Well I sincerely believe in the scientific method and it occupies a place in my life parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God.
Religion is an attempt by humans to project their species-centric perspective on the workings of the universe as whole.
But thats only the dictionary, there is much more to religion, there is both natural and supernatural and both combined since the beginning of time as you can see below: Behavior reminiscent of ritual can be seen in many animals, including the ecstatic “rain dances” and directional drumming of chimpanzees (Goodall 1986; Nishida et al. 1999), which along with bonobos are our closest extant evolutionary kin. It is highly likely that archaic hominins would have exhibited ritualistic behavior in some form, but evidence for nascent religiosity remains difficult to infer from the archaeological record (Rossano 2006, 2009b). The uniqueness of “natural” religions of hunter-gatherers, and likely those of our Paleolithic ancestors, cannot be overemphasized when compared with the “world” religions that have emerged along with the advent of agriculture. Many hunter-gatherer societies have little or no concept of religion per se, though a religious dimension often permeates normal activities and is continuous with daily life (Lee 1989). Hunter-gatherer religions are seldom religions of protest or evangelism (Woodburn 1997). Instead, each society focuses on maintaining its unique beliefs and culture, along with a sense of self-worth and the general health and well-being of the group (Woodburn 1997, 2005). Simple egalitarian hunter-gatherer groups generally hold fewer religious beliefs and participate in less ritual (Marlowe 2010) than more complex groups. But hunter-gatherers do have religion, embodied in sacred healing dances and rituals marking life events. Although there is considerable variation in specific religious traits among hunter-gatherer societies, a cross-cultural view reveals underlying similarities in cosmology, ritual, and belief (Rossano 2007). These often include gods and spirits with limited powers who are typically not omniscient and usually lack concern for morality and human affairs (Marlowe 2010; Norenzayan et al. 2016; Peoples and Marlowe 2012; Swanson 1960; Woodburn 1997), as Marshall describes: The concept of sin as an offence against the gods is vague among the !Kung. Man’s wrong-doing against man is not left to #Gao!na’s punishment nor is it considered to be his concern. Man corrects or avenges such wrong-doings himself in his social context. (Marshall 1962:245) What were the specific traits of early religion? How did traits of nascent religiosity evolve and interact over time? Recently phylogenetic comparative methods have been increasingly applied to the study of the evolution of material and non-material culture (Mace and Holden 2005; Mace and Jordan 2011), including religion (Matthews 2012; Watts et al. 2015). Reconstructing ancestral character states on phylogenies based on genetic or linguistic data has proven valuable in revealing the history of various sociocultural phenomena (Currie et al. 2010; Opie et al. 2014; Walker et al. 2011, 2012). Although religious beliefs are regarded as one of those cultural traits that are historically labile and prone to cultural borrowing (Guglielmino et al. 1995), cross-cultural research suggests that religion (and mythology) can be surprisingly stable across time and space, and shared religious beliefs can be indicative of deep ancestry (Berezkin 2008; Blust 2013). The use of phylogenetic methods is important for understanding not only the origins of religious traits, but also the behavioral systems that emerged from them that have determined patterns of social constraint and have impacted believers and non-believers alike. Importantly, homology is not limited to morphology and its genetic and/or developmental underpinnings. Behavior, which is often evolutionarily conserved, is also a proper subject of homology relations and can be used in phylogenetic reconstruction (Hall 2013; Powell and Shea 2014; Rendall and Di Fiore 2007). A behavioral homology need not have a particular structural basis. We do not argue for homology of the particular religious beliefs (e.g., different afterlife beliefs across hunter-gatherer societies that possess this trait) but for the homology of the fundamental religious concepts (e.g., the concept of afterlife itself) and their continuity. Even characters that cannot be hypothesized as strictly homologous among sampled cultures can be analyzed because they can represent non-homologous psychological-behavioral responses to identical selective pressures (see Murdock 1965 for similar reasoning in anthropology). Broadly defined, religion is a set of beliefs and behaviors based on a shared worldview that separates the sacred, or supernatural, from the profane (Durkheim 1965 [1912]). Hunter-Gatherers and the Origins of Religion There is increasingly strong evidence that 'religion' started out as just plain living life in the hunter gatgherer era, no God or Gods required, then later down the road abstract thinking was added to the mix, the God and gods. I dont think your narrow definition adequately covers an accurate picture of religion. I cant disagree that worshiping a deity is one form of religion neither can I agree with you that it started out as such.
