The Morman hypothetical
- Thread starter VINYLONE
- Start date
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
This should be sufficient.
https://faculty.ircc.cc.fl.us/faculty/jlett/Article on Religion.htm
Specifically,
The author, however, disputes the use of the word "supernatural" and argues to replace it with "paranormal." In my view, it's splitting hairs, but the notion remains the same.
https://faculty.ircc.cc.fl.us/faculty/jlett/Article on Religion.htm
Specifically,
The author, however, disputes the use of the word "supernatural" and argues to replace it with "paranormal." In my view, it's splitting hairs, but the notion remains the same.
Hopper
Banned
Sufficient? For who, exactly? Academic anthropologists, ya mean? This here is a basketball message board, know what I'm sayin?
Either way, since when is one guy's explication of his thesis "sufficient?" Wouldn't three guys (such as Lessa, Vogt, and Geetz) carry more weight than one, if that's the way such things are decided?
"Those definitions, however, could logically embrace existentialism, communism, secular humanism, or other philosophies..."
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
"which most anthropologists would be reluctant to call religion."
Finish the quote.
Sufficient to explain where I come from when discussing religion. What you cropped in your reply quote is explained in the rest of the link, reduced down to irrational beliefs in paranormal (closer to common definition of "supernatural" than common definition of "paranormal"). Atheism is NOT irrational, nor is there belief in the paranormal, thus is not religion.
Finish the quote.
Sufficient to explain where I come from when discussing religion. What you cropped in your reply quote is explained in the rest of the link, reduced down to irrational beliefs in paranormal (closer to common definition of "supernatural" than common definition of "paranormal"). Atheism is NOT irrational, nor is there belief in the paranormal, thus is not religion.
Hopper
Banned
Actually, the author you cite simply says:
"Irrationality is thus the defining element in religion. Religion and science are not at odds because religion wants to be "supernatural" while science wants to be "empirical;" instead, religion and science are at odds because religion wants to be irrational (relying ultimately upon beliefs that are either nonfalsifiable or falsified)...I am aware that many anthropologists are likely to react negatively to the pejorative connotations of the word “irrational.” The term, however, is simply descriptive and therefore entirely appropriate. It is unarguably irrational to maintain a belief in an allegedly propositional claim when that claim is either propositionally meaningless or has been decisively repudiated by objective evidence.
Given that definition, would the claim that "drinkin alcohol is a sin" be a "religious" claim?
"Irrationality is thus the defining element in religion. Religion and science are not at odds because religion wants to be "supernatural" while science wants to be "empirical;" instead, religion and science are at odds because religion wants to be irrational (relying ultimately upon beliefs that are either nonfalsifiable or falsified)...I am aware that many anthropologists are likely to react negatively to the pejorative connotations of the word “irrational.” The term, however, is simply descriptive and therefore entirely appropriate. It is unarguably irrational to maintain a belief in an allegedly propositional claim when that claim is either propositionally meaningless or has been decisively repudiated by objective evidence.
Given that definition, would the claim that "drinkin alcohol is a sin" be a "religious" claim?
Hopper
Banned
Maybe you should read the author you cited before claimin that, accordin to him, "atheism is not irrational," eh, Dark? Or claimin that belief in the "paranormal" is the criterion, for that matter.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
So?
If you're going to argue the "MADD as a religion" thing, does MADD have a "distinctive symbolic expression of human life that interprets man himself and his universe, providing motives for human action, and also a group of associated acts which have survival value for the human species?"
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Hopper
Banned
Heh, best ya got, Dark? Have you read what the author you cited concludes is the "defining element" of religion?
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Both are statements that atheists wouldn't make, so what's the point?
Hopper
Banned
Webster's: Main Entry: athe·ist: one who believes that there is no deity
Looky here, Dark, I really don't care to engage in semantic quibbling witcha. If you know more about definitions and meanings than Websters, I tellya what: Take it up with they ***, eh?