Originally posted by David C
(4) is your personal opinion. Since the definition exists in the online dictionary you chose, everyone *else* concludes that they are.

In which case, the Civil Rights Movement, the Suffragettes (sp?), the pro-abortion/pro-choice rally, the anti-abortion/pro-life rally, the Democrats and the Republicans are all religions.

Is using definition (4) going to enhance the quality of this debate? I think not.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
In which case, the Civil Rights Movement, the Suffragettes (sp?), the pro-abortion/pro-choice rally, the anti-abortion/pro-life rally, the Democrats and the Republicans are all religions.

Is using definition (4) going to enhance the quality of this debate? I think not.

Let's exclude the Nazis and the Communists but include Mao. He fulfils the requirements of definition 3--he was considered a spiritual leader, so his movement can for practical purposes be considered a religion.

Originally posted by Palynka
Godwin's Law applied on the first reply! That's a first for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

In any case, do you think the comparison is unreasonable or irrelevant in the context of this thread? If so, why?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Let's exclude the Nazis and the Communists but include Mao. He fulfils the requirements of definition 3--he was considered a spiritual leader, so his movement can for practical purposes be considered a religion.

Only if his personal attachment to atheism is disregarded. We are either discussing the ideology of communism or Mao's personal beliefs, the two ar enot the same.

Originally posted by sonhouse
This is the most terse statement I can come up with regarding the
insane following of religions, especially when it leads to such
deadly consequenses as we all see today.

I'd like to try to change the course of this topic in a direction that perhaps some theists would agree and some atheists would disagree.

The Blind following the Corrupt.

Not all followers of a religion do so blindly, but I am willing to accept that the great majority has never truly questioned their beliefs hardly enough. Geographical distribution of "faiths" seems to support this statement, although I admit that it is probably the weaker part of my point.

Whenever you have a system that is following blindly by a significant part of the population, who will have the most incentives to seek leadership?

It is my view that those willing to take advantage of this blind following will be the ones that have the strongest personal incentives to seek leadership and do the political lobbying that boosts promotion within the institution, even if it goes against their inner beliefs.

So I believe that a system with a relevant base of such followers will tend to be lead by the corrupt. It's interesting to note that introspective and more meditative religions, would tend to lead to less powerful institutions and less corrupt leaders.

Self-criticism is essential for religious tolerance.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I concur, especially if "zeal" is preceded by the adjective "fanatical".

Was Ghandi a spiritual leader, a political leader, or a bit of both?

I don't think there's any question that Mao's followers regarded him as a spiritual leader, comparable even to Confucius. Here's one link supporting my assertion:

http://www.china.org.cn/englis ...[text shortened]... One does not have to belong to a religion or believe in a personal God to have a spiritual life.

One does not have to belong to a religion or believe in a personal God to have a spiritual life.

Was there a slip in your use of the word "religion" here? Think in the context of this thread.

Gandhi (sp!) is an interesting case - Bacik lists him as one of the 20 greatest theologians of the 20th century. The Independence movement of India definitely had a spiritual core.

The link you provided makes for interesting reading, but it does not say anything about what Mao's "spiritual thought" was. More pertinently, it compares the impact on Chinese society of Mao's thought to that of Confucius, not the respective philosophies themselves.

In any case, I think my use of the word "atheistic" to communism and Nazism seems to have ruffled some feathers. Since the discussion started with religions and religious movements, perhaps I should use the word "irreligious" to these - or perhaps you can suggest some other term.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

In any case, do you think the comparison is unreasonable or irrelevant in the context of this thread? If so, why?

I think the comparision is unreasonable due to the emotional charge carried by both those words. Also, the fact that other movements had also deadly results does not invalidate the death toll that insane following of religions had.

Originally posted by Palynka
I think the comparision is unreasonable due to the emotional charge carried by both those words. Also, the fact that other movements had also deadly results does not invalidate the death toll that insane following of religions had.

Also, the fact that other movements had also deadly results does not invalidate the death toll that insane following of religions had.

No it does not. But if sonhouse is going name religion as the primary cause for a certain number of deaths, he also needs to demonstrate that those deaths would not have occurred in the absence of religion.

This is basic test/control experimental strategy.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Also, the fact that other movements had also deadly results does not invalidate the death toll that insane following of religions had.

No it does not. But if sonhouse is going name religion as the primary cause for a certain number of deaths, he also needs to demonstrate that those deaths would not have occurred in the absence of religion.

This is basic test/control experimental strategy.[/b]

The fact is that I agree partially with both of you, I agree to his title but I also think it goes beyond religion.

Blind following leads to corrupt leaders, that's my point of view that I've exposed in my other post. I have no beef with religion if it's not followed blindly.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Is using definition (4) going to enhance the quality of this debate? I think not.

Of course not. Just thought I'd point out the error in your reasoning. 😛

Originally posted by Palynka
I think the comparision is unreasonable due to the emotional charge carried by both those words. Also, the fact that other movements had also deadly results does not invalidate the death toll that insane following of religions had.

the fact that other movements had also deadly results does not invalidate the death toll that insane following of religions had.

Finally, the vital qualifier has been included! You refer to the death toll that 'insane following of religion had'. Thank you. It is only when good religious teaching is perverted by the 'insane' that the corruption enters. Jesus taught His followers to spread the Good News to the whole earth. Some evil people with their own greedy personal agendas took advantage of that call and convinced some fools to form a 'crusade' that would threaten the unconverted with death! This is an 'insane following of religion'.

Sane followers of religion lead to a whole different outcome. Hospitals, colleges, charitable organizations, free clinics, shelters etc. etc. etc. have all been built to represent Christ and His love for mankind.

Originally posted by chinking58
[b] the fact that other movements had also deadly results does not invalidate the death toll that insane following of religions had.

Finally, the vital qualifier has been included! You refer to the death toll that 'insane following of religion had'. Thank you. It is only when good religious teaching is perverted by the 'insane' that ...[text shortened]... inics, shelters etc. etc. etc. have all been built to represent Christ and His love for mankind.[/b]

I used sonhouse's wording. I would go further and say that not just insane following leads to that, but blind following as well.

And I think you are underestimating the number of blind followers in religions. How else do you explain the geographical distribution of faiths?

Originally posted by Palynka
I used sonhouse's wording. I would go further and say that not just insane following leads to that, but blind following as well.

And I think you are underestimating the number of blind followers in religions. How else do you explain the geographical distribution of faiths?

Blind following would be insane.

But I think you mean to suggest that all following of any religion is automatically caused by blindness.

An unfair, presumptive and irrational idea.

Originally posted by chinking58
Blind following would be insane.

But I think you mean to suggest that all following of any religion is automatically caused by blindness.

An unfair, presumptive and irrational idea.

you have that one backwards, its following a religion without your
own internal jugdement that IS the blindness not the other way round.
That is the main problem with religious organizations, very few
followers question anything, very few people step up and say,
"hold on here, this is plain not right, us being called to kill for you"
or whatever, the list of possiblilities are endless here.
So how many of THOSE kind of people do you find in Islam or
the followers of Pat Robertson or the Zealots at Masada or Jim Jones?

Originally posted by Starrman
Atheism doesn't cover my political views on religion as an institution, but purely, as I said to LH, my lack of belief in the supernatural. The actions of men like Mohammed and Paul is of little importance to me as an atheist as they are just men acting for an institution. Politcally on the other hand I obvjously have opinions on them.

Thank you for defining your idea of atheism! there are so many
shades I wasn't sure which platform you were on.
Now define me this: What do we agree on as the definition of
"God"? There must be many misunderstandings of that word
as there is of atheism or agnosticism.