Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I cant view the link in the UK.

Can someone tell me what the this Bill O'Reilly is saying.

If its "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship with God" or something similar then he is correct, but such a comment is not for secular understanding, as the words 'religion' and 'religious' have different meanings dependent on context. In some circles it's an insult to call a Christian 'religious'.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

If its "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship with God" or something similar then he is correct, but such a comment is not for secular understanding, as the words 'religion' and 'religious' have different meanings dependent on context. In some circles it's an insult to call a Christian 'religious'.

In some circles it is insulting to call a fat man a fat man, but that doesn't make said man thin.

Different meaning, same spelling. Like many words 'religion' has different meanings in different contexts. More accurately there is a more refined meaning of religion that proper defines spirituality. I would explain, but from past record don't think you are listening.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Different meaning, same spelling. Like many words 'religion' has different meanings in different contexts. More accurately there is a more refined meaning of religion that proper defines spirituality. I would explain, but from past record don't think you are listening.

The idea that religion X does not see itself as a religion is not new. The faithful generally do not want to believe they are like others, they want to be exceptional. Not religious, but in a relationship with God*.

Few things regarding 'religion' are new. This concept however is specifically New Testament thinking, it was new then, though again not unique. it is however the only major western Religion to think this way. Ritual is of formal importance to Islam and judaism. Eastern relgions are more loose but all have an element of core ritual for proper practice. Christianity as intended was not a 'religion' the formal church came later. Jewsclaim a reltionship with God, but Judaism was always a religion. Christianity originally wasn't, it was a faith concept and message without common ritual.

There are only two rituals in Christianity. Baptism, to be performed once, in a variety of circumstances; so can be passed off as an event. The second, Communion, which is as informal as it gets and literaly requests the faithful to remember Jesus when they eat and not at any set time or frequency.
Everything else is a religious trapping and not core Christianity. Allowing for Jesus' own lifestyle.

 dogma wrote:

*That is religious behavior.

Actually it isn't. There are two definitions of religion right there. one is a secular catch-all, the other describes the difference in processes. Religious behaviour means adherence to the trappings of a religion, when properly applied (in other words in theory for most) Christianity has no trappings. Religion per se is determined by its doctrines and trappings, not by its faith. Faith is somewhat separate, and need to have any religious connotations at all.

Consequently there are two different definitions of religion, the colloquial one by which any faith group is refered to as a religion and secondly more accurately by the methodologies of applied faith. As Christians are encouraged to be worldly wise most will refer to themselves as 'religious' even if they personally try to actively avoid religion as part of their 'walk with God'. This is due to transparency as unless explained it is best for a Christian trying not to be relgious to say they are, as the deeper explanation might be ignored in favour of believing the person concerned is denying their faith.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Few things regarding 'religion' are new. This concept however is specifically New Testament thinking, it was new then, though again not unique.

I honestly have no idea what you're on about. You connote the word 'religion', saying that few things regarding it are new, and appell the word 'unique' without having used it prior?

I have to assume that you're trolling me.

Fair enough that you admit to not understanding thats a start. Just because the subtlties of the subject matter elude you doesn't mean anyone is trolling. maybe your understanding is deficient.

 Orlanth wrote:

Consequently there are two different definitions of religion, the colloquial one by which any faith group is refered to as a religion and secondly more accurately by the methodologies of applied faith.

That is not the colloquial definition of 'religion'. That is the definition of religion adhered to by a British man that desperately wants atheism to be equivalent to Christianity.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

That proves it, you are confused and starting to troll.

Indeed I am confused. I openly stated that the argument you are making is nonsensical to a degree which strikes me as willful. I touched specifically on your incongruent usage of the terms "new" and "unique" as they relate to concepts.

This is because you are a troll. The argument is clear enough you just prefer to assume it isn't because it bypasses the need to construct a rational counter-argument.

 dogma wrote:

While my second statement was needlessly confrontational I made it due to our past discussions, and the resultant lack of confidence I have in your ability to clearly define what religion is.