If you think that ritual is all that's needed to have a religion then baseball, with the ritual seventh inning stretch, is a religion. Per se means as of, in, or by itself or oneself; intrinsically , as such. Per se, as such, they don't have religion. Instead of religion they focuse on maintaining unique beliefs and culture, along with a sense of self-worth and the general health and well-being of the group This is out of context. There is no explanation of what a religion would entail. Yes gods and spirits. Exactly, sacred and supernatural. Sure, it may have been preceded by "simple living". What hasn't? Then gods were introduced and religion began.
I can't imagine why you would say such a thing since as you know over the course of this thread that there's many things starting with the value call stated way back in the OP that's required to be able to categorize something as a religion. That makes your response a non sequitur composition fallacy. Again that's not the case at all what is the case is that they don't recognize it as a religion they don't look at each other and say hey look this is our religion they just live it people who understand the meaning of religion look at them and realize that it's a religion. For instance just because you don't realize there's blood pumping through your veins that doesn't mean that there isn't blood pumping through your veins so that analogy fails. Again this is a composition issue where you're looking at one small piece of the puzzle and trying to apply it to the whole, and it just simply doesn't work that way. As you can see religion and culture are inherently linked to 'ANY' society: The Religious Foundations of Culture By R. J. Rushdoony January 01, 2007 Every culture is a religion externalized, a faith incarnated into life and action. The mainspring of every culture is its basic faith, its religious beliefs which undergird its hopes, action, and perspective. When that faith begins to decay, the culture decays. The Religious Foundations of Culture more: Religion, Culture, and Communication Religion, Culture, and Communication | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication Religion is an essential element of the human condition. Hundreds of studies have examined how religious beliefs mold an individual’s sociology and psychology. In particular, research has explored how an individual’s religion (religious beliefs, religious denomination, strength of religious devotion, etc.) is linked to their cultural beliefs and background. While some researchers have asserted that religion is an essential part of an individual’s culture, other researchers have focused more on how religion is a culture in itself. The key difference is how researchers conceptualize and operationalize both of these terms. Moreover, the influence of communication in how individuals and communities understand, conceptualize, and pass on religious and cultural beliefs and practices is integral to understanding exactly what religion and culture are. It is through exploring the relationships among religion, culture, and communication that we can best understand how they shape the world in which we live and have shaped the communication discipline itself. Religion, Culture, and Communication | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication more: Finally websters! Culture 1. the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group As you can see religion and what we believe determines how we live why because it's what we believe is how we live and how we live is a social form yhat has material traits and those material traits are 'culture', there you go right straight from the dictionary no research required. Its not if you actually read the material I supplied. I don't know if you simply misunderstand the material or if this is a sleight of hand to avoid admitting religion is grounded in the natural as well as the spiritual? So is this sleight of hand or misunderstanding? Since the thesis clearly expresses God's and spirits are an accessory to the natural and you seem to have switched it to imply God's and spirits are the primary, or maybe even the only feature, when in fact their whole point is that the natural existed before the supernatural. Again you are either misunderstanding the presentation or somehow conflating it since I have posted the meaning and distinction a few times previously. The sacred refers to those collective representations that are set apart from society, or that which transcends the humdrum of everyday life. The profane, on the other hand, is everything else, all those mundane things like our jobs, our bills, and our rush hour commute. Religion is the practice of marking off and maintaining distance between these two realms. Rituals, for example, reaffirm the meaning of the sacred by acknowledging its separateness, such as when religious devotees pray to a particular statue or symbol. You can read more about Durkheim’s theory of religion by reading The Elementary Forms of Religious Life in the Social Theory Re-Wired reader. Sacred and Profane | Social Theory Rewired http://routledgesoc.com › category › profile-tags › sacred-... If you are an atheist for instance and you have the belief that you don't practice rituals you'd be very wrong about that since you most likely go to funerals and weddings or engage in a wedding procession (all of which are sacred complete with ceremonies etc) if you're getting married and a whole host of different rituals that atheists engage in but don't realize that they in fact are rituals that they are engaging in. That was the point of the citations I gave you, that there is extremely strong evidence that religion initiated through the natural which is life rather than starting with the supernatural such as a god that the dictionary definition that you prefer would imply. So if what you're saying in this last statement is that religion has a very high probability of originating in the natural realm rather than the supernatural realm I'd absolutely agree with that, especially since durkheim also observed this in the tribes in his research. ....and of course originating through the natural validates agnostic and atheists nones, etc beliefs and practices as religion.
