Why are we here?

Good job reading all my posts before responding to them. I'm really proud of you RBZ in jumping instantly to conclusions and then doing the exact thing I said most people did, in my posts, and confusing organized religion with religion.

You get yourself, a negative cookie.

I didn't miss shit, I just rejected your little view of religion.

You didn't miss shit? Funny, cause you were trying to attack me based on the view of organized religion. Something I hardly touched on only to differentiate between the two of them.

It's cool if you want to try and reject it. Though nothing you did what actually rejecting my view of religion. All you did was take something I hardly talked about, and wasn't even the focus of my posts to try and "make fun of me" in your attempt to reject me.

That's kind of pitiful you know.

Where?

Regardless of how vaguely I presented it, I think your calling our "own personal answers for the WHY" religion is bullshit. Not saying it's wrong, but once again, I reject it.

That's nice. You didn't give reasons why, but that's nice.

You posted an animated gif of people laughing. Gee, I wonder how I could have EVER misconstrued that you were trying to make fun of me.

Oh, and you're not suppose to post those types of things in SD you know.

And btw, you did misconstrue what I said. Because you thought I referred to atheism as a religion. I did not.

Nice try reading my mind, but you will get a religion cookie. I never for one second thought you were calling atheism a religion.

If you really need me to justify what I wrote, fine, I'll waste my time. It's word use more than anything. I tried looking for the different definitions of religion and "our own answers for the why", but nothing even resembled that. The closest I came to that was on wikipedia where they said that religion is philosophical because it offers its followers answers about metaphysics. To me, all this means is that some asshole somewhere took the idea that people have personal answers to these important questions and called it religion.

The name to that irks me. Not only that, but we already have what is commonly known as religion, why make another fucking definition for it. It's like calling pseudoscience science for short, and then explaining to people that you're not talking about the institution of science, but this other science which has dick to do with reality. I prefer a distinction without a difference, that is, same shit, different name. It's all just personal preference. So yea, I laugh at the assertion that I have a religion.

The thing is. When you attempted to define what you were talking about, you only used organized religion examples. Of course this is what most people commonly refer to AS religion. It is not the same thing as personal religion, or ones own belief. I've already stated that this is why things get so misconstrued by people.

This is an inaccurate statement. Religon =/= Organized Religion. If it was like you said, where you could equate the Organized Religion as being the same as talking about Religion, then Religion should not exist if there is no Organized Religion.

That is not the case. You can have a Religion without Organized Religion. That is a fact regardless.

The second part, would be. What is religion trying to answer?

Why would I do that? Because any idea or belief we have, IS trying to answer a question. That's the end fact.

So what is Religion trying to answer? This leads to the question, what question is it answering.

Why?

That's it. That is what we are using Religion to answer.

So if Religion is our own person answer to things. Again, not to be confused with Organized Religion, then if the question we are using to answer it is Why. Then Religion would be our own personal answer to Why?

And yes, it has strong relations to philosophy. You cannot deny that. I've already talked about that as well.

Or if you would rather have. Religion is a set of beliefs, attitudes, and principles one contains. Of course I don't really think it does it justice of what it is trying to answer which I feel is much more important when you are discussing something like this.

Oh and if you didn't think I was referring to atheism as a religion, then why did you suggest such in your original post?

But anyways. Cool story RBZ.

Something I neglected to mention is another definition of religion which is "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." So I acknowledge that religion doesn't have to be a system of beliefs or organized religion.

I already mentioned that my only problem is with the naming, so you have a pretty cool tale yourself.



Still trying to read my mind? I didn't intentionally suggest anything of the sort. That suggestion was conjured up by you.

That's from your original post boyo. That is what you are saying. Directly. So, yeah.

Your only problem is not with the naming either. If it hadn't been, you wouldn't have mentioned over half of what you said, so yeah. You can go ahead and suggest that is your only problem, but it's obviously not true.

Which was directed at imperialx.

Besides the gif, the only other thing specifically directed at you was "inb4 science is my religion" since science does provide a few answers for the why (not with metaphysical certitude, but it's good enough).

My rejection of "religion is your own personal answers for the WHY?" still has to do with the naming of it as religion, whether you believe me or not.

I think the biggest problem is that you still view religion as being determined BY the "belief in a higher power"

It doesn't require or need the higher power to have a religion. Though if you really wanted to, you could just view it philosophy. You could definitely make arguments as to whether or not religion and philosophy are the same thing, or near the same thing.

As for science being a religion. I would suggest some people do try to make it such. Though science answers HOW more than anything, and never answers WHY. Religion and Science don't answer the same questions. It's when you try to make them do so that problems occur.

I would not say you do so. Don't know you personally so couldn't say anything on that.

I would still say you have your own personal religion. I know that a lot of atheists dislike being compared to anything with the word religion in it, but it's the truth. Even the whole "There is nothing but random instances and nothing beyond that" is a religion.

Having a dislike of a word is a very bad reason to try and reject something.

No, I don't, and I never implied it did.



Since you mentioned earlier that "because any idea or belief we have, IS trying to answer a question", I felt like it just supported my initial interpretation of "religion is your own personal answers for the WHY" as any belief you have is your religion. Going by that, it seems like you would agree to the notion that any belief I have due to science is my personal religion.



And I would agree with you, provided that it only concerns "my own personal answers for the why" and nothing else. That "something" that I reject is using the word religion as a label for "my own personal answers for the why". Since religion is already commonly viewed as organized religion or defined as a system of beliefs, using religion in your context involves clarifications and having to separate the word from its colloquial meanings (and my personal dislike with having the word religion attached to me in any way because of those common meanings). I'd just replace that word. I'd even calling it something ridiculous like bloop. Bloop "is your own personal answers for the WHY?"

Science and religion are answering different questions. I already stated this and all, it was just last post. Would you like to review it?


Religion IS your own personal answers to the Why. That is the sole reason we have religion, RBZ.

If you did not question Why? You would not have religion. End of story.

Then I'd maintain I don't have a religion. My answer pertaining to metaphysical truth or "Why" would be "I don't know," which is hardly an answer at all.

You have an answer even if you like to believe you don't. For some people it's just "There is no why."

It's not like these are concrete answers. They're just our best guesses really.

I wouldn't say it's the sole reason but one of them for sure. Cuz' at the same time we view it as a model to live a life,
like people feeling out of place in the modern mainstream resort to it.

Um, using the structure that many organized religion have, is not the same thing as embracing religion.

And if you are embracing the religion, then you are embracing the beliefs and ideals it has that answer the Why?

Yes, structure and guidelines for living your life are present in many Organized Religions. But that is often a byproduct of it and not its purpose.

Sounds the same as going to school for the sole purpose of graduating from it.

Um no. It's more like going to school for developing friendships with people.

"Life is not that complicated. You get up, you go to work, eat three meals, you take one good shit and you go back to bed. What’s the fucking mystery?!"

Okay, maybe that's the simplified version, but really there's a lot of truth to this. It's missing sex/masturbation to truly be accurate. Actually, the only time I've ever deeply thought about this question is when someone asked me my opinions on it. I suppose there's no 'definitive' answer. Biologically, it's to reproduce and propagate our virus further. Anything else is pure conjecture.