Comment on I believe in God, not religion by Spelledeg
That is a certain type of religion, and it is far closer to a cult than a true religion. However, by definition belief in God is a religion.
So you're saying that if a man simply says "there's a creator and sustainer of the universe", he's automatically religious?
re·li·gion/riˈlijən/
Noun:
- The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
- Details of belief as taught or discussed.
So...yes, is what I'm saying.
Noun:
- The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
- Details of belief as taught or discussed.
So...yes, is what I'm saying.
I actually tend to disagree with you. If you're talking about the God from scriptures then you're absolutely right. However, "God" is synonymous with the unknown in cosmology. As such, God can be defined in a theological way but also in a philosophical way approaching scientific practice. If you consider—like the qabalists—that God is nothing more than the origin of the universe (they call it Eyn Sof) then this is synonymous with the Big Bang. Of course this doesn't answer any questions but by definition God is that for which there is no answer.
Mind you, this gives absolutely no credit to the existence of God. No matter how you define God, it takes a leap of faith to believe in him.
Mind you, this gives absolutely no credit to the existence of God. No matter how you define God, it takes a leap of faith to believe in him.
Yes, but God isn't quite what human beings define him* as. Both religious people and atheists have certain delusions. Read the book "God's Debris" by Scott Adams and you'll know what I mean.
*referring to him as "him", not because anthropomorphism, but because our language still assigns genders to some nouns.
*referring to him as "him", not because anthropomorphism, but because our language still assigns genders to some nouns.
You may not believe that humans know everything about God, but yes, he is as we define him. Humans are the ones who created language - defining is literally what we do, and believing in a god is, by definition, religious. That being said, there's nothing inherently bad about being religious and nothing inherently good about not being religious - it's simply that people need to acknowledge if they are.
Language is a living thing. Dictionaries dispute definitions. Definitions of words change. Every human being has his or her own definition to the words he or she knows based on his or her experiences in learning and in life. If you ask someone to define a dog in their own words, one may say "a four-legged friend" and another might say "a fuzzy pain in the ass that keeps me up at night as it barks". Our personal definitions of words are just close enough to other people's definitions as to not cause confusion.
Humans may define concepts as "infinity", but are they able to wrap their heads around it? No. The closest they get in their minds is "an unimaginablely large amount", even if, by definition, it never ends, since infinity is infinitely past the boundaries of the human mind. God is similar. If we all had the same definition of God, there wouldn't be need for multiple religions or philosophies. Each person simply picks a view of the world that gets them through their day.
Humans may define concepts as "infinity", but are they able to wrap their heads around it? No. The closest they get in their minds is "an unimaginablely large amount", even if, by definition, it never ends, since infinity is infinitely past the boundaries of the human mind. God is similar. If we all had the same definition of God, there wouldn't be need for multiple religions or philosophies. Each person simply picks a view of the world that gets them through their day.
Just because someone thinks about something differently doesn't change the definition of the word. While people might think of a dog as a furry friend or a pain in the ass doesn't change that they're referring to a domesticated canid. How they feel about it doesn't change what it is they're thinking about.
Likewise, thinking about God as being a nice guy, being an asshole, or not existing does not change what the term "God" refers to, nor what the term "religion" refers to. Go pick whatever dictionary you want and you'll find that believing in God does, in fact, make you religious.
Now, some people believe that being religious is inherently bad. I want to say, again, this is not my belief. There's nothing wrong with being religious, but to say you are not when you clearly are is a lie. I have blonde hair. If I were to unceasingly tell my friends I was a "light brunette", they'd get angry because I'm using the language improperly.
As for the infinity argument, that's completely unrelated. No, we can't process the idea of infinity. We also don't say "dog" and know everything about it - I don't know anything about the cardiovascular systems of huskies, for example. Similarly, if God does exist, we do not know everything about him (or her!). That doesn't mean we can't come to a general consensus on what the word "god" refers to, or what the word "religion" refers to.
Likewise, thinking about God as being a nice guy, being an asshole, or not existing does not change what the term "God" refers to, nor what the term "religion" refers to. Go pick whatever dictionary you want and you'll find that believing in God does, in fact, make you religious.
Now, some people believe that being religious is inherently bad. I want to say, again, this is not my belief. There's nothing wrong with being religious, but to say you are not when you clearly are is a lie. I have blonde hair. If I were to unceasingly tell my friends I was a "light brunette", they'd get angry because I'm using the language improperly.
As for the infinity argument, that's completely unrelated. No, we can't process the idea of infinity. We also don't say "dog" and know everything about it - I don't know anything about the cardiovascular systems of huskies, for example. Similarly, if God does exist, we do not know everything about him (or her!). That doesn't mean we can't come to a general consensus on what the word "god" refers to, or what the word "religion" refers to.
You're confusing religion with spirituality.
