It is apparent that it is not possible to set out what it is to be a religion, any more than for what it is to be a game. — Banno

Maybe what you really meant was that isn't Easy to set out what qualifies as a religion...because we already have definitions that are commonly accepted!

As with all our attempts to categorize phenomena under common characteristics we can always found some standing at the foot of every Bell Curve not really checking most of the boxes.

As I said, we already have definitions for religions and you should start by providing them and pointing out your issues with them.
Then you should point out the phenomena or concepts that you also have a trouble including them in the agreed category.
The same is true for the concept of game.

yes, this definition is horrible obviously, I posted it in hurry and didn't read all.
I'm sure with additional research a better definition could be found.

.

Most Christians would say they follow God, not a priest/pastor/prophet. If they follow a man, then they stand in opposition to the book they claim to rely on. — whollyrolling

Understandable, but I was referring to religion as an overall not Christianity as a specific example

.

What religion follows an ordinary man? — whollyrolling

An ordinary man belong to majority.
majority is ordinal.
Therefore an ordinal man follows religion that is in majority.

What is an "ordinary" man according to your thoughts? Because I am atheist, for example

.

.

consider it a joke :wink:

I think having supernatural or divine powers (whoever the entity) are vacuous characteristics. We have to understand and accept that the humans are weak and we have to suffer until our lives end

.

Your arguments and words sounds like a totalitarian person. You have to be more open minded and try to understand (or have empathy) with other views.

.

When did I dictated religious beliefs?

.

So what?

.

Bringing this back to the OPs original point, in my city there’s a secular humanist “church” that I’ve been meaning to go to and check out. They meet every week on Sunday, have music and coffee, and do events like volunteering and collecting money like a normal church.

The question is, would this be considered a religion? On the surface, secular humanism doesn’t seem to have any supernatural beliefs, but as some philosopher said, it does hold human life as “divine.” Personally, I’d consider it a religion. Mariam-Webster defines a religion as

a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

. The attitude that human life is somehow worthy of moral consideration is an institutionalized moral belief. Furthermore, I’ve read sociologists who argue humanism is simply a continuation of the Christian tradition, rooted in Christian ideas like the parable of the Good Samaritan where empathy is universalized.

As Greg Epstein said,

modern, organized Humanism began, in the minds of its founders, as nothing more nor less than a religion without a God

Unfortunately, he should have specified this to be secular humanism, because one can of course be a humanist and also a theist.

And you agreed with this, why? Was Christianity not part of the golden age of the West? — whollyrolling

I dunno, it just seems odd to call a time when genocide was the norm a "golden age".

So what? — javi2541997

:chin:

You'll find that most people aren't interested in discussing modern religions, but only the ones principally concerned with Jesus with the occasional use of Islam or Judaism as tokens/foils. I am sympathetic to the idea that secular humanism is largely just secular Christianity (in-so-far as it is principally the product of Christian culture), but I would very much agree that theism is not a requirement of religion. Focusing on communal practice/behavior is helpful when evaluating what a particular group is, but so often the conversation devolves into discussions about individuals as if religions exist on the individual level.

Humanists would have a much better go of it if people realized that they could reject beardy head without abandoning communal practices such as meaning making and belonging. Alienation as pathology to be cured by exercise and the like has come to be the only legitimate way to address the sorts of existential issues previously addressed by religion. God doesn't animate religions and never has (after all, god doesn't exist), so it is terribly odd to make God a requirement for religions. This is why, I think, that academics in the field are loathe to simply define Christianity as religion and include other "groups" in-so-far as they sufficiently resemble Christianity. Religion as a way to understand large social/communal practice (including ethics, mythology, social relations, etc.) is more useful, perhaps, than what people people here let on.

You have posted about a dozen replies that contain just a dot. I wonder why are you doing this ...
I can't think of a purpose for that is or that it is so difficult to control your posting ...
Interesting phenomenon! :smile:

I noticed too. He deleted all after a dispute. Another thread he deleted. :grin:

He deleted all after a dispute. Another thread he deleted. — Hillary

Acutally, this is "deleting", not deleting. Indeed, you cannot delete your reply even before posting it! It will be waiting for you to get posted for ever! "Dude, you shouldn't start typing ... It's too late now. You can't back off!" :grin:

(I wonder why the TPF administration likes to keep garbage in its house instead of just adding a "Delete" option ...)

Religion: Faith is the foundation of things hoped for,
and the evidence of things not seen. :up:

. — whollyrolling

:fire:

Unfortunately, he should have specified this to be secular humanism, because one can of course be a humanist and also a theist. — Paulm12

:chin:

Humanism:
noun
an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

Maybe this works for a polytheist? I can't imagine a monotheist in the Judeo-Christian tradition thinking like this. A traditional theist who values humanism over theism is a very bad theist.

Humanists would have a much better go of it if people realized that they could reject beardy head without abandoning communal practices such as meaning making and belonging. — Ennui Elucidator

We have plenty of institutions that have communal practices without reference to the divine. Corporate cultures engage in meaning making and provide a sense of belonging, so does the military. The problem is when you try to remove God from religions and still maintain that the rituals or morals are still good; it's like removing the foundation from a house and expecting it to still stand. If you remove the idea of God from Christianity or Judaism or Islam then it's basically lies and bullshit. A very extensive history of lies and bullshit. Sure you could try to salvage some of the ideas like human life having value or being nice to the poor but these ideas need to be justified on totally different foundations.

If you remove the idea of God from Christianity or Judaism or Islam then it's basically lies and bullshit. — Moses

It is tough to take comments like this seriously when there are active Jewish and Christianity communities that do just that and still find the religion worthwhile. Religion becomes aesthetics just like everything else. If it is your cup of tea, great, if not, move along. It isn’t very hard.

Your view of corporations is very on point. IBM doesn’t exist, yet it is meaning making. Strange that.

It is tough to take comments like this seriously when there are active Jewish and Christianity communities that do just that and still find the religion worthwhile. Religion becomes aesthetics just like everything else. If it is your cup of tea, great, if not, move along. It isn’t very hard. — Ennui Elucidator

One can find practicing their religion worthwhile (maybe it fits social needs), but it could still be bullshit (intellectually). I can't wrap my head around any version of Judaism or Christianity which removes God from the picture. If you remove God then the Bible goes too, but if we come to know these religions from the Bible then this Godless Judaism/Christianity seems to be basically saying "hey here's our Holy text but we don't believe in the absolute main character" - and God is definitely the main character. What are these religions central texts?

I also believe that there are worse and better ways to interpret text and the better interpretations ought to take precedent if you value intellectual honesty. Within a religious framework there are better and worse answers to questions.

EDIT: The Pentateuch is largely a life guide; if religion has been degraded to mere aesthetics then it has been degraded.