[Millennium]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
One of the most stupid posts ever made on the internet and by a no less than a moderator.

I am not a moderator in this forum. Yes, I know it says I am right below my name to the left of this post, but I am only a moderator in the Developer and Web Developer forums. You can verify this yourself on the main forums.macnn.com page (and the page for the Lounge, in the case of PoliWar); you will see that I am only listed as a moderator in two places, and this is not one of them. I have no more power here than you do. This is not just an issue of self-restraint: in this forum I actually do not have access to edit or delete posts (except my own), lock threads, or anything else that you as a regular user can't access. Furthermore, I don't want that kind of access: when I was originally made a moderator I specifically asked not to moderate in the Lounge (PoliWar did not exist as a distinct forum at that time). The reason I don't want that access here is precisely so that I can be open, honest, and frank about my opinions without putting pressure on anybody else. It also helps me avoid causing an appearance of moderator bias. It is an imperfect plan, but it's the best I can do.

If you are confused by the fact that I'm called a moderator here when I don't have moderator powers, please take it up with the admins in the Feedback forum. I wish you luck in this; I don't like being seen as a moderator here any more than you do.

Having said that, would you care to elaborate on why my post was stupid? It doesn't do me much good to get such vague things as "this post sucks" without a suggestion on what made it so awful.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by nath:
Hardly. Some muslims in France for example, would claim that their religion is already being banned, in schools. Whilst I agree with that policy, they have a point.

Their religion has not been banned. In fact, many Muslim women welcomed the headscarf ruling. It wasn't a move against Islam but against opppressive patriarchal traditions that many Muslims, especially women, don't care for or see as necassary in order to believe in their religion. Those who argued their religion was being banned were the same people who go around handing out pamphlets calling for Salman Rushdie to be killed or that Jews rule the world and drink blood.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I am not a moderator in this forum. Yes, I know it says I am right below my name to the left of this post, but I am only a moderator in the Developer and Web Developer forums.

Thanks for the clarification, Millennium. Even if you're not a mod on this part of the MacNN forums you should be responsible enough as part of MacNN's staff as not to incite conspiracy theories with uneducated opinions. That's not a slight against your person but the words that came forth from you that looked as if they hasn't had much thought or experience behind them.

[demograph68]

Originally posted by budster101:
Atheism does qualify as an organized religion.

Really?

[nath]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
Their religion has not been banned. In fact, many Muslim women welcomed the headscarf ruling. It wasn't a move against Islam but against opppressive patriarchal traditions that many Muslims, especially women, don't care for or see as necassary in order to believe in their religion.

And there are women who DO want to wear a headscarf, and consider it part of their religion, without patriarchal pressure. Don't be so simplistic.

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
Those who argued their religion was being banned were the same people who go around handing out pamphlets calling for Salman Rushdie to be killed or that Jews rule the world and drink blood.

Nurse! The screens!

[Millennium]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
In fact, many Muslim women welcomed the headscarf ruling.

According to whom? Although I don't doubt that some Muslim women welcomed this ruling, never have I heard of this occurring in large numbers. Do you have a source you can cite?

It wasn't a move against Islam but against opppressive patriarchal traditions...

Only by your definition. Mine too, admittedly, but not theirs. It should be noted that hijab -the Muslim dress code- has its own rules for men; they do not have a headscarf, perhaps, but they do have their own rules. Of course, nobody speak out against them, because they don't offend the sensibilities of people who have nothing to do with them.

...that many Muslims, especially women, don't care for or see as necassary in order to believe in their religion.

Most Muslims also see it as a necessary part of proper worship. Islam is actually pretty flexible -if you are forcibly kept from observing some tenet of faith, you are not held responsible for it- but isn't an excuse to not put up resistance.

Those who argued their religion was being banned were the same people who go around handing out pamphlets calling for Salman Rusdie to be killed or that Jews rule the world and drink blood.

Patently false. While such people did argue this, they were not the only ones who did so, not by a longshot. Most moderate Muslim groups, in France and elsewhere, were similarly outraged.

[budster101]

Originally posted by demograph68:
Really?

