So what exactly is Religion?

[LostOne4Ever]

40. The problem you have with me

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Okay, lets start at the top.

Note that your link (from Harvard no less) does not say to never use wikipedia, but to be careful in using it. It notes a case that has been correct and wikipedia even has a list of hoaxes found on their site. And again, it is still just as accurate as any other encyclopedia.[/font]

You are not using the word cult identically to what it originally meant or more colloquially means today from a social psychology perspective. So again you do not have basic information. You are making up your own definitions and calling them 'modern' just like you do with the atheist/agnostic meanings.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Yet, the way I am using it is identical to the way several dictionaries and encyclopedias define it.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/cult

That is hardly making up my own definition. That said, I did not call my definition modern, in fact I even said it was an older definition.[/font]

You are not using the word cult identically to what it originally meant or more colloquially means today from a social psychology perspective. So again you do not have basic information. You are making up your own definitions and calling them 'modern' just like you do with the atheist/agnostic meanings.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]To being with, as the etyomology link showed, I am using it to how it was originally meant. Worship and devotion. But for sake of argument let say I am not. Further lets say that I am not using the colloquial definition from a social pyschology perspective. So what? There are way more context and usages than just that.

And I am not making up definitions if you can find them in dictionaries/encyclopedias. Especially when I am using the first definition they provide.

And here is my issue with you: You totally ignore anything that disagrees with you. I post link after link after link showing that I am backed up by dictionary after dictionary after group after group after group and you keep on insisting they are all wrong. I use a definition of atheist directly from the Oxford English Dictionary (the most scholarly and well respected dictionary on the english language in the world) and you still insist that I am wrong.

Further you insist this without sources or anything to back you up but your word. I hunt down sources and try to back up everything I say, and you just dismiss it. As if they didn't exist. As if they were just some blogger on the internet. Like here where you are upset with my use of dictionaries and encyclopedia. But I use them for several reasons. 1) They are proof that I am not pulling these things out of thin air, 2) to show that I have several authorities backing up my position 3) and they are easy for others to look up and see if I am being truthful.[/font]

No this is not college. No this is not a scholarly symposium. However, to have a discussion means that words are used that have agreed upon meanings. You have your own interpretation of sites like Wikipedia to back up your erroneous definitions and instead of educating yourself, you are doubling down on your own meaning and interpretation as being accurate.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]If I was making things up why would I link to my sources for everyone to see? Why would I quote them directly? Why are there so many people who have the exact same opinion as me? American Atheists and the FFRF whose combined membership number in the hundreds of thousands if not millions use the word exactly as I do when it comes to the word atheist.

Why is it my definition that has to be the one that is wrong? Why is it that you can't be the one who is wrong? Why is your word more valuable than the OED? Than the AA? Than the FFRF? Than the majority of atheist posters on this site? Why is it that you can never be wrong?

You say I am wrong. I provide source after source to build my case. All the evidence I provide and you ignore it all. I have never had a college professor tell me that something I say backed up by multiple authoritative sources is wrong. They usually compliment me on doing my research well. Are they all wrong too?[/font]

Here in the Religion forum, we rarely even get that because, atheists (yes it seems to be the A&A group members the most guilty of this shit) want to use their own meanings and terms whether it is Facebook meme Venn diagrams, 'modern' usage of the words atheist/agnostic, all religions are mental illness because of the delusions of its believers, to now this bullshit that someone has the opinion that all religions are cults.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]But it is not just me. Its anyone who posts regularly in A&A. No amount of evidence we provide is ever enough. Our opinions and sources are ALWAYS wrong. You claim you are ALWAYS right because...reasons, go read all these books (and ignore all the ones that disagree with them no matter the context or how long ago they were written).

You treat us all like we are idiots and liars. Person doesn't mention they are an atheist right off the get go? He/She is dishonest! Cause he/she doesn't mention he/she is an atheist skeptic from the get go! As if there are not repercussions for such statements? Because skeptics are sooo loved in our society as her story illustrated? Even though the business owner never thought to ask him/her opinion of such things?

Calling supporters of religion on here a "religion***a" is hateful despite having nothing wrong with the word, but calling atheists militant is perfectly fine despite the obvious connection to violence. Despite that our government says they are targeting militants for drone strikes. Despite the history of the term.

Sorry wikipedia again. How about what psychology today says?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201102/the-myth-militant-atheism

BTW:

1) I never accused any theist of being mentally ill. A great many posters in A&A have never claimed that. But you attribute the opinion of a few to us all.

2) The person who started this stuff about cults was a theist who was insulting an entire religion (saying "it is a cult not a religion&quot and believe it or not, many of us A&A members came out in defense of the smaller religions by pointing out that all religions are cults. Which again is using the DICTIONARY definition.