I have been clear enough.

 dogma wrote:

It is material to this conversation because I'm somewhat flabbergasted by the mental gymnastics one must go through in order to regard Christianity as not being a religion, but atheism as being one.

The mental gymnastics you needs is called 'clear thinking'. Its quite simple.

First you have to understand I never claimed atheism to be a religion, I claimed it to be a religious preference and a faith choice. I should not be suprised that despite several conversations you refuse to acknowledge what was written. Note that I dont expect you to agree with it, just to properly represent it.

Second by looking at the two definitions of religion Christianity clearly falls into one category but on inspection doesnt necessarily, or better put - ought not to fall into the second.

 dogma wrote:

No, I assessed your argument and found it unclear, no assumption was made. I made this assessment because you have not produced a definition of "religion" that excludes nominal Christian behavior.

What is known as the 'walk with God' is outside religion. Religion is a set of procedures by which a formalised faith choice is expressed. Pure Christianity, for want of a better term relies instead on an informal relationship. It is possible, even ideal to rely on that rather than any form of religious expression. A good analogy would be to see God as a friend, you don't need any ritual to see your friends, you just do.
Now under the casual definition of religion, this is "religious" behaviour simply because it involves God. Under an technical definition "religion" has nothing to do with it. No set prayers or actions or rituals are needed to converse with the God if touched by the Holy Spirit and they are instead seen as a distraction, even poor theology.

 dogma wrote:

As regards counter-arguments: How am I to oppose an interlocutor claiming that Christianity has no trappings?

Christianity can be followed without trappings. There are strong arguments that it was always intended to, especially looking at the loves of Jesus and his contemporaries.

 dogma wrote:

Formal ritual is not the only form of outwardly displaying Christian faith.

Under a technical definition of religion, displaying faith is not religion, the intended goal regarding what is to be displayed is 'fruit of the spirit' . The 'good fruit' is a series of virtues gained, not tenets to be obeyed.


Now onto this one.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

First you have to understand I never claimed atheism to be a religion, I claimed it to be a religious preference and a faith choice.

Not only do I remember you doing exactly that, but a quick forum search confirms my memory.

 Orlanth wrote:
Atheism is a religion in its own right, ultimately a faith of no-God.

Helps to quote in context.

 Orlanth wrote:

This is one of the most dangerous fallacies that have arisen regarding atheism: the belief that atheism will end 'relgious' fundamentalist violence and killing. Atheism is a religion in its own right, ultimately a faith of no-God. Many are atheists through non practice, others form large communions, often armed hostile, thoroughly dogmatic and under a red flag. An abolition of religion, not that it could occur, would not far from free man from religious terror, it would change the name of the God for which people are made to suffer from a particular named diety to the concept of no-God. Especially as an abolition of religion would most likely take place under an atheistic faith based society such as much of the world suffered under for much of the twentieth century.

Singular error, I even missed your reply (on same page) so I didn't challenge, comment or correct it. In every other occurance I said what I meant, that atheism is a religious preference, not as religion per se. I can quote numerous times I said that. Its as easy to find under a search as what you just found.

This fits in with the context above, in which atheism is a religious preference and has the possibility of being as dangerous as any other religious preference. I shouldn't have to apologise for the confusion as the correct viewpoint has been issued often enough, to the point that I was unaware that the proofreading error had occurred. However I will do so anyway as the error was made. I amend my above comment to "First you have to understand I never knowingly claimed atheism to be a religion, I claimed it to be a religious preference and a faith choice."
Remember that internet posts are more akin to speech than prose, quickly typed and sent.

Here are examples of my consistency of viewpoint, with links:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/quote/60/4063958.page

 Orlanth wrote:

A 'religion', no, a 'faith choice' or 'religious preference', certainly.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/270/454124.page#4379111

Orlanth wrote:
That means you're religious. - Actually no. Consistently throughout the thread I mentioned that atheism isn't a religion per se, but it should be categorised with others forms of religious preference because atheism is a faith choice and those that follow that faith choice are as susceptible to fundamentalism and extremism as any other.

 dogma wrote:

I'll also make note of the fact that you couldn't mount an objection without using the word "religious".

