You might want to do a bit more research on religions other than popular expressions of American Christianity before pontificating on religion as a whole; "religious" is in fact a word that means something different and more specific than "someone who literally believes in all of a specific list of unverifiable claims", and it makes you …
You might want to do a bit more research on religions other than popular expressions of American Christianity before pontificating on religion as a whole; "religious" is in fact a word that means something different and more specific than "someone who literally believes in all of a specific list of unverifiable claims", and it makes you look kind of silly to pretend it means only what you're saying it does, while also saying that therefore it's a silly concept that no one should adhere to.
Agreed--it's very evangelical-Christian centric to say religion = belief. Religion is culture and rituals and things people can find very sustaining without any kind of literal belief. In Judaism religion is about culture, actions and rituals and belief doesn't have to come into it at all.
There's an excellent book called Tech Agnostic about tech becoming a religion as we make obeisance to the rectangles of light in our pockets. The more dogmatic believe an AI got is coming to save us, but all of us who carry out the rituals of tech are participating in it.
To say taking the "religious" aspect out of Quakerism, or Judaism doesn't mean take out belief, it means take out everything.
Yeah in my community of seeking Jews the idea you have to belief in a whole set of whatever to be religious or pray is just laughable. It's just not the case!
I am in fact not the one here who wrote an essay claiming to state definitively what religion is and why it sucks! And in fact, I recommend folks who assume the matter is easy and obvious don’t try to do that, either.
Here’s Merriam Webster though; “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices”.
There have been several responses to this essay trying to point out the ‘cultural’ aspects of the Jewish ‘faith/religion’, so as to differentiate from Nolan’s critique. The genocide in Gaza should put that to rest; the ‘but they aren’t real practitioners of Judaism’ sounds just like Christian hypocrites.
Anyone has the right to define the manner in which they deflect from the reality of human mortality.
I would argue most religious practitioners, those whose religions include textural teachings at any rate, would largely agree with Nolan’s definition; but just disagree that it sucks. It’s the non-literal ‘believers’ who seem most offended here. That amuses me.
You might want to do a bit more research on religions other than popular expressions of American Christianity before pontificating on religion as a whole; "religious" is in fact a word that means something different and more specific than "someone who literally believes in all of a specific list of unverifiable claims", and it makes you look kind of silly to pretend it means only what you're saying it does, while also saying that therefore it's a silly concept that no one should adhere to.
Agreed--it's very evangelical-Christian centric to say religion = belief. Religion is culture and rituals and things people can find very sustaining without any kind of literal belief. In Judaism religion is about culture, actions and rituals and belief doesn't have to come into it at all.
There's an excellent book called Tech Agnostic about tech becoming a religion as we make obeisance to the rectangles of light in our pockets. The more dogmatic believe an AI got is coming to save us, but all of us who carry out the rituals of tech are participating in it.
To say taking the "religious" aspect out of Quakerism, or Judaism doesn't mean take out belief, it means take out everything.
Yeah in my community of seeking Jews the idea you have to belief in a whole set of whatever to be religious or pray is just laughable. It's just not the case!
Your response feels very Clintonian is is.
It ‘means something different and more specific’.
Name it; and be specific.
I am in fact not the one here who wrote an essay claiming to state definitively what religion is and why it sucks! And in fact, I recommend folks who assume the matter is easy and obvious don’t try to do that, either.
Here’s Merriam Webster though; “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices”.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
Religion means the same as cult. The only difference is the amount of cultural or popular approval.
There are reasons humans are superstitious, join cults or religions, follow group think, practice rituals and worship symbols.
Semantics is just a way to deflect from the fact such beliefs are false.
Excellent cherry-pick.
1: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2a(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
b: the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religion
3: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
4archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
There have been several responses to this essay trying to point out the ‘cultural’ aspects of the Jewish ‘faith/religion’, so as to differentiate from Nolan’s critique. The genocide in Gaza should put that to rest; the ‘but they aren’t real practitioners of Judaism’ sounds just like Christian hypocrites.
Anyone has the right to define the manner in which they deflect from the reality of human mortality.
I would argue most religious practitioners, those whose religions include textural teachings at any rate, would largely agree with Nolan’s definition; but just disagree that it sucks. It’s the non-literal ‘believers’ who seem most offended here. That amuses me.
"Anyone has the right to define the manner in which they deflect from the reality of human mortality."
Ouch and touche!😉
You lose me when you start playing games with definitions.