Originally posted by Wulebgredit: “Black beetle's collectivist sensibilities, drawn from the late Durkheim it would seem, have some merits, but they are embedded in definitions that fail through tautologies, several peculiarly limiting manifestations of certain religious expressions (archetypes), and other faults too numerous to delineate here.”
Reading through this thread, I see only rwingett has made a serious effort to offer a general definition. Black beetle's collectivist sensibilities, drawn from the late Durkheim it would seem, have some merits, but they are embedded in definitions that fail through tautologies, several peculiarly limiting manifestations of certain religious expressions (arch ...[text shortened]... a perception.
*Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (1973), p. 90.
This is false my dear coach!
I described what religion is at its core -it is a specific social product with specific characteristics that I take them for granted. But I worked my opening a bit deeper: regardless if this human invention stems out of the essence of “religare” or of the essence of “relegere”, I offered a presentation of the factual string of cause-effect that was triggered by this invention. Indeed, this is the way the religion affects our societies.
Then I explained clearly what exactly was the problem that our ancestors tried to solve when they invented the religion, and I explained how religion and the religious people interact between them within society and how they interact with the other social factors.
And finaly I said that this kind of interaction is so powerful that it is recognised as a characteristic of specific political systems too, and I explained that this happens simply because a religion is amongst else a perfect tool for powergames too. That’s all
đ”
Originally posted by black beetleWhen religion is dominant, politics is a subset of religion.
And finaly I said that this kind of interaction is so powerful that it is recognised as a characteristic of specific political systems too, and I explained that this happens simply because a religion is amongst else a perfect tool for powergames too. That’s all
đ”
Seems creationists and evolutionists all still act under the umbrella of 'accepted science'.(there are some exceptions,of course) Now I'm not saying chuck out science. I am just trying to look into the future a bit , and see where science might be headed.
For example to whole way in which we have attempted define 'religon' has on this thread has been very kinda systematic. Maybe too much energy wasted on finding a clear defintion when (with words like reigon) I think we are all pretty agreed on what 'religon' means-even if some of our finer definitions may differ.
Agree?
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage"Lack of belief in the existence of the supernatural". For me, that's a belief. One motivated by lack of evidence in the converse, but a belief nonetheless. They may reword it as they wish, but it's all a bit silly to me.
Does bare atheism count as a belief system? I'm not sure that it does. I imagine that all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in the existence of the supernatural, which they share with many adherents of the religion known as Buddhism.
Originally posted by PalynkaYes, the point I am emphasising is 'system'. Let's say I entertain a vague belief that God exists; unless that belief is the singularity that generates my world, I cannot be said to have a belief system.
"Lack of belief in the existence of the supernatural". For me, that's a belief. One motivated by lack of evidence in the converse, but a belief nonetheless. They may reword it as they wish, but it's all a bit silly to me.
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleThe existence of some political belief systems that are religious at their core is not contradictory with my definition. The existence of political belief systems that are not religious is, however, contradictory with yours.
I see!
So, what do you think about the theocracies? Are they based on a non-chaotic supernatural religious core belief that it is mutated also into a political dogma?
đ”
Giving examples of political belief systems that are religious is then a poor argument against my definition.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhat is a "belief system" for you? I'm interpreting it as a system of beliefs, meaning any set of related beliefs.
Yes, the point I am emphasising is 'system'. Let's say I entertain a vague belief that God exists; unless that belief is the singularity that generates my world, I cannot be said to have a belief system.
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't maintain that there are no expressions of non-religious belief systems. Forgive me if by asking you for examples I gave you that impression. I asked you for examples for the sake of discussing something concrete rather than launch into the abstract at forty-five degrees.
I'm confused as to how you can maintain this and the notion that there are no expressions of non-religious belief systems.
That being said, is advertising a belief system?
Originally posted by PalynkaA Weltanschauung (excuse me) predicated on some essential set of premises that logically determines the believer's way of being in the world.
What is a "belief system" for you? I'm interpreting it as a system of beliefs, meaning any set of related beliefs.
For example, belief in Xenu is a seed crystal of the Scientological matrix. Remove that belief and the edifice crumbles.
I don't think a belief system is necessary for a person to function in the world. I'm not sure that I have a belief system myself. Rather I have a strategy.
I hope this is sufficiently clear.