OP, I'll come back and deal with you when I'm done with two of your religious colleagues, one of whom though he claims to be a christian, doesn't even read his bible.
I just wish others won't finish you off by the time I come back.

hahn:


How can one then believe in something unseen? Aside from what we've been told over the years to accept what we can't see as faith.

Does this differ from gullibility?

nobilis:
OP, I'll come back and deal with you when I'm done with two of your religious colleagues, one of whom though he claims to be a christian, doesn't even read his bible.
I just wish others won't finish you off by the time I come back.

Don't bother. I am not interested in ranters.

davien:
Does this differ from gullibility?

Apparently not

hahn:


Apparently not

So how can you tell when you're being misled if you just follow orders like an automaton?

sinequanon:


Don't bother. I am not interested in ranters.

Lol.
Christian noisemakers.
What did your bible book of proverbs say about empty vessels?
Something about them making the loudest noise, right?

I'm not even going to talk about ur other posts on this thread yet.
Take a look at your first post and show me where the sense in all you've written is?

Comparing atheism and materialism?
And you call that wisdom?
And you really feel you're a logician, spewing forth rubbish from your electronic device all in the name of logic?

Shallow self-glorification is all you seek.
You just wanna open a thread for the sake of opening a thread.
I suggest you go and do a lot of introspection and gather more knowledge before you disgrace yourself in public.
What did your bible book of proverbs say about wisdom?
Ciao!!!
I don't think I'll partake of this shallowness.
Kay17 alone can totally deal with you. I leave you to him.

sinequanon:


You seem to have a habit of missing out key phrases and changing the emphasis. I've added it back in, in square brackets (and corrected my typo! )

I wouldn't argue it, even if there were a "general" definition, which I doubt.

What is your definition of religion in its basic form?



I am not religious, by my definition, because I don't have loyalty to any rules or standards.

That's a good question, actually. I think I need to add "loyalty" to my definition, because there are things that I do "religiously", i.e as a matter of routine. I think that is more a matter of laziness and that I should aim to scrutinize all aspects of my life.

I didn't mean to be deceptive. I took it as a given that whatever definition adopted for religion is the most basic to cover 'most' religions possible.

An ethical code is a collection of rules and standard of conduct, same with laws; but it is impossible to conceive laws and ethics as a religion. I on the other hand define religion as a belief system and a subculture built around supernatural truth with a mass appeal.

This explains the common appearance of Gods, and surreal locations, duties etc. And these have be organized as a way of life. Also serves as an existential framework within which the masses live in.

I believe ethical codes often find a grounding in religions. Fore example, christians and muslims strictly follow their ethical codes for the fear of divine punishment. Some people believe in Karma, which operates as serving their deeds against them.

This is why I don't think atheism can count as a religion for the very lack of a positive supernatural element. Although it denies the supernatural, which some can count as a supernatural element; but I see it as absent.

Kay17:
...but it is impossible to conceive laws and ethics as a religion.

That is where we have to agree to disagree.

Kay17:
I on the other hand define religion as a belief system and a subculture built around supernatural truth with a mass appeal.

We have discussed this circularity before.

"Supernatural" simply refers to things that don't conform to materialism. You can't just "label your way out" of materialism being a religion.

We have exhausted this branch of the discussion, and you clearly see nothing circular (or don't care if it is circular). So there is nothing more to say about it, except that we disagree.

sinequanon:


Many atheists, I said.

That's right. I had it in mind.

We have yet to find one on this forum who doesn't.

...

I think that most of them are in a transitional state, trying to escape religion, but haven't found a way. They imagine that they have, though, and celebrate by bashing religion. When you point out that their form of atheism is a religion and they are indulging in self-loathing, they go ballistic.

I see it now. Some atheists hate their religion because they hate all religion.

I think that certain aspects of religion merit a good bashing. I think the right person to do the bashing is every person, religious or otherwise. I don't know if you're advocating for an end to the bashing, or for an end to the bashing by some atheists (the ones you say are religious). Either way, I say let it continue.

I don't see how preference for a materialist explanation of reality amounts to a belief that can result in religion.

undercat:
I think that certain aspects of religion merit a good bashing.

LOL. That gave me a good chuckle.

undercat:
I think the right person to do the bashing is every person, religious or otherwise.

