What is Religion?

You're free to look at it that way. I've explained why I don't think the distinction makes a difference.

No, I'm just telling you how others have defined it, starting with Durkheim. He didn't think gods were in the picture, and his distinction between sacred and secular is widely accepted in the social sciences.

If you mean I'm using the terms the way social scientists do instead of the man on the street, I plead guilty.
Secular religion - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Secular_religion

Prothero, God is Not One; Berkson, Cultural Literacy for Religion.

 

Buddhism and the Sankhya religious philosophy in Hinduism emphasize self-effort for enlightenment and does not give much attention to God or gods.

Interestingly,the numeral system as well as zero used the world all over, were the philosophical conceptions of the Sankhya philosophy of sage Kapila and Shunyata philosophy of Buddha. Sankhya means number in sanskrit. The term zero is derived from sifr in Arabic which in turn is derived from the sanskrit Shunya meaning void.

I had cited the likes of female enlightened masters like Rajini Menon and Anandamayi Ma who had stated that atheists are also capable of Self-realization or enlightenment provided they lead an ethical life.

Female enlightened master Rajini Menon on attaining enlightenment by adhering to virtuous conduct...

Rajini Menon is a female enlightened master of modern times who gained enlightenment or Buddhahood solely through adherence to virtuous conduct and listening to the inner voice or conscience.

However, a challenge posed by modern materialistic philosophies like nihilism and existentialism in the west is that even ethics and virtuous conduct is negated as mere abstract contrivances , without understanding the possibility for Buddhahood or enlightenment through their adherence. This can lead to under-evaluation of ethical conduct and behavior for the materially inclined, and which can be a recipe for anarchy and chaos, as well as indulgence in vices.

An atheist or agnostic can attain enlightenment through precise adherence to virtuous conduct and obedience to the conscience. He can be considered religious in this regard. Adherence to a good value system is important even for material prosperity as well.

 

I've been talking about mine.

 

If that means an atheist can't, that strikes me as a rather unusual view coming from an atheist/Buddhist. The atheists I come in contact with in my fellowship group seem to be seekers adhering to virtuous conduct and striving for enlightenment. In fact, I couldn't tell much difference between them in this regard and the Methodists, Disciples of Christ, and Catholics in my other fellowship groups: good people trying to be better ones. My atheist group certainly doesn't think of itself as religious, and have the same allergy to the term you seem to have. But IMHO, they have the most important ingredients of religion: dedication to morality and high ideals. As Saint Justin Martyr said long ago, "those who live according to reason (logos) are Christians, even though they be accounted atheists.,such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus and others like them."

Also "Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian- even though they profess with the lips the teaching of Christ." Justin Martyr

 

You revised AjayO's statement that "An atheist or agnostic can attain enlightenment through precise adherence to virtuous conduct and obedience to the conscience" to eliminate "atheist" and substitute "theist". That suggested to me that you might be excluding atheists from that possibility.

I'm sorry. I got the impression from previous discussions that you believe there is no god and that you try to follow the path of the Buddha. Is your reluctance to call yourself those names a general dislike of labeling yourself?.

 

One thing a Christian can't be is an atheist, although the ancient Romans might disagree. Most Christians are theists, although some, like myself and many Progressive Christians, are panentheists, Deists, and panendeists.

Fair enough. I tend to agree that there are many paths to heaven. "Christian" best fits the one I take as a primary identity (although I continue to be influenced by all of them).

And now, I think it's time to move on with my life,cuz I think we've reached an impasse. There have been two main issues in this thread on What is Religion?" First, the one between us: are god[s) or supernatural agents indispensable to the concept of religion? I think I've made my case "not necessarily", with the help of ShyOne and AjayO. We may not be right, but at least I think we've established that there is a legitimate alternative to your position. I think we're at a dead end on this one.

Second, there is the issue of whether every strongly held personal (or familial) viewpoint put into action deserves recognition as "religion", under the Constitution. This one , as I understand it, seems to be based on the tertiary dictionary definition of religion as anything zealously held and pursued by a person, like sports, studies, work, etc. This position, though presented as one concerning religion, seems to be ultimately tied to populist political ideology, so far only vaguely articulated. This issue, I think, would be best addressed in the "Politics" Forums pertaining to Populism, conspiracy theories, the Deep State, the MAGA movement and "Stop the Steal". .

So I'm checking out. I've enjoyed debating with you. Happy New Year

 

Inalienable rights that the people reserved unto themselves in the Bill of Rights is over the constitution, not under.

Under is a malconstructed fusion/power play we often see made by government actors.

The laws made by the government here in the US by design are 'subject' to our rights, not the other way around.

Therefore our rights are 'over' the government.

Any so called right that is 'subject' to the government is a privilege and privileges are under the government.