Of course. What, didn't anyone tell you? You must have missed that meeting.



No, really, it does.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
Thanks for the clarification, Millennium. Even if you're not a mod on this part of the MacNN forums you should be responsible enough as part of MacNN's staff as not to incite conspiracy theories with uneducated opinions.

Conspiracy theories? I mock conspiracy theories whenever I find them, usually by connecting them with EVIL ALIEN SERPENT PEOPLE. I certainly don't intend to spread them. I thought I was clear in expressing my opinion as nothing but an opinion. Should I have been clearer?

[budster101]

Found this in a little searchy of the net..

Interesting:

Posted on Sunday 6 June 2004



I was perusing SEB today (a regular downtime pastime � probably my favorite weblog to visit, even though he is a left-leaner� ) when I noticed something new. On the left-hand side of his site, right there near the top, he�s got a small �About me� area. One of the things listed there is his religion. It was, until recently, �Atheist.� Today, I noticed it�s changed to say �None (Atheist).�


This got me wondering, and now I�m mildly obsessed with the whole thing.


One of dictionary.com�s definitions of religion is �A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.� This is the only definition on that site that doesn�t involve spiritualism or belief in supernatural/higher beings.


Atheism is, obviously, defined at the same site as �The doctrine that there is no God or gods.�


I have limited internet capabilities today, so it�s difficult to get too much research done on this issue. It would seem at first glance that Atheism defies the normal definitions of religion, and in fact would be the complete opposite. However, the definition I provide above on the word religion might very well apply to atheism, depending on the strength of one�s convictions.


Throw two more strange-but-true things in the mix:
(1) The US Government recognizes Atheism as a religion.
(2) Most people who might actually fit the bill for Atheism will usually say they have �No religious preference� if asked that (For example, on military enlsitment applications).


To me, it�s actually a religion. An activity that is pursued with conscientious devotion. (�Zeal� may be a little over-the-top.) It�s akin to my techno-lust.


However, if you take this thinking far enough, just about anything is a religion� football, sex, bicycling, mexican food, you name it.


Now, my head is about to explode.

The actual link

[roberto blanco]

hmmm, i just thought about something. though immigrants might never constitute a majority of people in western (and eastern) european countries, they tend to be more "religious" (even the youth) than their indiginous counterparts.

so in about twenty years, probably only 25% of the population in these countries will be "practicing" actively, - but maybe 80-90% of those will be muslim.

so you would have 25% muslims, and 75% atheist/agnostic/spiritualist, making islam the dominant "religion" indeed.

should be interesting. i highly doubt that religion will be "outlawed" though. that would be highly unpractical (costly) and in the end, imho, counter productive (persecution factor etc.)

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by Millennium:
According to whom? Although I don't doubt that some Muslim women welcomed this ruling, never have I heard of this occurring in large numbers. Do you have a source you can cite?

Only by your definition. Mine too, admittedly, but not theirs. It should be noted that hijab -the Muslim dress code- has its own rules for men; they do not have a headscarf, perhaps, but they do have their own rules. Of course, nobody speak out against them, because they don't offend the sensibilities of people who have nothing to do with them.

Most Muslims also see it as a necessary part of proper worship. Islam is actually pretty flexible -if you are forcibly kept from observing some tenet of faith, you are not held responsible for it- but isn't an excuse to not put up resistance.

Patently false. While such people did argue this, they were not the only ones who did so, not by a longshot. Most moderate Muslim groups, in France and elsewhere, were similarly outraged.

You didn't keep track of this matter at all it appears. I read every article and view point. Use Google for crap's sake if you want opinions from women. There were even Muslim clerics who agreed with the ruling saying that just as non-Muslims should respect Islamic traditions in Muslim countries so should Muslims respect the laws of secular nations.

[demograph68]

Originally posted by budster101:
Of course. What, didn't anyone tell you? You must have missed that meeting.



No, really, it does.

What's your definition of religion?

[demograph68]

One of dictionary.com�s definitions of religion is �A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion

That doesn't make sense. "Devotion?" If I devote the act of playing on my mac then does it mean I'm part of a religion?