By your definition such beliefs can't be religious, since they don't involve god(s). But from a functionalist standpoint they might qualify, since they serve as the functional equivalent of theistic religion.Your profession of faith in science may make you a believer in scientism (AKA scientific naturalism or scientific materialism) , if it truly occupies a place in your life parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God". Scientism is the position that "the only legitimate questions about reality are those answerable by science and that, to the extent that anything can be known about reality, science alone is capable of providing that knowledge." Scientism, the limits of science, and religion | Center for Inquiry Scientism http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/scientism_este.html Scientism: When Science Becomes Religion That might explain why you require "a mountain of evidence" (i.e., scientific proof) to support a belief in Jesus, instead of just probable cause or substantial evidence which is sufficient to convince most scholars. When people tell us how science will transform the world in the future, that's scientism--requiring faith as well as scientific knowledge. Imagining the Next 100 Years of Science and Technology | The New York Academy of Sciences The view has one important thing in common with other religions--it is metaphysical (unfalsifiable) What is scientism, and why is it a mistake? The Folly of Scientism Religion and scientism: a shared cognitive conundrum - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion In fact, it has been described as a form of fundamentalism.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03080188.2022.2152246 Certainly they would meet theologIian Paul Tillich's definition of religion "a state of being grasped by an ultimate concern, a concern which qualifies all other concerns as preliminary, and which itself contains the answer to the question of the meaning of our life.”Tillich's Definition of "Faith" or "Religion"... Atheist can have ultimate concerns about the meaning of life. Atheists, also, can have religious experiences. https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2014/09/16/348949146/is-atheist-awe-a-religious-experience
As pointed out previously, dictionary definitions reflect popular lay usage in the countries where the dictionaries circulate. The laity is predominantly theist, ergo their conception of religion is glued to god. What exactly is the standard dictionary definition? "A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion." Definition of religion | Dictionary.com Why should we limit ourselves to popular lay understandings when we are trying to understand such thins as the origin of religion and how religions compare and differ from one part of the planet to another. As mentioned earlier, serious secular scholars have been defining religion without reference to gods since the nineteenth century. starting with Durkheim. --Emile Durkheim: a system around the sanctuary, that is, a system of beliefs, practices and social behaviors that unites individuals in a moral community --Rudolf Otto: in the presence of a concept of special significance and value, in the idea of ??the "sanctuary", which he calls numinous, and it is this extraordinary (extraordinarily different) presence that generates feelings of fascination, mystery and fear --Clifford Geertz: Religion is a system of symbols that relate to the world, human relations and ourselves. Religious symbols denote a cosmological perception, but also shape a way of life. Contrary to your theory, these scholars didn't develop their definitions out of religious fervor, but rather to purge it of theistic content so that pre-theistic and non-theistic religions could be included. Although it is possible to cling to the approaches of yesteryear, one might wonder why an atheist would be so insistent that religion must be about gods. My theory: certain atheists (we can use Sam Harris as an example) have turned to secularized versions of Asian godless religions as spiritual supplements to their atheism and don't want to admit a religious connection because of a strong allergy to the term. Or, alternatively, atheists might want to narrow the definition to theistic forms in order to convey the misimpression that religion is some regionally isolated and obsolete phenomenon. Why should we give you a break for rejecting godless religions? Fortunately, the courts aren't so narrow minded, as I've previously pointed out.