I have no issue with folk who choose religion for themselves. Those who try to impose religion on other folk, will do a good job of bashing, and being bashed by, their zealot counterparts in other religions.

I am interested in human psychology, so I ask questions about religion, and call it as I see it. It is incidental if it turns out as bashing aspects of religion. I'd rather develop the confidence in my own outlook, than wallow in insecurity and go around begging or fighting with people to change their own beliefs.

undercat:
I don't know if you're advocating for an end to the bashing, or for an end to the bashing by some atheists (the ones you say are religious). Either way, I say let it continue.

My hand no dey. It can/will continue.

undercat:
I don't see how preference for a materialist explanation of reality amounts to a belief that can result in religion.

I've explained my position. I take it that you are just letting me know that you disagree, which is fine by me.

nobilis:


Lol.
Christian noisemakers.
What did your bible book of proverbs say about empty vessels?
Something about them making the loudest noise, right?

Haven't you heard? This one is special. He doesn't believe in God, who he calls a subjective assumption, AND he also doesn't believe in the method that atheists use to arrive at the EXACT SAME conclusion.

He insists that the determination can only be made using an experiment which doesn't involve materials in the known universe.

Materialist experiments are biased, you see. They can only yield materialist conclusions.

But he was able to overcome this problem himself, after carefully observing things that are "not materials" somehow.

This is someone who is typing using either a smartphone or a computer. When you think you've seen it all, mother Nature never ceases to produce even more amazement.

A bit of humor, from the old Lady, no doubt.

sinequanon:


That is where we have to agree to disagree.



We have discussed this circularity before.

"Supernatural" simply refers to things that don't conform to materialism. You can't just "label your way out" of materialism being a religion.

We have exhausted this branch of the discussion, and you clearly see nothing circular (or don't care if it is circular). So there is nothing more to say about it, except that we disagree.

Before we agree to disagree, you must realize you at least follow secular laws of the land, and therefore qualified in your words as a religious individual. I know it is an awkward conclusion.

Materialism if you do realize is a very narrow perception. It is the belief in paramount nature of matter. That matter is all there is. I think it is a metaphysical declaration which I am not fit to make. Hence my surprise whenever you label everyone you meet on nairaland a materialist. Materialism cannot stand as the direct opposite to supernatural, because materialism only captures a small part of our reality, whereas supernatural projects a 'world beyond ours'. Supernatural suggests an outside reality beyond our reality.

I have noticed you keep using the word 'religion' consistently despite the immense dispute over its meaning. It does not help matters.

Kay17:
Before we agree to disagree, you must realize you at least follow secular laws of the land, and therefore qualified in your words as a religious individual. I know it is an awkward conclusion.

No. I am talking about willingly following, i.e without dissent. I break laws I don't agree with, just like most people. I willingly follow what I agree with. And I reluctantly follow or break the rest. That is not loyalty to the laws of the land.

Kay17:
Hence my surprise whenever you label everyone you meet on nairaland a materialist.

I assume that is a typo, and you really meant "anyone".

Kay17:
Materialism cannot stand as the direct opposite to supernatural, because materialism only captures a small part of our reality, whereas supernatural projects a 'world beyond ours'. Supernatural suggests an outside reality beyond our reality.

You see? Your description of "supernatural" is wishy-washy arm-waving!

Your latest trick is to hide "materialist world" by describing it as "our" world.

Christians can just as easily define "our world" as including their heaven and their hell and their god.

Kay17:
I have noticed you keep using the word 'religion' consistently despite the immense dispute over its meaning. It does not help matters.

Then just refer to my description of what I mean instead of quibbling over the label.

sinequanon:


No. I am talking about willingly following, i.e without dissent. I break laws I don't agree with, just like most people. I willingly follow what I agree with. And I reluctantly follow or break the rest. That is not loyalty to the laws of the land.



I assume that is a typo, and you really meant "anyone".



You see? Your description of "supernatural" is wishy-washy arm-waving!

Your latest trick is to hide "materialist world" by describing it as "our" world.

Christians can just as easily define "our world" as including their heaven and their hell and their god.



Then just refer to my description of what I mean instead of quibbling over the label.

And in respect of your ethical convictions? Why do you think they are not religious? Don't you follow them loyally? I was testing my luck with sarcasm by using 'everyone'.

