Religion Comparison Chart

[Bryn Mawr]

Singh-Song;1445934 wrote: As I stated on a different thread, Religion can be best summarised as 'a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things', and by this token, is an intrinsic trait of all humanity, with no category falling outside of this definition. Even the most adamant atheists' fierce opposition to the whole concept of sacred things, deities or spirituality of any kind still constitutes a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to them; and for even the most immovable agnostics, the mere notion of existence can be defined as a 'sacred thing', one which all must believe in to be truly sentient beings.


So how does agnosticism fit into your pattern? It is not a belief, by definition it is a lack of belief - a refusal to accept any belief due to lack of knowledge. It cannot be unified because it has no core. By definition agnostics are NOT immovable, they are open to arguments from both sides but profess to not have sufficient knowledge to reach a conclusion. That cannot match you definition of a religion.



Why is existence "a sacred thing"? It is, that is all we can say about it.

Is it :-

sa·cred

[sey-krid] Show IPA

adjective

1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.

2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy.

3. pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to secular or profane ): sacred music; sacred books.

4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: a morning hour sacred to study.

5. regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.



I might give you the non-religious definition in number 5 but none of the others - I exist, it is the only fact I can truly know - but I see no reason to ascribe that to a deity because I have found no proof that a deity exists. Equally, I have found no evidence that a deity does not exist - I do not believe in the absence of God, I just do not have sufficient knowledge to guide me in my quest for truth.

[Singh-Song]

Bruv;1446172 wrote: Well......it all depends what you define as a linear constant...blah de blah de blah.

If I step back into this type of thread again damn me to a life in purgatory.......for that's all I will be worthy of.


I shall take this as your admission of defeat in attempting to challenge my arguments, and gracefully accept your begrudging resignation. I enjoyed your contributions to this discussion, and I look forward to continuing this intriguing debate which anyone who wishes to do so (even those with typing Tourettes, who have to post all of their insults online instead of speaking them out loud or leaving them in their heads).

[Singh-Song]

Bryn Mawr;1446184 wrote: So how does agnosticism fit into your pattern? It is not a belief, by definition it is a lack of belief - a refusal to accept any belief due to lack of knowledge. It cannot be unified because it has no core. By definition agnostics are NOT immovable, they are open to arguments from both sides but profess to not have sufficient knowledge to reach a conclusion. That cannot match you definition of a religion.



Why is existence "a sacred thing"? It is, that is all we can say about it.

Is it :-

sa·cred

[sey-krid] Show IPA

adjective

1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.

2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy.

3. pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to secular or profane ): sacred music; sacred books.

4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: a morning hour sacred to study.

5. regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.



I might give you the non-religious definition in number 5 but none of the others - I exist, it is the only fact I can truly know - but I see no reason to ascribe that to a deity because I have found no proof that a deity exists. Equally, I have found no evidence that a deity does not exist - I do not believe in the absence of God, I just do not have sufficient knowledge to guide me in my quest for truth.


Not even number 4? Isn't existence sacred to anyone with a purpose in life? And several agnostics are immovable, stonewalling any argument from either side and having reached the conclusion that it is impossible to ever reach a conclusion. But I do agree with you that, while some may religiously adhere to the policy of Agnosticism, as others do to policies such as Racism, Sexism and Communism, Agnosticism itself isn't a religion any more than these are. (BTW, just to clear things up, I'm not trying to label it as being 'evil' in the same way as these examples, I'm just giving other examples of non-religious policies which are religiously adhered to by the most opinionated individuals who practise them).

[Bruv]

Singh-Song;1446187 wrote: I shall take this as your admission of defeat in attempting to challenge my arguments, and gracefully accept your begrudging resignation. I enjoyed your contributions to this discussion, and I look forward to continuing this intriguing debate which anyone who wishes to do so (even those with typing Tourettes, who have to post all of their insults online instead of speaking them out loud or leaving them in their heads).


Not all my verbose friend.

(Does this mean I am doomed to go to hell?)

You are the sort of arrogant side stepping debater that enjoys their own cleverness, and could possibly argue up was down, black was white, throwing a simple discussion into points of order just to massage your own elevated ego.

No one likes a smart arse.

[Bryn Mawr]

Singh-Song;1446188 wrote: Not even number 4? Isn't existence sacred to anyone with a purpose in life?


Not in the slightest - my life has value but that value is by no means infinite which it would have to be for it to be held sacred

Singh-Song;1446188 wrote: And several agnostics are immovable, stonewalling any argument from either side and having reached the conclusion that it is impossible to ever reach a conclusion.


There are people from all branches of thought who's minds have ossified - that is a deficiency of the person, not the ideas that they hold.

Singh-Song;1446188 wrote: But I do agree with you that, while some may religiously adhere to the policy of Agnosticism, as others do to policies such as Racism, Sexism and Communism, Agnosticism itself isn't a religion any more than these are. (BTW, just to clear things up, I'm not trying to label it as being 'evil' in the same way as these examples, I'm just giving other examples of non-religious policies which are religiously adhered to by the most opinionated individuals who practise them).


Whilst I'd disagree with your use of "religiously adhere", that's pretty much where I was getting to.

[Bryn Mawr]

Bruv;1446191 wrote: Not all my verbose friend.

(Does this mean I am doomed to go to hell?)

You are the sort of arrogant side stepping debater that enjoys their own cleverness, and could possibly argue up was down, black was white, throwing a simple discussion into points of order just to massage your own elevated ego.

No one likes a smart arse.


You specified purgatory rather than hell :p

[Singh-Song]

Bruv;1446191 wrote: Not all my verbose friend.

