Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
I have no idea what you think you've managed to communicate here. My point was, and still is:
Religion is a thought process. Not all thought processes are religion, as you are trying to suggest.
I agreed with you, in part, however it is only one element of the requirements.
It is '1' of several elements required to identify it as a religion.
I call it the substantial definition of religion because like so many things they always like to add political twists rather than stick to the facts.
So I agree with your statement up to this point: "as you are trying to suggest" since I do not recall ever trying to suggest that all thought processes can be identified as religion..
Maybe you did not see my first post in this thread, post #85:
Hence the [substantial] definition of 'religion' is the 'personal' 'process' wherein a person through 'conscientious' deliberation makes a 'choice' (usu regarding a 'moral' matter) and then governs themselves accordingly.
Hence not 'every' belief is subset of 'religion'.
post #85 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4797683
1) 'conscientious' deliberation
2) 'choice' (establishment of 'belief')
3) regarding a 'moral' matter
4) governs themselves accordingly.
(I know I have said it much better before and this one is a bit lame by comparison but it should do) :)
So yes, while in its most general sense everything is a thought process as you stated, however in order to classify it as a religion you need some way to contrast it against nothing more than philosophical premise, and it must be with respect to some 'belief' that results in 'action' which 'usually' concerns moral matters and finally it cannot have its own unique identity as 'religious' if it does not also manifest some associated action ie governance or self governance in the case of 'personal' religion. I imagine one could take that a step further to belief in the righteousness of any action but that would be far more difficult to argue from a universal pov and a bit of a stretch imo, and continuing in that direction would at some point start to lean heavily into the circumstantial then requiring the need to be argued on a case by case basis.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
I'm sorry. I thought I was quite clear.
You were clear in what you said, just did not parse out the constituent elements of your argument which is what I was driving at.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
Not all codes of moral conduct or bases of thought for personal behavior are religion. Period.
If you are talking about 'personal' codes of moral conduct that only affect the actions of ones self I would argue that they cant be anything else if we wish to stick to convention, however I cant argue the point based on a naked assertion, you would need to give me your supporting arguments in how you cane to that conclusion. Who knows I may be forced to agree with you but until then I do not have a reason.
If you are not talking about 'personal self governance" that would take us into some form of state or community based religion in which may or may not be part of your personal religion.
The example of murder is a good one since people universally would agree that murder is wrong, so that is a no brainer, and would be fall into both state and personal categories.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
And yet, they do. It's a fact.
Words change meanings to their exact opposite. Saying you don't agree with it does not change it from happening or being reality.
Contemporary, as defined by the dictionary is:
con·tem·po·rar·y
kənˈtempəˌrerē/
adjective: contemporary
1. living or occurring at the same time.
2. belonging to or occurring in the present.
Seems simple. No inference necessary. I mean contemporary to refer to happening now, in the present. It's not about MY lifetime.
You can use words however you want. Simply understand that when you use words in ways they haven't been used for years (gay, for example), you will be regularly misunderstood.
Your choice.
Yes it is a fact, politics has a way turning everything into an abortion when there are no hard standards, only vast multitudes of theories, only to become defacto, but do you feel that things defacto have any validity in terms of correct?
People can 'interpret' and use words however they want, they can call black white etc and words correctly constructed with proper syntactic structure should never change, however how people are 'lead' to interpret them (usually through political contrivance) changes with the wind, which is one of my pet peeves that there is no linguistic standard with dictionaries.
Case in point the 'urban' dictionary if you want to get a good laugh demonstrates how grossly words are abused, in the contemporary setting with regard to a todays time frame. Syntax terrorism!
This is why the interpretation of the word today to argue 'intent' of a constitution 200++ years ago is patently absurd approach to 'understanding' it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
Ever thought that resolution is not the point of a discussion like this?
There is no point in debating anything if resolution is not the goal.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
quote:
for religion as shown in your definition above 1b respects the definition of natural religion as I have posted from 1700's.
It respects it, but is different. Suggesting that because two cars both have engines does not make them the same car.
You generalize too much for clear communciation.
quote:
nat·u·ral re·li·gion
noun: natural religion
religion, especially deism, based on reason rather than divine revelation.
So its there if you already researched it and know the magic words to look for. The old dictionaries list all the variant word usages which is why I go back to the days before people had to pay college extortion racketeers to do it for us and issue sheep skins as receipts proving we paid our mob dues. Oops digressing again lol
The important part of that is "especially desism."
Well not really, it may be what is most important to what you are looking for from it, but in respect to what is and what is not religion, when you break it down "especially desism." is not 'the' important [primary] part but 'one example' emphasizing the important parts which is
1) 'based on reason,
2) without divine revelation'.
My point being how useless the dictionaries are today, since they mostly quote common usage. Etymological Encyclopedic Dictionaries are pretty much history in todays society which makes it extremely difficult to really nail down a word especially when words like 'including' is used to 'preclude'.... and there are so many examples like that out here.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
I don't find that at all.
so aside from method, it appears we may agree on the general premise and greater core constituent? I dont know where you stand beyond that because you only produced one element in your argument, which if taken 'strictly' by itself can be any number of things, religion, philosophy and so forth and lacks distinction.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
No. You didn't connect that dot. You are still over generalizing, in my view.
I believe I did connect the dots with regard to the argument I made, for now I assume you missed my first post (at least until you post the elements of your counter argument if that is not the case).
Well we could include faith, faith your 'religious' decisions wont cause people to shoot you for 'exercising' your religion. 
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 4/7/2015 4:51:19 PM >
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
RE: thoughts on the power of religion - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread