or "immoral". There are very, very few really basic moral and immoral behaviors that are true regardless of what the cultural context says of them

No. I'm an atheist who is a complete and happy human being, thank you very much. Yes, you can gain fulfilment from earthly things.

what about buddhism?


Now, I'm speaking from limited knowledge here--so if anyone knows about this, please feel free to fill me in.

Buddhism is actually a philosophy that anyone can follow from any religion. My understanding is that most Buddhists, at least in its early times, are Hindus by religion by Buddhists by personal philosophy.

But again, that is my admittedly limited understanding.

Heinlein said that there is no such thing as morals...only customs.
For instance, most of us would believe that the very idea of eating the dead is repulsive, horrible, and maybe even demeaning to the memory of the person, but throughout history, there have been cannibals who felt that the eating of the dead showed them the ultimate respect. After all, if they are eaten, then their bodies are not left to rot and decay like a bit of carrion.
rock on, another Heinlein reader! :)

i've noticed an interesting tendency that some people have, a tendency to equate "icky" with "immoral." people think eating the dead is icky, so it's immoral. people think anal sex is icky, so it's immoral. people think two boys kissing is icky, so it's immoral. a great portion of many peoples' moral codes is taken up with outlawing ickiness. anybody have a theory as to why somebody would bother with such things?

No. I'm an atheist who is a complete and happy human being, thank you very much. Yes, you can gain fulfilment from earthly things.

*agrees*