Weve discussed this already, not 'every' strongly held personal belief can reasonably be considered religion, so again I must refer to Durkheims explanation in the OP.

 

Sure but when its intended to hide them from the people who will ultimately be governed by the results of the secret meeting that is now classified as covert.

Sure

Yet their aggression is more often concealed than open. They have fired no missiles; and their troops are seldom seen. They send arms, agitators, aid, technicians and propaganda to every troubled area. But where fighting is required, it is usually done by others--by guerrillas striking at night, by assassins striking alone--assassins who have taken the lives of four thousand civil officers in the last twelve months in Vietnam alone--by subversives and saboteurs and insurrectionists, who in some cases control whole areas inside of independent nations.

[At this point the following paragraph, which appears in the text as signed and transmitted to the Senate and House of Representatives, was omitted in the reading of the message:

They possess a powerful intercontinental striking force, large forces for conventional war, a well-trained underground in nearly every country, the power to conscript talent and manpower for any purpose, the capacity for quick decisions, a closed society without dissent or free information, and long experience in the techniques of violence and subversion.

They make the most of their scientific successes, their economic progress and their pose as a foe of colonialism and friend of popular revolution. They prey on unstable or unpopular governments, unsealed, or unknown boundaries, unfilled hopes, convulsive change, massive poverty, illiteracy, unrest and frustration.]

President Kennedy's Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs, May 25, 1961 | JFK Library

Kennedy warned us, he had to go!

Because its not free by any stretch of the imagination. I read that as a pitch for strong investigative reporting.

We can conclude for a fact that it is something that is beyond our control, essentially what deep state means.

 

No, it is valid to all , theist or atheist. You can see that Rajini Menon herself had no idea of Self-realization or enlightenment as well as a deeper understanding of religion until she went through the experience of enlightenment herself through her spiritual exercise of adherence to virtuous conduct and obedience to the conscience.

Atheists or agnostics can also achieve the same, without a religious system, and gaining inspiration for ethical conduct from other sources.

Imho, a religious person and an atheist who both exercise the same moral principles can be called spiritual.

A religious person need not necessarily be spiritual or moral, considering the violence perpetrated in the name of religious beliefs in history.

However there have been atheists who had a virtuous character and can be stated to be spiritual.

In India, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar was an atheist who excelled as a scholar, philanthropist, and social reformer during the nineteenth century, enabling Indian society to discard many obsolete customs.

As an atheist he had a noble disposition and adhered to virtuous conduct. Sri Ramakrishna, who is considered as an Avatar by Hindus, himself visited the atheistic Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar at his home and had a cordial relationship with Vidyasagar.

In fact, it has been said that those adhering to virtue and righteousness does not have to go after God or Divine, as God Himself will be right behind them. The above incident of Sri Ramakrishna visiting Vidyasagar seems to be an apt example of the precept.

 

I wont get into it but there are things said there that do not add up to Russia.

Instead I will give you a clip of the legal advice given to the 911 truth group that starts at the 4 minute mark. Proof that tish on the occasions he was correct, posted idealized koolaid versions of this government.

As they said in the Matrix, welcome to the desert of the real!



deep state is a reality, just one you never see. John Perkins also comes to mind.

 

9/11 conspiracy theories debunked
9/11 conspiracy theories debunked: 20 years later, engineering experts explain how the twin towers collapsed
https://www.news.com.au/world/six-r...s/news-story/a59cdac9a894a786544f96b8b7893cee
The biggest 9/11 conspiracy theories debunked

As for the "economic hit man" John Perkins, John Mallaby, economics columnist for the Washington Post, describes him as "a conspiracy theorist, a vainglorious peddler of nonsense", whose conception of international finance is "largely a dream" and his "basic contentions are flat wrong."https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/26/AR2006022601265.html
Boston Magazine noted that Perkins can provide little documentation to support his claims of international intrigue, describing a largely unconvincing "flimsy package of materials."Economic Hit Man See also The 1% who get the gold mine (we get the shaft) - Greg Palast

The U.S, State Department claims that "much of the book "appears to be a total fabrication..." Connect with America
But of course they're part of the "deep state" so we can't trust them.
Who to believe? The one who best fits our preconceptions?
Question.: What does any of this have to do with religion?

What we see here is a bad case of confirmation bias and Dunning-Kruger on Steroids!
Why Do People Believe in Conspiracy Theories?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-some-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories/
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-believes-conspiracies-theory.html
Conspiracy Brains
Who believes in conspiracy theories?
Who Believes in Conspiracy Theories? – Center for Public Interest Communications
Why Do People Believe in Conspiracy Theories?
COVID-19 Conspiracy Theorists Are Victims Of The Dunning-Kruger Effect

 

It has to do with you running the thread off course with the nonsense you posted.