(Does this mean I am doomed to go to hell?)

You are the sort of arrogant side stepping debater that enjoys their own cleverness, and could possibly argue up was down, black was white, throwing a simple discussion into points of order just to massage your own elevated ego.

No one likes a smart arse.


There you go again, tossing off insults. It's alright, we know you can't help it. I haven't side-stepped any of your criticisms, but faced every single one of them head on. I think it's telling that you seem to be the one who has crumbled... :yh_beatup

(p.s, the concept of hell and purgatory aren't one and the same, so don't worry, there is still hope for you yet. In fact, if you look at the modern definition of purgatory, as any temporary place or condition of suffering or torment, then we're all already there...:yh_eyebro)

[Singh-Song]

Bryn Mawr;1446192 wrote: Not in the slightest - my life has value but that value is by no means infinite which it would have to be for it to be held sacred


Not everything has to be considered infinite to be considered sacred by those who worship them. Pantheistic faiths, ancestor worshippers and hardcore Justin Bieber fans (aka 'Beliebers' :yh_eyerol) serve as clear examples of this.

Bryn Mawr;1446192 wrote: There are people from all branches of thought who's minds have ossified - that is a deficiency of the person, not the ideas that they hold.


I wholeheartedly agree with you on this point. However, some people fail to realise that this deficiency isn't a fundamental flaw of all those who practice religion, but one which is shared by some members of every branch of human thought, regardless of these individuals' religious stance.



Bryn Mawr;1446192 wrote: Whilst I'd disagree with your use of "religiously adhere", that's pretty much where I was getting to.


Fair enough. I just felt it was the most fitting descriptor of extremists' attitudes.

[Bryn Mawr]

Singh-Song;1446196 wrote: Not everything has to be considered infinite to be considered sacred by those who worship them. Pantheistic faiths, ancestor worshippers and hardcore Justin Bieber fans (aka 'Beliebers' :yh_eyerol) serve as clear examples of this.




Then, in this specific instance, tell me what makes existence "sacred" to "anyone with a purpose in life".

My life has a measurable value - why should I consider it "sacred"?

[Singh-Song]

Bryn Mawr;1446199 wrote: Then, in this specific instance, tell me what makes existence "sacred" to "anyone with a purpose in life".

My life has a measurable value - why should I consider it "sacred"?


Have you ever heard people state that they 'treat their body like a temple'? These are the kinds of people who can be said to consider themselves, and by extension their lives, as being sacred.

[Bryn Mawr]

Singh-Song;1446201 wrote: Have you ever heard people state that they 'treat their body like a temple'? These are the kinds of people who can be said to consider themselves, and by extension their lives, as being sacred.


:yh_rotfl

Taking a phrase, generally used tongue in cheek, totally out of context does not prove anything.

That a very small percentage of people abuse the English language does not show a sacred nature to "anyone with a purpose in life".

Try again

[Singh-Song]

Bryn Mawr;1446204 wrote: :yh_rotfl

Taking a phrase, generally used tongue in cheek, totally out of context does not prove anything.

That a very small percentage of people abuse the English language does not show a sacred nature to "anyone with a purpose in life".

Try again


O.K, kind of rushed that point without thinking it through... But if your life does indeed have a measurable value to you, what do you consider that value to be to be? Can you quantify it? And if not, then for all intents and purposes, that value has to be deemed infinite.

[Bryn Mawr]

Singh-Song;1446205 wrote: O.K, kind of rushed that point without thinking it through... But if your life does indeed have a measurable value to you, what do you consider that value to be to be? Can you quantify it? And if not, then for all intents and purposes, that value has to be deemed infinite.


I can definitely quantify it in relative terms and no way is it infinite. I can think of several situations any one of which I would gladly give my life to prevent if giving my life was the only way of preventing it.

For your life to be deemed infinite you must be able to say that you would do anything and go to any lengths to preserve it - you have to say that you would stand by and watch your nearest and dearest die without lifting a finger if intervening would put your life in any form of danger. I would not say that and I do not think that any sane person would.

Anything short of that and the value is no longer infinite.

[Singh-Song]

Bryn Mawr;1446218 wrote: I can definitely quantify it in relative terms and no way is it infinite. I can think of several situations any one of which I would gladly give my life to prevent if giving my life was the only way of preventing it.

For your life to be deemed infinite you must be able to say that you would do anything and go to any lengths to preserve it - you have to say that you would stand by and watch your nearest and dearest die without lifting a finger if intervening would put your life in any form of danger. I would not say that and I do not think that any sane person would.

Anything short of that and the value is no longer infinite.


I can also think of several situations where I would be willing to pay the price of my own life. No human life should be valued more highly than any other, either our own or anyone else's. But how many people would actually be willing to sacrifice their own life for another unknown individual? Most would claim to value their loved ones' lives above their own, but we only love the people we love because of their place within the context of our own lives. Our relationships with these people we would be willing to sacrifice ourselves for in a heartbeat are the aspects of our lives which we value above all else- even the continuation of life itself, because life without these individuals would become meaningless to us.

And even for those absolutely selfish people who would value their own life above all else, it has to be accepted as a fact of life that any action or inaction carries an inherent risk of death. Breathing, not breathing, moving, not moving... Increasing that risk slightly to intervene when someone else is in a position where death looks to be an absolute certainty isn't the same thing as valuing their life above your own. To put yourself in a position where imminent death is inevitable to save someone else from the same fate is; and while there are a fair few selfless people in this world who would be willing to do so, the sad reality is that most people wouldn't deem this to be a sane course of action.