But again we are all hateful bigots... Cause denying a religion and associating it with a word that is meant to marginalize and malign it is a lesser offense than pointing out that all religions are cults as according to the dictionary. Where is the scolding from the "supporters of religion" on that discussion? [/font]

I don't ever apologize for being very well educated or for pushing back against ignorance. As I said in my first post, I am more than open to a discussion yet if terms are not used properly and everyone is just giving their own opinions as facts with nothing to back it up, then, well, it is not a discussion to begin with.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Funny cause I have and continue to back myself up with sources. But you don't like my sources. Considered by millions to be authoritative and scholarly but you act like the OED was written by Billybob the hobo camping behind the trailer park. Meanwhile, you link to me....listverse? Not only that, but by someone saying most scientists would disagree with him?[/font]

The answer to what makes a religion a religion is already out there if you will read about it. Once that is agreed upon then further questions and debate can occur. You make an assumption for example that science is distinguishable from religion. Using agreed upon definitions of religion and even cults, then alternate points of view such as this one can be discussed:

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]That is just it, Hardly anyone agrees upon the definition. That is why I want to know what everyone's opinion is. Not everyone agrees.

Regardless, lets look at your link. [/font]

http://listverse.com/2012/12/15/top-10-reasons-science-is-another-religion/

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Okay gonna address that:

10. No it doesn't. In fact it quite the opposite. This is why humans went from being considered different from other apes...to just another ape. They got over that bias. Also:[/font]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle#Criticisms

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]9. No it doesn't. When the Ether was challenged the scientist who disproved it became heroes. What it cast out are those who disagree with consensus with no proof to back up their claims. How Goedel was treated was a reflection upon the people at the university NOT SCIENCE.

8. No. Freud is proof of that. Anyone trying to promote the theories of Ptolemy would be laughed at. Galieo promoted the work of his teacher Coppernicus and used his telescope to prove his teacher right. Back in the 4th century it was just a hypothesis that was quicky dismissed and forgotten. This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard to be honest.

7. NOOOOOOOOO! It looks at the evidence, makes a theory based upon the evidence and then tests it. That is the exact opposite of what the author says. Big bang being based upon the expansion of the universe among many other observations.

6. No. People have codes of ethics...science does not.

5.NOOO. Einstein was not only questioned he was proven wrong on several occasions. This entire point is nothing but opinion stated as fact.

4. Sooooo blood letting is still a thing? -.-

3. OH NOW WE ARE REACHING FOR THE VAST HOMOSEXUAL CONSPIRACIES? FFS! Since you are a psychologist I am gonna post this wiki link is for those who don't know. It is not for you.[/font]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology

"Psychology was one of the first disciplines to study homosexuality as a discrete phenomenon. Prior to and throughout most of the 20th century, common standard psychology viewed homosexuality in terms of pathological models as a mental illness. That classification began to be subjected to critical scrutiny in the research, which consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder. "

"Since the 1970s, the consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions globally is that homosexuality is a healthy variation of human sexual orientation, although some professionals maintain that it is a disorder.[2] In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. "

"Consequently, while a minority today believes homosexuality is a mental disorder, the body of current research and clinical literature supports a consensus that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are healthy variations of human sexuality, and is reflected in the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association."

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]2. Noooooooooooooo. Just stating it is unfounded does not make it so. Again for those not as knowledgeable on such things:[/font]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but accounts for most of the matter in the universe. The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe. It has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Basing hypothesis upon actual observations is unfounded. This IDIOT pretending to be a scientist who made this list doesn't even know the difference between unproven and unfounded. It is founded on the above.

1. NOOOOOOO. Scientist who do that are SCOLDED. I have been told time and time again NOT TO DO THAT in every science class I have been in. Further, using the common person off the street as to what science believes is NOT indicative of science being a religion. Its indicitive of the average person off the street being scientifically illiterate.

That link by a person who CLAIMS to be a scientist shows an astounding amount of scientific illiteracy. Maybe we can look him up and see the work he's done. Or we could if he wasn't using a pseudonym....[/font]

Cortical Rider

Lamellar Cataract

The cortex of the lens (see above) is laid down one layer at a time like an onion. If just one layer of the lens is cloudy, it is called a lamellar cataract. This may be associated with “cortical riders” which are tiny linear opacities in the lens that wrap around the edge of the lamellar cataract. The term “zonular cataract” is sometimes used to describe a lamellar cataract. It would be more accurate to eliminate this term as the word “zonular” could be applied to any cataract that only affects one region (i.e. one “zone”) of the lens.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal] Okay, okay.

[font size=6 color=scarlet face=papyrus]With that, I am done arguing this shit with you and derailing my own thread.[/font]

I am also done with airing of grievances. You don't like my sources and I don't like how you dismiss my sources as nothing. If you want to do that do it with someone else I won't reply any further.

However, if you want to continue having a discussion can you simply tell me what YOU think makes a religion a RELIGION? Not some aside about people not being scholarly enough or making some snarky comment about internet atheists (which technically describes you as well). Or simply bitching about me.

Does it require gods?

Does it require rituals?

Does it require a way of living life?

Some combination of the above or elements not yet mentioned?

What makes X a religion while football is not. Or do you think football is a religion? I mean that seriously?

I am not going to ask any follow up questions to your opinion in an effort to change your opinion if that is what you are worried about. I don't do that. I didn't do that to the poster who said he didn't think Buddhism was not a religion. I won't do it now.

If you don't want to have a discussion then I guess we are done.

[center][font size=6 color=scarlet face=papyrus]其れじゃ[/font]
Soreja
Well then! (casual japanese parting word)[/font][/center]