So what's a value call? What are the "many things" that comprise a religion? You posted a quote that implied that ritual was a deciding factor in religion. Now you say it isn't? So let's see. You posted a quote in which "Behavior reminiscent of ritual"...in animals shows that ritual behavior is highly likely in archaic hominins...but nascent, or emerging, religion is hard to infer from the archeological record. I, incorrectly it would appear, assumed you thought ritual, in some form, in early hominins, was one primary indicator of religion, and that therefor early ritual was an indicator of the development of religion. Apparently you don't think so. So why did you post that quote and what do you think it means? So to the participants of the activities in question, there is no religion, but to an outsider, say a comparative religion scholar, it is a religion. Let me guess, because they define the activities as religious. Well, when you start off defining religion as an essential element of culture it's hardly surprising that you find religion to be an essential element of culture. You cite R. J. Rushdoony, a proponent of a "society (that) should be reconstructed under the lordship of Christ in all aspects of life". A Christian government (Christian reconstructionism) ruled by divine law. Okay I'll listen to this guy. Sure religious beliefs mold an individual’s sociology and psychology. and it could even be a culture itself. So what? That has nothing to do with what a religion is. Same here, If you believe in religious beliefs they will influence your behavior. So what defines this religion that hunter-gatherers have? That was my point. You posted this without telling us anything about why these rituals, etc, are religious. I never denied that religion is grounded in natural events. We see natural thunder and lightening and attribute them to supernatural beings such as Zeus, Teshub, etc. Then we start to worship them. Religion is born. God's spirits are an accessory to the natural? What does that mean? Well that's a nicely vague group of statements. Does that mean daydreaming, empathy, contentment, etc. are all sacred? What does that mean? Anything that doesn't have to do with my job and daily expenses is sacred? Taking a vacation and sitting on the beach is sacred? So the ritualistic reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States by school children and at the opening of every Congressional session is sacred. And as such religious as the sacred ritualistic act is not profane? Whoever said atheists don't participate in rituals? That's my whole point. Not al rituals are religious. For instance "the seventh inning stretch, a baseball ritual. But then again you seem to be claiming that all rituals are religious. Again, we define a word to fit a preconceived notion. As I don't believe there is any "super natural": I would agree. The gods and religion are fictions made up by man in an attempt to explain the natural world.
So let me get this straight. If I think that science is not a religion, because it can find no evidence for supernatural events, causes, or results, then I MAY be practicing a religion? And as science only deals with observable and verifiable events, causes, and results it must always exclude and deny anything that can't fall under the scientific method and that MAY make it a religion. So as science has nothing to say about personal feelings, (other than the obvious chemical reactions, etc. that occur in the body as a result of certain emotions), it MAY be a religion. Or as science can't address the belief some people have in a God or gods, then it MAY be a religion. Well, MAYBE it isn't a religion. Whoa! Predictions about the future based on past scientific and technological advances and how they affected society in the past, and how future scientific advances extrapolated from current and past advances will affect society in the future, is a religion? So every research and development arm of every industry in the world, as they ponder future implications of new technologies they are developing are religions? So, here we go again atheism is a religion. I agree atheists can have a concern about the meaning of life. That doesn't mean atheism is a religion unless you define religion as a concern about the meaning of life. And yes, atheists can have hard to explain, in scientific terms, experiences. That doesn't mean they are religious experiences unless you define hard to explain experiences as religious.
Of course not. It only approximates a religion if you think it is the be all and end all of human knowledge and can and eventually will solve all of our problems that are solvable. When you said that science occupies a place in your life "parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God", I thought perhaps that's what you had in mind. Of course, for IRS purposes, you'd have to be a member of a group with similar views, set them forth in a creed, and hold regular services to worship science. (I wouldn't try it though without first consulting a lawyer.) By comparison, consider another group to which I belong, a group of freethinkers, consisting of atheists+me. We meet regularly for dinner and book discussion--always on topics relating to religion or atheism. (We just finished the entire Bible). And we meet in a church (Unitarian, of course), to which several of the members belong. But it's definitely not a religion. There is no common set of beliefs, except all of the other members except me do not believe in god and share that as a bond and strong unifying disbelief. There is no common moral code, although it's my sense that all of us are pretty moral, high-minded people. There is nothing approximating a ritual, unless regular meetings counts. We loosely qualify as a community, since we are bound together by a desire to study religion analytically and critically. I'm sure the IRS would turn us down. But the UU itself qualifies as a religion--even though it lacks what many assume is a basic ingredient of a religion--a common creed. There are Christians, Jews, pagans and atheists meeting together for common service, and separately in subgroups. But there are minimal beliefs held in common: non-trinitarianism and universalism (the notion that none are damned for eternity). There are rituals for dedication of children, coming of age, marriage, and commemorating the dead. And there is a common weekly service with the lighting of a chalice, various members spontaneously sharing thoughts, and a sermon and hymns. This is rather minimal, but enough to satisfy the IRS. Somewhere between my freethinkers' group and the UU Church is the fuzzy boundary between religion and non-religion, which is a judgment call and more a matter of degree than of kind. If it hasn't happened yet, it isn't science. But to be a religion, it would have to be group-shared and accompanied by some code of conduct and /or ritual. It depends on how remote in the future they're talking and how confident they are about it. Many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. But no, I don't think that would be religion. More likely, commercial hype! Concern? No. Answers, maybe--particularly when you add community and ritual. I attended a meeting of the American Humanist Society once when they were discussing a ritual called "presentation of the child". I'd say that's getting there. What do you think so-called "religious experiences" are? Again, one thing by itself doesn't make a religion, but they can add up. Not all atheism is a religion, but it can be. Think atheist megachurches. Atheist "mega-churches" take root across U.S., world - CBS News Atheist 'mega-churches' are now a thing in the U.S as popularity spreads from U.K. | National Post