[roberto blanco]

Atheism is NOT a Religion


"Atheism is religion." When you hear a statement like this, it often comes form a person who has actually done little research or thinking about either Atheism or religion. Most people rarely study or investigate their own religious beliefs, assuming they have any. If they are born in a predominately Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Jewish culture, they will probably reflect the religious beliefs of that society.

Nearly every dictionary will define religion as "belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed a worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe. The definition of all other terms linked to religion employ much the same language -- church, monastery, priest. They are all part of a religious-language universe or "game" that has little to do with Atheism.

There cannot be an Atheist "Church", or an Atheist "priest" anymore than there could be an Atheist "god."

from here

[budster101]

Originally posted by budster101:
Found this in a little searchy of the net..

Interesting:



The actual link

Here you go.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by demograph68:
That doesn't make sense. "Devotion?" If I devote the act of playing on my mac then does it mean I'm part of a religion?

Yes, in a general sense, it does.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
from here

Impressive. I love the amount conviction he puts into his sermon, er, I mean article.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
You didn't keep track of this matter at all it appears. I read every article and view point. Use Google for crap's sake if you want opinions from women. There were even Muslim clerics who agreed with the ruling saying that just as non-Muslims should respect Islamic traditions in Muslim countries so should Muslims respect the laws of secular nations.

And then again, there are things like this:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C101...1242%2C00.html

A SPECIALIST Islamic court is among proposals Muslim leaders have raised with Howard Government ministers to resolve religious disputes such as divorce within Australian Muslim communities.

-- asking for special courts is really a means of instituting laws above the existing rule of law.

And you also have to recall that a number of Muslims believe that Islam is meant to be dominant over all else, that respect for secular law is only until it can be replaced by Sharia law. - Chairman of CAIR Omar M. Ahmad, told a rally of California Muslims in 1998: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
Their religion has not been banned. In fact, many Muslim women welcomed the headscarf ruling. It wasn't a move against Islam but against opppressive patriarchal traditions that many Muslims, especially women, don't care for or see as necassary in order to believe in their religion. Those who argued their religion was being banned were the same people who go around handing out pamphlets calling for Salman Rushdie to be killed or that Jews rule the world and drink blood.

What complete and utter BS.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by vmarks:
And you also have to recall that a number of Muslims believe that Islam is meant to be dominant over all else, that respect for secular law is only until it can be replaced by Sharia law. - Chairman of CAIR Omar M. Ahmad, told a rally of California Muslims in 1998: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."

What is wrong with that?

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by vmarks:
And then again, there are things like this:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C101...1242%2C00.html

A SPECIALIST Islamic court is among proposals Muslim leaders have raised with Howard Government ministers to resolve religious disputes such as divorce within Australian Muslim communities.

-- asking for special courts is really a means of instituting laws above the existing rule of law.

A cleric tried something like that in England. He asked for any criticism of Islam to be treated as racism. The judge threw out the argument stating that Islam is a religion and Muslims are not a race.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yes, in a general sense, it does.

You didn't make your comment in a general sense. In a discussion titled; "What is next for religion in Europe?", you made a statement based on an apparent definition so broad that it rendered any discussion of the original topic all but meaningless before it got off the ground because it would be built from this flawed "fundament" you laid down.
I wrote that there is no argument because the twists and linguistic artifice had already entered the discussion.
You attempt to dictate the terms of the argument but do so in such a limiting way that it reduces virtually everything to religion and religious language.
To use "sermon" as the word to describe an "explanation" or an "article" and to argue that further attempts at explanation will equal religious zeal makes your arguments petty.
Any feeling or idea of "victory" derived from an "argument" like this must surely be a hollow one. Only in your own mind was there a "victory" in a previous argument -whether a year or a decade ago- since it was also based on this same disingenuous play with words now exhibited. Orwellian word limitation doesn't give you an honest victory nor does it make for a satisfying discussion leading up to that inevitable moment of deflation.
Atheism is not the rising religion in Europe for the simple reason that by any meaningful definition, of the word religion, atheism is not a religion nor is it a faith. Neither for that matter is agnosticism a religion or a faith. Given your "profession" you must have already known that. I will continue to "believe" that because I have "faith" in my previous statement of fact. Enjoy the victory that you'll surely declare -again- shortly. Europe will remain, like the rest of the planet, the home of religious people as long as you modify the definition for religion to include every thought, idea and "belief" system. You all know the truth.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by lurkalot:
Atheism is not the rising religion in Europe for the simple reason that by any meaningful definition, of the word religion, atheism is not a religion nor is it a faith. Neither for that matter is agnosticism a religion or a faith.