My use of reality was not limited or exclusive to matter. So you cannot make that accusation that there is a hidden materialist world.

Kay17:


And in respect of your ethical convictions? Why do you think they are not religious? Don't you follow them loyally?

Because I recognize them as a choice, and a choice for me rather than some universal truth.

Kay17:
My use of reality was not limited or exclusive to matter. So you cannot make that accusation that there is a hidden materialist world.

I will because your use of the term "our world" is a cop out, as I explained. It is wishy-washy. A Christian could use the same term and mean something entirely different, unless you are saying that heaven and hell are part of your "non-supernatural" world.

sinequanon:


Because I recognize them as a choice, and a choice for me rather than some universal truth.



I will because your use of the term "our world" is a cop out, as I explained. It is wishy-washy. A Christian could use the same term and mean something entirely different, unless you are saying that heaven and hell are part of your "non-supernatural" world.

So to you, a religion is a set of rules and standards which are involuntarily followed loyally with the regard that they are universal truths.

What do you think supernatural means, I have exhausted my own definition.

Kay17:


So to you, a religion is a set of rules and standards which are involuntarily followed loyally with the regard that they are universal truths.

It doesn't have to be involuntary, or regarded as universal.

Kay17:
What do you think supernatural means, I have exhausted my own definition.

Something that cannot be scrutinized or explained by the materialistic and naturalistic ASSUMPTIONS of science.

i.e it is not controllable in the sense of having a predictable, reproducible, repeatable cause and effect, or being a combination of such elements.

sinequanon:


It doesn't have to be involuntary, or regarded as universal.



Something that cannot be scrutinized or explained by the materialistic and naturalistic ASSUMPTIONS of science.

i.e it is not controllable in the sense of having a predictable, reproducible, repeatable cause and effect, or being a combination of such elements.

But there is a thin line between your carefully chosen ethical rules and everyone's religion. What exactly is the distinguishing factor?

What if we come across matter such as dark matter that contradicts all the assumptions science makes? Does that matter despite being matter become supernatural?

Kay17:


But there is a thin line between your carefully chosen ethical rules and everyone's religion. What exactly is the distinguishing factor?

Loyalty, as I said.

I don't follow rules out of loyalty to any idea, group or authority.

Kay17:
What if we come across matter such as dark matter that contradicts all the assumptions science makes? Does that matter despite being matter become supernatural?

Dark matter isn't considered by scientists to contradict all the assumptions that science makes.

sinequanon:


Loyalty, as I said.

I don't follow rules out of loyalty to any idea, group or authority.



Dark matter isn't considered by scientists to contradict all the assumptions that science makes.

WHAT IF

Kay17:


WHAT IF

This is a contradiction.

How does science identify something that contradicts all its assumptions?

Science can hypothesize the existence of something. It can search for that thing indefinitely. But, if science finds a way to identify it, then it couldn't have contradicted all the assumptions in science. The scientific way of identifying something must be (predictable, repeatable, reproducible etc.)

sinequanon:


This is a contradiction.

How does science identify something that contradicts all its assumptions?

Science can hypothesize the existence of something. It can search for that thing indefinitely. But, if science finds a way to identify it, then it couldn't have contradicted all the assumptions in science. The scientific way of identifying something must be (predictable, repeatable, reproducible etc.)

Why not. Assumptions are not always rock solid - as you have spent a good deal saying - they can be inconsistent when confronted by reality. So if science does find matter to be after all contrary to all the assumptions projected onto it, to be non repeatable, unpredictable, etc; wouldn't it qualify as supernatural?

And you have based the concept of supernatural around the lens of science not the things-in-themselves.

Kay17:


Why not. Assumptions are not always rock solid - as you have spent a good deal saying - they can be inconsistent when confronted by reality So if science does find matter to be after all contrary to all the assumptions projected onto it, to be non repeatable, unpredictable, etc; wouldn't it qualify as supernatural?

This is a non sequitur. You have switched from talking about dark matter to talking about matter in general.

And which would come first, changing the current assumptions of science or somehow identifying something that contradicts all the assumptions of science?

Kay17:
And you have based the concept of supernatural around the lens of science not the things-in-themselves.

Yes, because every definition I have seen boils down to that -- most in a very convoluted and long-winded way.