Didn't, not couldn't. Besides what is your point here?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

First you have to understand I never claimed atheism to be a religion, I claimed it to be a religious preference and a faith choice.

Nope, sorry. Most people who are atheist happen to be functionally atheist, in that the idea of god just doesn't factor into their everyday life.

Accept or reject a choice is made.

 Albatross wrote:

Children are born functionally atheist - it isn't a choice.

There is an argument that very young children are in fact spiritually aware. I certainly was, I remember conversations with God as a baby before I was introduced to religion in any way. This phenonema is not limited to me,

 Albatross wrote:

Even for those of us who consider the concept of god/s and reject it, it isn't a 'choice' to not have religious faith. I don't have religious faith because I don't swallow the mythology, not because I choose not to. I just don't believe.

Why dont you believe? Any possible answer indicates a choice made.

 Albatross wrote:

And frankly, as an atheist, I'm getting fairly sick of people like you telling me what I am and getting it spectacularly wrong. We are not in the same boat - you have religious faith, I do not. I can accept that, but you seem to have a problem with it.

Actually I am just close to the truth here. I don't have a problem with faith choices, you do. You wish it wasn't there against all logic.
Can you honestly say you never made a choice not to believe in a religion? You might of only if completely unaware of the concept.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Christianity can be followed without trappings.

So you believe in sola fide, and can further note how one can have faith and not behave as though one has faith?

That is not sola fide. I am refering to the concept of living by 'faith' as in living with a faith relationship with God.
The doctrine of sola fide 'faith alone' means that righteousness is granted by justification before God through faith, and is not influenced by human works. A completely different concept.

Christianity has plenty of subtle differences like this. Just as the concept of religion has multiple meanings and definitions wirthin the Christian paradigm. As we see here so does the concept of living by faith.

BTW. I had to look up sola fide, as while I was adequately taught the concepts it was under the title of 'Justification by Faith', most modern denominations feel no need to give every concept a Latin title, so while the doctrine was familiar to me the Latin name was not.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Helps to quote in context.

The context doesn't change your statement.

Actually, as I wrote it I can definitively and with consistency say that was not what was meant by the comment. As my posts are often long they are typed quickly. Sometimes an error evades my proofreading before I press send.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Singular error, I even missed your reply (on same page) so I didn't challenge, comment or correct it. In every other occurance I said what I meant, that atheism is a religious preference, not as religion per se.

What distinguishes a religion from a religious preference?

We can use atheism and agnosticism as examples.

Say you take an agnostic/ or atheist who deplores organised religion and has no religion, but may have made a religious preference by choosing 'no religion' or by honouring God outside of religion.
You could also make a case that someone who makes up thier own religion, doesn't follow any set religion but has a religious preference.

This can be most easily described as a simple dataset. Not which religion is followed but, "How many Gods do you worship?" An atheist gets to input a number, same as anyone else. Number of Gods = 0. That number indicates a preference, you could have chosen 1 or 3-in-1, or c200million (for Hinduism). Of course this is no way to do a useful survey, it is just there for the point.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

That is not sola fide. I am refering to the concept of living by 'faith' as in living with a faith relationship with God.
The doctrine of sola fide 'faith alone' means that righteousness is granted by justification before God through faith, and is not influenced by human works. A completely different concept.

I see no distinction. If one lives with a faith relationship with God, then one is implicitly justified, regardless of works, by way of sola fide.

I'm not the only one either, sola fide is fundamental to the idea of a personal relationship with God.

Sorry, you misunderstand because both concepts include the word faith.

1. Justification by faith (sola fide) is the concept that one becomes saved and goes to heaven only because of faith in Jesus and not because of good deeds you do.
2. Living by faith means that religion is not necessary for your spiritual walk because you have come to an understanding that all the rituals are superfluous if you have a Holy Spirit based relationship with God and talk to Him.

 dogma wrote:

That isn't a religious choice. If it is, then any choice according to belief is religious.