As someone who describes himself as an agnostic, I think it can be argued that athiesm isn't a religion as such (providing you define religion rather narrowly).

But you cannot say that athiesm is not an expression of faith. Religion is an answer to the eternal questions: Why? and How? So is Athiesm. Athiesm is an assertion of certaintly in how the universe is structured and came into being, a subject about which there really can be no absolute proof because our human viewpoint is too limited. A firm and certain belief about something that cannot be known with certainty can only be the product of some form of faith. That it is a secular faith, and a faith without belief in the supernatural doesn't make it any less a faith.

Agnosticism can truly be called not a faith, because it denies certainty, and allows for all possibilities. If religion is the eternal questions Why? and How? then an agnostic can only answer "I don't know." There may be a Creator, or there may not be one. I haven't managed to make the leap of faith in either direction to say, thus, I call myself an agnostic (though I could call myself "Church of England" ).

As for the Pope: his life was inspiring, and his funeral this morning very moving. The world was made better by his presence, and is poorer for our loss.

[budster101]

How do you join the atheist religion? Do I have to do anything special?
What are the rules?

[demograph68]

Originally posted by budster101:
How do you join the atheist religion? Do I have to do anything special?
What are the rules?

Sacrifice three virgin MacNNers.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by budster101:
How do you join the atheist religion? Do I have to do anything special?
What are the rules?

Depends on which one you want to join. You might take a look at http://www.secularhumanism.org as one example. Or you could simply not join up with any denomination at all, as with any other faith.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
As someone who describes himself as an agnostic, I think it can be argued that athiesm isn't a religion as such (providing you define religion rather narrowly).

But you cannot say that athiesm is not an expression of faith. Religion is an answer to the eternal questions: Why? and How? So is Athiesm. Athiesm is an assertion of certaintly in how the universe is structured and came into being, a subject about which there really can be no absolute proof because our human viewpoint is too limited. A firm and certain belief about something that cannot be known with certainty can only be the product of some form of faith. That it is a secular faith, and a faith without belief in the supernatural doesn't make it any less a faith.

Agnosticism can truly be called not a faith, because it denies certainty, and allows for all possibilities. If religion is the eternal questions Why? and How? then an agnostic can only answer "I don't know." There may be a Creator, or there may not be one. I haven't managed to make the leap of faith in either direction to say, thus, I call myself an agnostic (though I could call myself "Church of England" ).

As for the Pope: his life was inspiring, and his funeral this morning very moving. The world was made better by his presence, and is poorer for our loss.

Best post in the whole thread.

I used to refer to myself as an atheist but then I realized that I wasn't out to reject all religions--which I think many atheists are--I simply acknowledged that there is no place for religion within my life. I prefer to think of myself a simply a-religious.

I acknowledge, accept, and honor those who have a religious faith and their absolute right to hold and practice their faith. Having faith and religious beliefs is simply not something I need in my life.

[Macrobat]

This is not the first time the Catholic Church has been declared "dead" in Europe.

After the French Revolution, in the Age of Reason (lol) the church was actually abolished in France, clergy forced to either become government employees, or be beheaded.

Then a new religion was established, The Church of the Republic.

When Napoleon invaded Italy, eventually capturing Rome, he erected a pagan altar IN St. Peter's Square, removed the Pope at threat of death to France, where he later died.