Weah96:


Haven't you heard? This one is special. He doesn't believe in God, who he calls a subjective assumption, AND he also doesn't believe in the method that atheists use to arrive at the EXACT SAME conclusion.

He insists that the determination can only be made using an experiment which doesn't involve materials in the known universe.

Materialist experiments are biased, you see. They can only yield materialist conclusions.

But he was able to overcome this problem himself, after carefully observing things that are "not materials" somehow.

This is someone who is typing using either a smartphone or a computer. When you think you've seen it all, mother Nature never ceases to produce even more amazement.

A bit of humor, from the old Lady, no doubt.

Lol.
This is sarcasm at its best.
Seriously after going through all his "postulations" (for lack of a better word) a second time, I don't even know where to start responding from. That was why I left him for Kay17 who seemed to be understanding his rantings.

I don't think I'll ever doubt again when I'm told that there are different kinds of madness because, obviously, this guy in question has more than 5 kinds plaguing him.

sinequanon:


This is a non sequitur. You have switched from talking about dark matter to talking about matter in general.

And which would come first, changing the current assumptions of science or somehow identifying something that contradicts all the assumptions of science?



Yes, because every definition I have seen boils down to that -- most in a very convoluted and long-winded way.

Sinequanon, I am asking WHAT IF not making a direct assertion. Dark Matter is mysterious and could contradict the preexisting assumptions. Focus on the aim of the question, what becomes of matter which goes against preexisting assumptions? Wouldn't it become supernatural by your view?

Kay17:


Sinequanon, I am asking WHAT IF not making a direct assertion. Dark Matter is mysterious and could contradict the preexisting assumptions. Focus on the aim of the question, what becomes of matter which goes against preexisting assumptions? Wouldn't it become supernatural by your view?

Dark Matter is currently only HYPOTHESIZED.

I am talking about your WHAT IF scenario. I am asking you WHICH COMES FIRST in your WHAT IF scenario.

Does dark matter become IDENTIFIED

OR

Do do they change the basic (repeatable, reproducible, predictable, cause and effect) assumptions of science?

Clarify your scenario so that I can address your question.

sinequanon:


Dark Matter is currently only HYPOTHESIZED.

I am talking about your WHAT IF scenario. I am asking you WHICH COMES FIRST in your WHAT IF scenario.

Does dark matter become IDENTIFIED

OR

Do do they change the basic (repeatable, reproducible, predictable, cause and effect) assumptions of science?

Clarify your scenario so that I can address your question.

Dark Matter being detected/identified.

Kay17:


Dark Matter being detected/identified.

So it is detected and identified with the current assumptions, which means it has some attributes which are predictable, reproducible, repeatable etc.

So how can it contradict all the basic assumptions of science?

sinequanon:


So it is detected and identified with the current assumptions, which means it has some attributes which are predictable, reproducible, repeatable etc.

So how can it contradict all the basic assumptions of science?

The assumptions only suggest the expectations from the phenomena. It does not dictate how the phenomena behaves.

Kay17:



The assumptions only suggest the expectations from the phenomena. It does not dictate how the phenomena behaves.

You haven't answered the question. I didn't say the assumptions dictate how the phenomenon behaves.

So it is detected and identified with the current assumptions, which means it has some attributes which are predictable, reproducible, repeatable etc.

Do you agree with this?

sinequanon:


You haven't answered the question. I didn't say the assumptions dictate how the phenomenon behaves.

So it is detected and identified with the current assumptions, which means it has some attributes which are predictable, reproducible, repeatable etc.

Do you agree with this?

No, it is detected but the assumptions become patently inadequate to properly explain the phenomena. So it is not clearly predictable, reproducible etc or not at all.

gatiano:
don't mind them, especially the wannabe black too religious person claiming to be atheists, to them it is prestigious and it kind of give them a sense of little intelligence when infact they are looking for breakfast, lunch and dinner. their master the satanists(whiteman) who also claim to be atheist just to fool the black sheep is acting to be one but he isn't an atheist. He has jorneyed through out the earth and outside the earth, the only thing he keeps finding is non other than GOD. Why won't this white devils just accept GOD, they can't, it is impossible for them to submit to GOD, HE IS A BLACKMAN.

How deluded can you be, sir? Do you really believe this piffle you typed?