Its a religious preference because its a choice directly related to religious principle.

So for example if you believed in aliens that choice is not religous. If you believed aliens would return to save your soul, that would be.

 dogma wrote:

This is beginning to seem like you only have a hammer, and you still have yet to answer the original question.

I am pretty sure I haven't missed out your questions, if you think I have missed one restate it here.
Hammer? My comments are mostly gentle, and I minimise offense caused, excepting only the offense some take if relgion is mentioned at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

Because:

1) Belief in god is factually false. It's just like any reasonable person would complain if 80% of the population believed that 1+1=5, or insisted on teaching flat earth theory in schools.

Care to quantify this. You make blanket denial statement like that. It sounds like: LALALA I'm not listening.

 Peregrine wrote:

2) The religious majority is busy imposing itself on everyone else who doesn't share their beliefs. For example, telling them they're going to hell, passing theocratic laws, promoting a default belief in society that to be normal you have to have religion, and anyone who doesn't is lacking in morality/decency/whatever. If religion was entirely something you did in private and kept to yourself then atheists would be a lot quieter outside of debating communities.

And secularists don't impose themselves on everyone else. Relgions effect peoples walks of life so they wish to bring it where they walk. They have no more need of closets than anyone else. if any other geroup can say this is who I am loud and proud, including secularists and atheists, why cant religious people.

Shutting other faityhgroups inclosets qwoulsnrt shut up atheists anyway, it didn't that last time under Communism. Atheists fundamentalists like a power trip like any other form of religious fundamentalist.

The idea thart we will all get along in a rational post religious world is a myth, what we get is Maoism, Stalinism, Pol Pot or the horrors of Revolutionary France.
Sure not all atheists are like that, neither are those you hate. but this is what happens under an atheist pseudo-theocracy, and if you dont persecute with an iron fist you wont get ridf of relgion. Unless you think you will "educate" it away, which doesn't work unless you mean indoctrinate rather than educate as there are plenty of educated people who find God.

 Peregrine wrote:

Not any more than any person who wants to understand things would look into science and philosophy. If you want to get to the moon or cure a disease you get out a science textbook, not a religious text.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njpWalYduU4
When they went to the moon, the astronauts took their faith with them.

 Peregrine wrote:

No more than any religious believer has to. For example, just look at pretty much any ethical debate in society right now and you'll find christians quoting bible verses to support both sides of the debate. You clearly can't make your moral decisions based entirely on your religious text, so you have to have your own independently-justified sense of morality to tell you what parts of the religious text are the sacred word of god, and which parts are translation errors/advice for a different time and place/etc.

Actually we are taught to let the Holy Spirit guide us while reading th bible. All parts are relevant somehow, what isrelevant to the time depends on thr time and situation.

(I suspect other religions do it too, but christianity is the loudest majority around here.)

 Peregrine wrote:

Also, you have to believe that what the scientists are telling you is true. I mean you beleive in other galaxies right? Well what if the laws of light as we know them now are actually different once you go beyond our solar system.

That's such absolute nonsense that it's bordering on delusional. If you genuinely believe that the laws of light are magically different then you have serious problems and should seek professional help.

That is harsh, poorly explained - fair enough, delusional - no. You aren't qualified to say. Light is affected by gravity we account for that for such things as gravitational lensing. It is not unreasonable that we will get clearer images of the cosmos by leaving the Solar System, the picture will be clearer detail lost to us now might be revealed but I would be suprised if our viewpoint was radically altered.

 Peregrine wrote:


What is there to quantify? There isn't even the slightest scrap of evidence for god, therefore if we apply the same standards of truth that we apply to every other existence claim in our lives the only rational belief is that "god doesn't exist" is a true statement, and that "god exists" is a false statement on the level of "1+1=5".

The evidence is there, reams of it. What you are deliberately lacking is definitive proof, because God wants it that way. At first I thought you mistook the words proof for evidence and tried to provide evidence for you. Even to the point of testimony of someone raised from the dead, who I had also met at the start of his ministry after he was raised. However as shown by your reiteration of your mantra that there is no evidence for God doing so is futile. You deny that there is any scrap of evidence because that is your preferred dogma, showing you the evidence, as has been attempted in the past will not get past your dogma. That is not to say that the evidence doesn't exist.