Yes yours!

You didnt even listen to what this government is 'really' like, you just continue with to throw koolaide out here.

Love it, here a high school physics teacher takes the Nationional Institute of Science and Technology PhD's embarrassingly to school! Love it!
Building 7 - NIST Finally Admits Freefall - Part I (10 min)





High school physics teacher David Chandler explains how he brought the National Institute of Standards and Technology to acknowledge that World Trade Center Building 7 experienced free fall acceleration during its destruction on September 11, 2001, and the implications of free fall.

High School physics teacher versus the nations top PhD's, forced the National Institute of Standards and Technologies to change the building 7 report because he publicly proved them to be liars.

and you roll out your koolaid wagon! LOL

Its not a theory, its proven, thanks for your comments though to prove my points .

 

Yes,Conspiracies are real. Folks are in prison for being convicted of them. And the most effective ones are probably the ones no one knows about. That much I concede. Thenthere are the other ones, like Pizzagate and it progeny: the idea that the Democratic leadership consists of blood drinking Satanic pedophiles. That one I find hard to believe. In this age of fake news and alternative facts, how to tell the real from the fake? The best I can recommend is good judgment. My idea of what that is probably differs from yours. I tend to go by available evidence, personal experience, the opinions of experts who have devoted their lives to studying subject, and the smell test that I use when buying used cars and insurance policies.

I don't consider myself or science infallible, but I think it's the most reliable source of information we have. Scientists are fallible, but are trained to hold their theories tentatively, pending further testing and information. Darwin's theory of evolution by process of natural selection, for example, has been strengthened by new fossil evidence, homologous structures, molecular biology, and global distribution. But the theory could be shattered by discovering a single rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian. So far, no rabbits! I recognize that the CDC, the FDA, and other agencies are also fallible, and that there have been major disagreements over COVID policy. But the weight of scientific evidence still supports vaccines, social distancing and masks as the most effective strategies for dealing with it. And vaccines seem to have have a proven track record in fighting such diseases as smallpox, polio and measles.

The story about the high school physics teacher besting "the nation's top Ph.D.'s" is news in the same vein as "man bites dog". It makes headlines cuz it it so atypical. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that we should trust high school physics teachers over the nation's top Ph.D.s on a general basis. But hey, I could be wrong. I concede my judgment could be faulty. The best I can do is to back up my opinions with reasoned arguments and substantial evidence and let the HF watchers of this thread (if there are any) decide. The thrust of some of your recent posts is anti-science and I find that disturbing. Your arguments seem to commit the logical fallacies of hasty over-generalization: scientists sometimes get things wrong, therefore we can't trust science. Besides, what you're giving us is David Chandler's own assessment of his prowess. Not everyone agrees.
Was 9/11 a controlled demolition? • Skeptical Science
9/11 conspiracy theories debunked: 20 years later, engineering experts explain how the twin towers collapsed
NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report
20 Years Later: NIST's World Trade Center Investigation and Its Legacy
World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest
https://web.archive.org/web/20121001051753/
But of course this requires belief in the findings of government agencies, which of course your dismiss as products of the "deep state." But where do you get your information? The Daily Mail? Alex Jones? QAnon? The 9/11 Truth Movement?You say "Its not a theory, its proven". By whom? Where's the proof?
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/a_bestiary_of_the_9_11_truth_movement_notes_from_the_front_line
Jonathan Kay,Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America's Growing Conspiracist Underground,[/QUOTE]

 

Hmmmm. I think the thread went off course when it was posted. "I found this on another board while surfing..." Have you ever read a book by Durkheim, or were you just surfing the internet and came across this "on another board" out of context and it caught your fancy? As previously noted, Durkheim's own definition of "religion" was :: A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden — beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a (religious community), all those who adhere to them....it conveys the notion that religion must be an eminently collective thing. (Elementary Forms of Religious Life, 2001,p.44). Unless I'm misunderstanding you, the concept of religion you're offering us is an eminently individualistic thing. What book and page of Durkheim were you quoting? Source and page, please. The passage you were quoting, read closely, compares religion with ideology. It says that, like ideology, and unlike the others, religion is more concerned with values than knowledge. and acceptance of it is a commitment to put it into practice or action. And while it might actually be based on speculation, that isn't done consciously, unlike philosophy. Religion, like ideology, tries to provide meaning by defining the situation and what to do about it. But like philosophy it
tries to go farther in defining the whole of our perception of reality--nature, human nature, etc.--as they affect changes of circumstances or fortune, in human life. That's basically how I understand what it is saying. Admittedly,it's not easy to interpret, because of the awkward wording and highfalutin vocabulary--possibly reflecting the fact that it is an English translation of French. Why this passage happened to catch your attention is beyond me, but your interpretation of it seems to be much different than what it says. I noticed this problem later when you said the greatest happiness for the greatest number was "socialistic' and you felt your rights threatened by a standard definition of politics by David Eastman. I.e., I think you may have a problem of reading comprehension.