I was attempting to show you the absurdity of the United States v. Seeger religious faith ruling that a religion is anything that "is sincere and meaningful (and) occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God..." Why would you think that a prediction about future science and technology would be a form of science? Why would you think it would be a functional equivalent of theistic religion? A prediction about future technologies and science, based on past and present technologies and science is just a guess extrapolated from facts. Not a science, not a functional equivalent of theistic religion. The future is the future. In industry predictions of the future must always be taken into account. It takes about six years to design a new car. That means cars are now being developed for 2029. The automotive industry must consider the future now, no commercial hype, just success or failure in 2029. I don't know what this means. I have no idea what a religious experience is. I assume it would depend on the religion of the person having the experience. I know there are natural experiences that transcend normal everyday awareness. I would only describe them as religious if I belonged to a religion that defined them as religious. I just call them out of the extraordinary experiences, but normal experiences that don't occur very often. ...Let me rephrase that: a religious experience would be a natural, if extraordinary experience, that is described in religious terms. Such as a natural feeling of "oneness" that is described as meeting the Christian god, or Zeus, or glimpsing heaven. Something like that. I don't know what an atheist megachurch is. I had always thought a church was a place of worship. What do you think atheists worship? I would think a large gathering of atheists would be a convention, or gathering, or large meeting but not a meagchurch.
Murder is bad stealing is bad cheating on your spouse is bad hurting people is bad marriage is good love is good these are all value calls since you can't prove any of them in science or by using the scientific method That's like asking what are the many things that compromise 'philosophy' there's no single specific answer to it that's why understanding religion is complicated and it requires more than a single yes no answer there is simply no 'single' action or causation such as what you use like if it's not a deity it's not a religion which is clearly a composition fallacy Yes I did and the reason I did is because you singled it out and as I continued to say over and over and over again there's more to religion than one single element. You seem to feel that religion can be compressed into one single element and that's a reductionism fallacy. Again that's because you are debating with an absolutist attitude, everything to you is either 100% one way or 100% the other way and when you bake a cake there's more ingredients than flour! You can't use a single binary evaluation to answer a multifaceted condition, it's illogical and unreasonable, and that's what you seem to be trying to do, to throw everything under one tiny umbrella and it simply doesn't work that way. It takes more than flour to make a cake it takes eggs and baking soda and flour and water and oil and heat to bake a cake so you can't say a cake is defined as flour like what you're trying to do with religion by saying religion is defined and limited to worshiping a deity or the Divine whichever, your whole premise is a composition fallacy I keep saying it over and over again b ut you seem to ignore the point, you certainly have not tried to rebut it on any level. Being hard to infer and incapable of inferring is two completely different things, which should be quite obvious since they made 'exactly' that inference! Ritual when used nonmetaphorically is part of the sacred, you did not understand that the sared meant, I posted that to educate you what was being referred to since you apparently missed the last 3 times I posted it. See I have no clue how you manage to always compute exactly the opposite of the point I am making? Ritual when used nonmetaphorically is part of the sacred, you did not understand that the sared meant, I posted that to educate you what was being referred to since you apparently missed the last 3 times I posted it. you manage to always compute exactly the opposite of the point I am making. false again. This is really starting to get boring for me. I even drew a picture for you yet you completely miss the point. Once again: Because something is undefined to you does not mean its undefined to someone else. Its over the top to claim something does not exist on the basis its not recognized by the party under review. You mean you didnt read that link either? Shees.... Religion is what you do, you act according to your religion, mutually exercized religion is culture. I dont agree with that. Only the points I posted in response to yours. So that is one of the points I continue to try to make, and I am glad you agree. This contradicts..... .....this. Worshipping rain, sun, good crops and on and on and on..... Sure you did when you claim atheism which is grounded in natural beliefs cannot possibly be a religion. It was just proven to you, or should have been that natural in the form of value especially is in fact religous. some do some dont. which is precisely what is also being said by Durkeim in the OP, and I agree with it. that they are an accessory or extension of the natural, if not supernatural its synonym metaphysics. Is there a value judgement in any of that? Definitely worse penalizing the destruction of the flag in a nonreligious (disrespectful) manner. If they do they are religious, is this admission atheists are religious? I fail to see any value judgement or directive life course from that? Explain please. You are the one that ALWAYS USES ALL OR NEVER NOT ME. so please STOP with the all or nothing responses, they are WRONG and getting old. Sure all words have some sort of precognitive rationale applied to them. Then you cant believe in metaphysics. FALSE, religion is not made up, Gods I dont know about one way or the the other, I do know that many I have looked at are fiction, I wont go so far as to say ALL. That is a rare exception to my rule, since ALL people endowed with reason have to some extent religion. Even animals have to some extent religion. That may be their verbiage however religion is definitely someones concern about THEIR personal life, and what they 'value' which takes us right back to the OP!