 Peregrine wrote:

therefore if we apply the same standards of truth that we apply to every other existence claim in our lives the only rational belief is that "god doesn't exist" is a true statement,

This needs looking at further, not just for your befit Peregrine but mostly to help anyone who might be hoodwinked into thinking you had a valid points.

For a start a lot of what we believe in is theory without proof, sometimes theories are proved sometimes they remain elusive but believed. So even in the hard sciences there is room to believe things on the evidence even if proof is elusive, and yes there is evidence for God also (see above).
Even Richard Dawkins, though not many of his rabid disciples, admits that he has no proof God doesn't exist, he simply considers it unlikely. I can respect that opinion.

Most evidence for God is testimonial, very little is experimental. However testimonial evidence is good enough for most forms of burden of proof including in courts of law, so attempts to deny testimony as invalid are futile as testimonial evidence underpins much of our societal bond anyway.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Even to the point of testimony of someone raised from the dead, who I had also met at the start of his ministry after he was raised.

Did you watch him die, and be subsequently raised?

No I didn't, doctors did though.

 sebster wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Christianity is not a religion. It is a faith. Baptism, Catholicism, Methodism, Luthranism, etc. are religions based on the Christian faith.

You don't get to make up what words mean.

Yes we do. for example:

I am gay.

Its a true comment about myself, it means I am happy.
But I don't go around calling myself gay because the meaning of the word gay has changed, or more accurately there is now a double meaning but one meaning is far more widely understood than the other..

Religion has a double meaning, in one context Breotan is correct, in another he is incorrect. however he described which sub-context he used the word religion correctly in this case. Outside of a theological thread it would behhove him to say he is "religious" if he is a Christian out of common clarity.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Yes we do. for example:

I am gay.

Its a true comment about myself, it means I am happy.
But I don't go around calling myself gay because the meaning of the word gay has changed, or more accurately there is now a double meaning but one meaning is far more widely understood than the other..

You have established that words can change meaning, but missed that that has nothing to do with the idea that people don't get to go around changing the meanings of words whenever it helps them make their argument.

The concept that Christianity is not a religion is as old as the New Testament. Its not a dodge to reclassify religion in order to exclude Christianity.

Please understand that the early church was counter to most religion. Even when not persecuted they tended to meet in peoples houses, there is evidence of women priests at a time when female emancipation of any kind was rare. Though that has to be balanced with an understanding of the counter message in Corinthians that the organised church used to stamp out womens right for centuries.

Christianity started as a movement, only later did it become an organised cyclopean 'church'. Religion is made by politicially minded people, not faith minded people. By the early second century the church was a political organisation as religion was a shortcut to secular power.

For a modern example look at Wesley and the rise of Methodism.

 sebster wrote:

"I believe the Ferrari doesn't have a prancing horse for a logo because I think a horse is a kind of hat" is not a viable argument.

This bears no relation to what I was saying in any form of fair allegory.

 sebster wrote:

Religion has many meanings, sure. But it is a nonsense to argue that a thing isn't a religion because it doesn't meet one specific definition, especially when that definition is the most relevant to the discussion at hand. If it meets any of the definitions, it is that thing.

Actually when applied at its most elementary level Christianity doesn't have the characteristics of a religion. Religion doesn't necessary mean belief in God or faith, its wider than that and encompasses ritualism. Christianity is entirely practicable without ritual. Good example would be the thief on the cross granted salvation. He did nothing to practice religion, he spent his entire life as a "man of the faith" in a few hours under torturous execution. Jesus said he would make it to heaven anyway.

Now the vast majority of Christians practice religion, and most if not all organised denominations are clearly religious in nature, though some try not to be. This is why I personally find it safer and easier for Christians to say 'yes I am religious' and keep the deeper theology to themselves. It's not a lie to do so, but it's confusing not to.