 

To compound the confusion, It seems to me that your main interest wasn't to understand religion, but to advance some kind of radical libertarian populist political theory of American government in which every individual's deeply held convictions must be treated as religion under the U.S. Constitution. Am I right, or am I missing something? Around Post #191, the focus seems to shift to law, government, and constitutional history, some of it rather selective and garbled-- e.g.,you say:the the Fourteenth Amendment "converted the Bill of Rights into a Bill of Privileges ." Where on earth did you get that strange idea? The Fourteenth Amendment was added to make the states, particularly the former Confederate States, protect the "life, liberty, and property" of "persons" and to prevent them from denying such persons "the equal protection of the law." Is there anything wrong with that? The only people I can think of who would object would be former slave owners who might want to keep their newly liberated former "property" in a subordinate place.

To characterize our government as a "corrupt kleptocracy" at least gets us down to the radical political notions that underlie your "religious" argument. Since you seem to criticize even the Founding Fathers for avoiding direct democracy, one must wonder what kind of government you want. Apparently, one no one has ever had before at the national level. Our "republic" was the first of its kind, and in relative terms one which drew considerable admiration , then and now. Most governments today are republics or call themselves that. Ours may not be the most democratic in the world, but I'd say that it's the most powerful of the leading democracies, and one on which the survival of the others may depend. I'm something of a relativist and a pragmatist in my politics. I like governments that are relatively free and democratic, recognize that none can be completely such when most people have difficulty staying politically attentive, have other concerns in their daily lives, and must compromise their wants and desires to accommodate others. Our Founding Fathers were similarly practical men, who realized men weren't angels and needed to be protected from one another.

In (post 192)we get to the nitty gritty. Representative democracy is "attorneys with crystal balls", separation of powers is "3 departments of the SAME corporation", checks and balances are "The Just Us club, more koolaide", federal courts to interpret rights are "the meaning of the contract is determined by one party and one party only, our kleptocratic government!" Wow! Sounds like something the QAnon Shaman from the January 6 Insurrection might say. And then the tirade against John Marshall's decision in McCulloch v. Maryland--the juridical foundation of most of the powers of the federal government such as the Air Force and the Civil Rights Acts. My, my. That wouldn't leave us with much, would it? No Social Security? No Medicare?


After a string of miscellaneous terms, phrases and historical factoids, without pointing out their relevance to your position, you try to to argue that "people" have rights but the U.S. government has "only" powers. If I had my druthers, I'd rather have powers than rights, but you're wrong about rights: Governments have them too. Federalist No. 31, authored by Alexander Hamilton, tells us :" that a disposition in the State governments to encroach upon the rights of the Union is quite as probable as a disposition in the Union to encroach upon the rights of the State governments" So apparently the Union andState governments have rights. In Fenemore v. United States, 3 U.S. 357 (1797) Justice Iredell,writes: "The only question, therefore, that remains to be decided, turns upon the right of the United States, to affirm the original transaction; and, if they have that right, it follows, inevitably, that they ought to recover from the Defendant an equivalent for the value of the certificate, which was surreptitiously obtained. I have no difficulty in saying, that the right exists; and that, the public interest, involved in the credit of a public paper medium, required the exercise of the right in a case of this kind."(Note that the right here is for recovery of damages by the U.S. government from the plaintiff, a private citizen.) And in Hannay v. Eve, 7 U.S. 242 (1806) (Marshall, C.J., for the Court):"Congress having a perfect right, in a state of open war, to tempt the navigators of enemy-vessels to bring them into the American ports …"

Then you insinuate that the U.S. government has somehow usurped or abridged our rights. You criticize the failure of the Framers to include provisions for referendum. Actually, the Framers were afraid of mob rule by ignorant people, a ;a "direct democracy'. They weren't populists. You then ask: How is that worse than our present corrupt kleptocacy (sic)?" I think it would be much worse, because it would give ignorant people like the January 6 insurrectionists direct say over policy matters. The Framers thought such folks should have, at best, a vote on who their representatives should be--assuming, perhaps naively, that they would at least be capable of doing that.

You say that "the people " should be ruling us. "The people" is a concept--something of an abstraction that has never actually existed nor could ever exist as an entity capable of exerting its will. It is an important and useful concept, lie the "public interest', to remind us that good government must always have the common good in mind and provide an environment in which folks can enjoy life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness--the greatest happiness for the greatest number. I think that can be done most effectively through our current political framework--keeping always in mind the need for improvement. Radicals right and left have a habit of making the perfect the enemy of the good or better.