|
NookieNotes -> RE: thoughts on the power of religion (4/3/2015 3:40:18 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: NookieNotes
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
FR
Count me as one of those who frequently thinks, "Wouldn't it be good if, now that we humans have managed to survive to the 21st Century, we could finally jettison all religion as a thing of the past?
Well, YMM and probably will, V. It's just not an argument that I can be bothered to broach here.
and who would make the multitudes of moral determinations that we make on a daily basis as a matter of course for self governance?
every thought that is accepted as true correct or fact starts with a personal 'belief' in its being true, then acting upon your accepted belief, (esp moral beliefs) are in fact 'your religion' and that holds true even for atheists since they have a moral code of conduct.
You are trying to use a size 29 word to cover a size 38 ass. According to definitions, it just will not stretch that far.
well most everything can be reduced to its primary elements.
Well, yes. They can. But they are not their primary elements. Water is not hydrogen or oxygen. It is water. A square is indeed a parallelogram, but a parallelogram is not a square, necessarily.
Religion is a thought process. Not all thought processes are religion, as you are trying to suggest.
quote:
I'd be interested to hear a couple examples how you are connecting your dots.
I'm not claiming to be connecting dots. I'm saying that yours are not connected.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
But my overall point is that this argument is much, much too big to be dealt with here - well, for me, anyway.
If we were to talk about it in any useful way, though, I think it'd take rules of discussion that aren't generally followed on these forums.
I agree.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/blacks%202/religion%20bailey.png[/image]
What that says in todays english is:
Natural RELIGION, is what men might know, and be obliged to by mere principles of reason, improved by consideration and experience, without the assistance of divine revelation.
Hence the (all inclusive) application of its use in the 1st amendment (from a late 1700 dictionary)
some atheists have 'HUGE' difficulty with being classified as a religion despite with the exception to being in a coma it is nearly impossible for any thinking being by definition "not" to have a religion as it is as universal as claiming all humans have red blood.
Ah, but we are not living in the 17th century. You DO know that English is a living language, yes?
For example:
quote:
re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun: religion
1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
1a. a particular system of faith and worship.
1b. a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
or
quote:
religion
noun re·li·gion \ri-ˈli-jən\
1. the belief in a god or in a group of gods
2. an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
As another point to your 1700s vocabulary: A harlot used to be a clown or goofy guy. A "moot" point meant the point needed discussing. To apologize was to defend oneself. An angel used to be a human messenger. Awful meant amazing and inspiring wonder.
Words change as people change.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
Well get over it, because it matters very much when interpreting the Constitution, hence the (all inclusive) application of its use in the 1st amendment (from a late 1700 dictionary). It is precisely that broad understanding of religion that has secured religious protection for Atheists in the U.S. (e.g., here).
What matters for constitutional translation does not apply to contemporary conversation.
Just as someone else's D/s dynamics do not apply to me. Specific application and all.
Your point is a wonderful tidbit and insight, but it is not an open door to bring the meaning of the 18th century word into today's discussion. It has no current bearing.
|
|
|
|