Similarly, if God does exist, we do not know everything about him
What gets me is that however God is defined, it's pure speculation. God is that which people are missing in their life but to me, more than anything God is everything we cannot define. I understand it's silly of me to turn God into an entirely different beast from what it has been for thousands of years but if you consider that science gradually answers most questions which have been prominent in religion for so long and the fact that upon verification of these answers religion is still going strong without having any evidence for God—to me that implies that God is not something or everything but everything we can't define but at the same time everything we might wish God to be.
Your arguments are generally great but your second statement I see as a flawed argument. There is no way you can re-define a dog because we know what it is. The concept of God is not well defined. In fact his definition is almost completely subjective—even more so if you disregard religion. Whether believing in God makes you religious depends on what God means to you. The dictionary may have a definition but this is possibly the one word which can't completely be justified to be in the dictionary. On an other note, the belief in God makes you spiritual by definition, not religious.
Similarly, if God does exist, we do not know everything about him
What gets me is that however God is defined, it's pure speculation. God is that which people are missing in their life but to me, more than anything God is everything we cannot define. I understand it's silly of me to turn God into an entirely different beast from what it has been for thousands of years but if you consider that science gradually answers most questions which have been prominent in religion for so long and the fact that upon verification of these answers religion is still going strong without having any evidence for God—to me that implies that God is not something or everything but everything we can't define but at the same time everything we might wish God to be.
Your arguments are generally great but your second statement I see as a flawed argument. There is no way you can re-define a dog because we know what it is. The concept of God is not well defined. In fact his definition is almost completely subjective—even more so if you disregard religion. Whether believing in God makes you religious depends on what God means to you. The dictionary may have a definition but this is possibly the one word which can't completely be justified to be in the dictionary. On an other note, the belief in God makes you spiritual by definition, not religious.
Man... this discussion is really... deep.
I can understand where you're coming from with the whole definition thing. I had an almost exactly similar issue on the definition of bronies (and both you and I seem to be one).
One of my friends, whose username is actually *TheIrishBrony, decided he wasn't a brony anymore, but still watching the show. I tried to explain that to him that by being a male and watching the show, he was, by definition, a brony. He didn't buy it and said "it depends on your definition". The reason he didn't want to be identified as a brony is because he didn't want to be associated with the rabid fandom/stereotypes and cloppers, etc.
I was moved enough by this issue that I wrote a whole journal about the definition of bronies. Want a link?
But then on the other hand, it's partially true, even with it comes in conflict with popular views. Dictionaries attempt to be a guideline regulate language, not be the dictator of language. We didn't freak out when "gay" went from meaning happy to homosexual or when "bitch" went from female dog to approximately a slutty human female.
Your dictionary, again, isn't the central authority of the English language. Language is made by human minds, not by bureaucrats. It can be regulated and we can try to keep definitions the same, but not forever. If you were the last English-speaker on Earth and told your kids that you were a light brunette, having no regulating society or dictionary to turn to, they would probably believe you. If the word "brony" somehow evolves to mean "male fan of MLP" to "man who faps to ponies", it would be indeed unfortunate, but it's totally possible of happening. It's probably because the fact that we don't want definitions to change is the exact reason that we can get so caught up in enforcing them, but this only goes so far.
I'm not exactly saying we can't try to give a lexical definition of God because the concept is beyond us, either. Think about it. Christians will almost certainly define God in a different way than Muslims or Jews, no matter how slight. Thus the study of theology. True, God may be associated with religion, but what if both the definition of God and religion changes?
Anyway, let me give you the Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary definition of God.
God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or manifestation or aspect of this being.
c. Used to refer to <"Infinite Mind, Spirit, Soul, Principle, Life, Truth, Love" -Mary Baker Eddy>
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by people, esp. a male deity held to control some part of nature or reality.
3. And image of a supernatural being/idol.
4. Something worshipped or idealized.
5. A very handsome man.</b>
I'm supposed to use common sense when naming and defining things, but I'm not forced to use a certain definition, either.
I can understand where you're coming from with the whole definition thing. I had an almost exactly similar issue on the definition of bronies (and both you and I seem to be one).
One of my friends, whose username is actually *TheIrishBrony, decided he wasn't a brony anymore, but still watching the show. I tried to explain that to him that by being a male and watching the show, he was, by definition, a brony. He didn't buy it and said "it depends on your definition". The reason he didn't want to be identified as a brony is because he didn't want to be associated with the rabid fandom/stereotypes and cloppers, etc.
I was moved enough by this issue that I wrote a whole journal about the definition of bronies. Want a link?
But then on the other hand, it's partially true, even with it comes in conflict with popular views. Dictionaries attempt to be a guideline regulate language, not be the dictator of language. We didn't freak out when "gay" went from meaning happy to homosexual or when "bitch" went from female dog to approximately a slutty human female.
Your dictionary, again, isn't the central authority of the English language. Language is made by human minds, not by bureaucrats. It can be regulated and we can try to keep definitions the same, but not forever. If you were the last English-speaker on Earth and told your kids that you were a light brunette, having no regulating society or dictionary to turn to, they would probably believe you. If the word "brony" somehow evolves to mean "male fan of MLP" to "man who faps to ponies", it would be indeed unfortunate, but it's totally possible of happening. It's probably because the fact that we don't want definitions to change is the exact reason that we can get so caught up in enforcing them, but this only goes so far.