If it is "just a guess" and presented as such, no religion. I've seen prognosications about the almost limitless potential of science that are a lot more confident than that. It means that if an atheist, like the rest of us, wonders about the meaning of life, that isn't necessarily a religious attitude. If the atheist provides definite answers(e.g., BiGuy: "Religion is an attempt by humans to project their species-centric perspective on the workings of the universe as whole") its a step toward metaphysics, which can be an ingredient of religion if it is group-shared and accompanied by ritual and/or code. Correct. Christian theologian Marcus Borg had a feeling of oneness with the universe while flying on an airplane (whether before or after cocktails were served, I don't know). Geneticist Francis Collins had his "born again" experience after viewing a waterfall, frozen in three strands, suggesting to him the Trinity. If it had been frozen in multiple strands, perhaps he would have become a pastafarian. I became a Christian after a passage in Genesis triggered a cascade of thoughts making me see all humans as reflections of God, and all religions as related fragments of truth. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Correct. Everything depends on mindset and how it is interpreted by the person having the experience. In my case, I always leave open the possibility of a psychotic break or some other psychological abberation. The important thing is that I chose to accept it as a life-changing spiritual experience. They celebrate their lack of faith in God and heir faith in goodness. Good is great! It's always a matter of degree. If there is a lot of ritual, sermons, and hymns, it becomes a megachurch--especially, if collections are taken! Atheists embrace mega-church settings
LOL! Make that 2 exceptions, since its impossible to define a word without a clue what to define a word as! LMAO Maybe this is best said that there are cases where I do use the word all and never but not the ones meagain claims.
ah shuh soo mg'ee do' huh'o tuh The above is language for prayer. It can be sourced from Africa and survives in the Georgia Sea Islands in America. It is possible to respond to this inventively, intuitively. Make a string of freely associated phonemes, and I will translate your response into English.
You pledge all liege to a flag representing what???? Very few Americans have so much as a clue what they are pledging! Definitions of liege noun a feudal lord entitled to allegiance and service synonyms:liege lord see more noun a person holding a fief; a person who owes allegiance and service to a feudal lord synonyms: feudatory, liege subject, liegeman, vassal. see more adjective owing or owed feudal allegiance and service “one's liege lord” “a liege subject” Synonyms: loyal steadfast in allegiance or duty Liege - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms Now to the flag issue: You can be fined and jailed for treating the flag disrespectfully and disposing of it without elevating it to a solemn item of worship, thank you tricky dick nixon. You are pledging all liege to the flag, the proxy of the lord That said, if you can SCIENTIFICALLY demonstrate that treatment of the flag requires solemn ritualistic treatment any different than a rag then it might NOT be profane. The way its required to be treated presently is by the governments religious prescription and royal decree, yes disposing a flag is religious and the ritual grinding the pledge in the heads of little children that they are vassals to the state in the pledge ritual is also religious!!! Both are value judgements that cannot be reconciled by science, ie scientific method! Perfect example of the government establishing itself as a religion! Thanks for bringing it up.
