• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is everyone religious?

I think all do that, whether they be Godly, Spiritual, or Atheist.

One of the main drivers for posting this discussion is that I have noticed in discussions with atheists and spirituals, that they have a pretty firm set of right and wrong, and believe it's based on scientific fact.
I don't believe right and wrong can come from scientific observation, only facts. We decide right and wrong, based on our religion.

Make sense?

It makes sense, in the sense that I comprehend what you are saying. But it is not correct. Incomprehensible as it may seem, some people go through their whole life without religion. Yet, somehow, they still have a sense of right and wrong.

Right and wrong does not come from religion. Punishment for doing wrong instead of right does come from religion.
 
I did cherry pick this definition, mainly because I am kind of working through or studying those who claim they are atheist yet have a pretty standard set of morals and values. These aren't religion, but I think they come from it, according to the definition I posted, roughly.

You could replace self with universe. It is probably one and the same on the grand scale. That old question: Why are WE here?

Last comment first.. why does there have to be a why?

Regarding the cherry picking of the definition, that is bringing us to the fundamental problem with your approach here, you are trying to contort the definition beyond what the commonly accepted meaning of the word "religion" is - even your selected definition includes this key clause: "especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies".

Anyhow, if this is still stemming back to where the concept of good and evil comes from, it is quite simple.. empathy - a crucial portion of our emotional makeup as social creatures. Now you might not share the same thoughts as I of how this empathy came to be, but that is a product of your religious beliefs. You might assert that god created this empathy, I on the other hand reject this notion as unsubstantiated.
 
Last comment first.. why does there have to be a why?

Regarding the cherry picking of the definition, that is bringing us to the fundamental problem with your approach here, you are trying to contort the definition beyond what the commonly accepted meaning of the word "religion" is - even your selected definition includes this key clause: "especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies".

Anyhow, if this is still stemming back to where the concept of good and evil comes from, it is quite simple.. empathy - a crucial portion of our emotional makeup as social creatures. Now you might not share the same thoughts as I of how this empathy came to be, but that is a product of your religious beliefs. You might assert that god created this empathy, I on the other hand reject this notion as unsubstantiated.

G'morning Marduc,
I don't have any issues with the definition I selected. Especially does not mean always nor even necessary. So it fits my paradigm as described.

I heard this empathy argument on my other thread, and honestly probably dismissed it too easily. You have my attention now.
It appears empathy has a few definitions as well. Can you provide your definition, and optimally, how it affects our decisions on good and evil / right and wrong?
 
I'm an apatheist, to me the existence (or lack thereof) of a god or gods or goddess or goddesses is irrelevant. Furthermore, I embrace the idea that the universe is far too vast and complex for anybody to have a corner on how it really works, much less on what made it.

That's pretty much the opposite of religion.

As a Christian, I have a similar view of creation and God. I believe it's rooted in facts and laws that are absolute, but that we are unable, as we are, to comprehend it all.
I had not heard the term "apatheist" before, but I have considered the concept. It is an interesting one, but is not outside my question I think.
If you can accept the definition of "religion" that I provided on the OP.
I understand the desire to disregard "religion" in the commonly accepted form or definition, which does include deity. I am not trying to offend anyone by forcing them into that type of situation.
 
It makes sense, in the sense that I comprehend what you are saying. But it is not correct. Incomprehensible as it may seem, some people go through their whole life without religion. Yet, somehow, they still have a sense of right and wrong.

Right and wrong does not come from religion. Punishment for doing wrong instead of right does come from religion.

As I understand you, I think you have not released the deity from "religion" as the definition I provided in the OP allows.
I do see that non-deists have a sense of right and wrong, but, as I said, believe it to be subjective.
In fact I believe that all sense of right and wrong in humanity is necessarily subjective, being based on a particular persons "religion." It is never factual, but is our interpretation of necessary action or inaction based on observed facts.
I also believe there is an absolute truth (right & wrong, good & evil) that is the governing force of all that is. Our subjective right/wrong may or may not be in accord with this universal truth.
 
G'morning Marduc,
I don't have any issues with the definition I selected. Especially does not mean always nor even necessary. So it fits my paradigm as described.

I heard this empathy argument on my other thread, and honestly probably dismissed it too easily. You have my attention now.
It appears empathy has a few definitions as well. Can you provide your definition, and optimally, how it affects our decisions on good and evil / right and wrong?

Quite simply it is the ability to extend your feelings to that of other people. A realization that we should respect each others as a people entitled to the same considerations that you would like to have yourself. An ability to project your wants and desires and needs and the emotional response to being denied them, and realize that those same wants, needs and emotional reactions apply to others.

As examples, I want to stay alive, I want to keep my possessions, I want to keep my bodily sanctity and avoid undo pain for myself (and those close to me), both physically and mentally. Empathy is a realization that others also have the same desires for themselves. There is no need for a law giver to tell me that denying others these things are wrong, it is quite simple to realize this by myself because of empathy - because I would not like it if they were denied me, it is no huge leap to know that this applies reciprocally to others as well.

anyhow you are trying to warp the definition of religion beyond its commonly understood definition and usage to fit your argument. It does not work unless you bastardize its definition and its colloquially understood usage.
 
Last edited:
Quite simply it is the ability to extend your feelings to that of other people. A realization that we should respect each others as a people entitled to the same considerations that you would like to have yourself. An ability to project your wants and desires and needs and the emotional response to being denied them, and realize that those same wants, needs and emotional reactions apply to others.

As examples, I want to stay alive, I want to keep my possessions, I want to keep my bodily sanctity and avoid undo pain for myself (and those close to me), both physically and mentally. Empathy is a realization that others also have the same desires for themselves. There is no need for a law giver to tell me that denying others these things are wrong, it is quite simple to realize this by myself because of empathy - because I would not like it if they were denied me, it is no huge leap to know that this applies reciprocally to others as well.

anyhow you are trying to warp the definition of religion beyond its commonly understood definition and usage to fit your argument. It does not work unless you bastardize its definition and its colloquially understood usage.

That fact is that what you want for yourself may not be what others want for themselves, and certainly what many people want for themselves I do not want. This then is subject , and the golden rule does not necessarily lead to good actions, even though intentions may be good. So being subjective, it is not a good indicator of universal or absolute truth in determining good and evil / right and wrong.

The definition of religion I selected may not be the most commonly used, but it is a valid definition, especially when relating to good and evil and it's determinative source, which is what I am concerned with. The definition fits my premise, and is not made up by me.
If someone wants to talk about common definitions of religion, or is offended by this discussion of religion as defined in the OP, I would suggest that this thread might not be for you.
 
Back
Top Bottom