I'm not exactly saying we can't try to give a lexical definition of God because the concept is beyond us, either. Think about it. Christians will almost certainly define God in a different way than Muslims or Jews, no matter how slight. Thus the study of theology. True, God may be associated with religion, but what if both the definition of God and religion changes?
Anyway, let me give you the Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary definition of God.
God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or manifestation or aspect of this being.
c. Used to refer to <"Infinite Mind, Spirit, Soul, Principle, Life, Truth, Love" -Mary Baker Eddy>
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by people, esp. a male deity held to control some part of nature or reality.
3. And image of a supernatural being/idol.
4. Something worshipped or idealized.
5. A very handsome man.</b>
I'm supposed to use common sense when naming and defining things, but I'm not forced to use a certain definition, either.
View all replies
by definition of man. By definition of my own experiences and what God says to me, It is more of a relationship. 
That's all lovely, but it is man who defines the usage of words on Earth. Not God. Especially in a new language such as modern English. Your relationship with God is still a religion.
To me it is a religion but more of a relationship. 
he is there for me and talks to me just as you and I would. He lets me know he loves me and He tells me that I am beautiful when all else fails. basically, It doesn't really matter what the world defines things as. Because we as born again Christ-followers were Born not of this earth but of something above it. We are not perfect nor will we ever be. We are broken people, just forgiven by a God who is love and who is perfect. I wouldn't expect someone to understand it without an experience like I have had. It's easy in my opinion to not believe in any God at all. It's more hard to believe in something this big, but at the same time it is more beneficial and worth living the road of self-discipline and knowing that whenever I die, there is hope and there is promise
he is there for me and talks to me just as you and I would. He lets me know he loves me and He tells me that I am beautiful when all else fails. basically, It doesn't really matter what the world defines things as. Because we as born again Christ-followers were Born not of this earth but of something above it. We are not perfect nor will we ever be. We are broken people, just forgiven by a God who is love and who is perfect. I wouldn't expect someone to understand it without an experience like I have had. It's easy in my opinion to not believe in any God at all. It's more hard to believe in something this big, but at the same time it is more beneficial and worth living the road of self-discipline and knowing that whenever I die, there is hope and there is promise I'm not denying your belief or relationship with God - I just wanted to point out that by definition, it is a religion. There's nothing saying that a religion cannot also be a relationship.
I would say that I am personally an agnostic. I am extremely open to the idea of there being a God, but there also could not be. Considering how many religions have been spawned across the world, I would feel horrible aligning myself to one of them - what if it was the wrong one? All I can personally do is live my life the best that I can - help people, fight for freedom, and so on - and that if a God does exist, they can forgive me for not respecting them in the proper fashion. From what most religions seem to state, I'd be out of luck. But I have to admit, if there exists a God who IS, as stated, love, they would be able to forgive even that mistake of mine as long as I tried my damnedest (pun not intended) to live my life in a way that is beneficial to others around me.
I would say that I am personally an agnostic. I am extremely open to the idea of there being a God, but there also could not be. Considering how many religions have been spawned across the world, I would feel horrible aligning myself to one of them - what if it was the wrong one? All I can personally do is live my life the best that I can - help people, fight for freedom, and so on - and that if a God does exist, they can forgive me for not respecting them in the proper fashion. From what most religions seem to state, I'd be out of luck. But I have to admit, if there exists a God who IS, as stated, love, they would be able to forgive even that mistake of mine as long as I tried my damnedest (pun not intended) to live my life in a way that is beneficial to others around me.
I was reading out of my bible today, and I kept thinking of your comments. And Basically it is saying there is forgiveness for everyone no matter what you did or how long you were involved with something. I don't know about other faiths, but in my faith it is the only one that states our god is ALIVE. and no he does not dwell in heaven contrary to popular belief, he is within this world but not OF it. He is a heavenly presence, but he walks about the earth, living with us and in us. It's the only religion I've ever heard of that has that type of belief. All the other's Gods are dead or live in a heavenly area. While ours is a personal presence, just like a person, walking with us and not against us. I'm not saying other people faith's is wrong, I'm just saying there's a big difference in that area at least.
I'm not saying other people faith's is wrong, I'm just saying there's a big difference in that area at least. They're different, yes. I find the variety in religions to be beautiful. It's amazing watching so many groups of people believe things so similar, and yet so different. They can lead to different ideals, but they have some aspects in common with one another.
Anyway, I'm not here to try and undermine your relationship with God - just to qualify that it's a religion too!
I find the variety in religions to be beautiful. It's amazing watching so many groups of people believe things so similar, and yet so different. They can lead to different ideals, but they have some aspects in common with one another. Anyway, I'm not here to try and undermine your relationship with God - just to qualify that it's a religion too!