So are you saying that religion has a monopoly on values? So you can't define what a religion is? Ritual seems to be one element of religion in your eyes. Values another. But those two things pertain to a multitude of human endeavors. You can't name the other requirements of a religion? I have stated that belief in a God or gods is one element. Worship of that god or gods is needed. Also dogma, sacred symbols and objects, and an organized hierarchy. Ritual, values, and tradition also play a part. Now one can believe in a personal concept of a God or gods, but that isn't a religion as the other requirements aren't met. However, without the belief in a God or gods, sacred objects, and a dogma (all related to the god or gods); the presence of a hierarchy, ritual, values, and tradition do not add up to a religion. So I have named eight factors, all which rely on the belief in a God or gods. That's what is confusing you. So you can't say if ritual is a requirement of a religion? Can there be organizations the use rituals but aren't religions? Yes, I admit I am confused. rituals are sacred. Is that right? All rituals? I'll wait until you clear this up for me before I comment further on rituals. I'm sorry if I'm having trouble understanding your point of view. I don't claim to be the sharpest pencil in the box. So these primitive people who have a religion don't call it a religion, but the religious scholars who look at them know that it is a religion. So the primitive people have no concept of what a religion is and therefore to them....they don't have a religion as they don't know what a religion is, but the scholars see it as a religion. that was my point. I didn't say there wasn't a religion, I said the primitives don't recognize it as a religion as they have no concept of what a religion is. Yes, in fact I did read it. R. J. Rushdoony promotes a Christian government and this article merely states that he thinks rationalism is evil and a belief in and servitude to God's law is needed to bring about the dominance of the world by Christianity. Yet you don't agree with him. Why would you post this? This contradicts..... .....this. Sure religious beliefs can lad to good behavior and bad behavior. But religion isn't needed for one to act on their beliefs. But that doesn't tell me what a religion is, other than beliefs. Beliefs in what exactly? The difference is atheists don't worship rain, sun, good crops and on and on and on..... When you start to worship natural forces and attribute them to an outside God or gods..then a religion starts to form. If you don't worship, etc. then you just go on living without religion. You can still value rain over drought, you can value warm over cold, etc. but if you don't attribute warm and rain to a God or gods, you aren't religious. That would be a religious view. Again I'm at a loss. All rituals aren't religious or are they? Okay I'll never use the words never or all again. So tell me about rituals are they sometimes religious and sometimes not? When are these sometimes and what distinguishes one time form another? Metaphysics is the philosophical study of the nature of reality. Not super reality. So where do the true religions come from? Reason = religion and animals have reason and religion. Okay.
An educated guess. So any statement about religion by an atheist makes him religious? I don't understand. Right, religion is an attempt to explain the natural world within certain parameters. And those parameters are different than the ones used by atheists. Or, rather they celebrate their understanding of rationality. That doesn't make them religious. So a gathering hosted by two comedians becomes a religion because they sang a Beatle song, clapped their hands, and collected money even though no one at the gathering belonged to an organized atheist group. I see.
You can't be arrested for not pledging allegiance to the flag. Desecration of the flag is currently permitted under free speech. Texas v. Johnson (1989), United States v. Eichman (1990). Here are some other pledges: On my honor, I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight." "On my honor, I will try: To serve God* and my country, To help people at all times, And to live by the Girl Scout Law. *(another word may be inserted here)" "Workplace Safety Pledge As a leader of _________ I am committed to our safety and health program. To support workplace safety I pledge to take the following actions: Make worker safety and health a core value by (fill in your pledge here) Work to continuously improve workplace safety by (fill in your pledge here) Show my commitment to safety and health by (fill in your pledge here) Communicate with workers about our safety program by (fill in your pledge here) Have a visible presence in the workplace by (fill in your pledge here) Recognize workers who demonstrate safety leadership by (fill in your pledge here) Listen and respond to safety issues raised by workers by (fill in your pledge here) Formalize our safety program by (fill in your pledge here) Show industry leadership by (fill in your pledge here)" "I promise as a good American citizen to do my part for the NRA. I will buy only where the Blue Eagle flies." Are any of them religious?
If the gathering is simply a put-on and the people involved take it is such, of course it's not a religion. But the gatherings have spread to the U.S. and caught on, and they don't seem to be put ons. They are expressing deeply held values. When rationality , goodness, etc., are deeply held as the meaning of life, people get together to celebrate it, and perform rituals, I think has religious character from a functional standpoint. John Dewey described God as the summation of human idealism, so in that sense they may even be worshiping god, although I'm sure they don't think so.