Funny thing, tho - the church came back - didn't it?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by lurkalot:
You didn't make your comment in a general sense. In a discussion titled; "What is next for religion in Europe?", you made a statement based on an apparent definition so broad that it rendered any discussion of the original topic all but meaningless before it got off the ground because it would be built from this flawed "fundament" you laid down.
I wrote that there is no argument because the twists and linguistic artifice had already entered the discussion.
You attempt to dictate the terms of the argument but do so in such a limiting way that it reduces virtually everything to religion and religious language.
To use "sermon" as the word to describe an "explanation" or an "article" and to argue that further attempts at explanation will equal religious zeal makes your arguments petty.
Any feeling or idea of "victory" derived from an "argument" like this must surely be a hollow one. Only in your own mind was there a "victory" in a previous argument -whether a year or a decade ago- since it was also based on this same disingenuous play with words now exhibited. Orwellian word limitation doesn't give you an honest victory nor does it make for a satisfying discussion leading up to that inevitable moment of deflation.
Atheism is not the rising religion in Europe for the simple reason that by any meaningful definition, of the word religion, atheism is not a religion nor is it a faith. Neither for that matter is agnosticism a religion or a faith. Given your "profession" you must have already known that. I will continue to "believe" that because I have "faith" in my previous statement of fact. Enjoy the victory that you'll surely declare -again- shortly. Europe will remain, like the rest of the planet, the home of religious people as long as you modify the definition for religion to include every thought, idea and "belief" system. You all know the truth.

Stalwart attempt to defend your faith and beliefs, even included some ad homs. <golf clap>

A true "atheist" retort would have been...

"Whatever, I don't care."

[JohnSmithXTREME]

Originally posted by Macrobat:
This is not the first time the Catholic Church has been declared "dead" in Europe.

After the French Revolution, in the Age of Reason (lol) the church was actually abolished in France, clergy forced to either become government employees, or be beheaded.

Then a new religion was established, The Church of the Republic.

When Napoleon invaded Italy, eventually capturing Rome, he erected a pagan altar IN St. Peter's Square, removed the Pope at threat of death to France, where he later died.

Funny thing, tho - the church came back - didn't it?

Religious devotion in Europe has had a series of peaks and troughs. The two most notable troughs for the church have been during the Plague, and during the French Revolution (as you pointed out). Each time, the church came back. However, this time I have a feeling that Christianity won't be coming back. It is quite likely that a majority of Europeans no longer believe the teachings of the bible, so I don't see how future generations of Europeans could possibly adopt Christianity.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Stalwart attempt to defend your faith and beliefs, even included some ad homs. <golf clap>

A true "atheist" retort would have been...

"Whatever, I don't care."

A true "agnostic" retort would have been what you said.

The atheist responded exactly how he should have, defending his beliefs.

[budster101]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
A true "agnostic" retort would have been what you said.

The atheist responded exactly how he should have, defending his beliefs.

Yep.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
You didn't keep track of this matter at all it appears. I read every article and view point.

I very much doubt you could have hit every article or viewpoint.

Use Google for crap's sake if you want opinions from women.

Ah, but I didn't ask for opinions from "women". I asked for opinions from Muslim women, and in particular Muslim women in France at that time. You cannot necessarily project the viewpoints of a set onto a subset like this; humanity does not work that way. You claim you read the articles. If you can't be bothered digging them out, then at least name some publications.

By the way, when I said that I foresee Islam growing in popularity and religion being outlawed in Europe, I did not say that I believed it would happen soon. My actual guess is 25 years at least, and probably closer to 60.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Ah, but I didn't ask for opinions from "women". I asked for opinions from Muslim women, and in particular Muslim women in France at that time.

i see dozens of muslim women wearing head scarfs while walking to work every day. i haven't talked to that many, but the one's i have asked about this have nothing against wearing them.

it is mostly (european) women of different faiths (or atheists) that see this as a "sign of opression".

of course, a lot of those (religious) muslima who do wear it, haven't given too much thought to agnosticism, christianity or even atheism.

they just do it...well for the same reason a lot of people wear crosses.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
A true "agnostic" retort would have been what you said.

The atheist responded exactly how he should have, defending his beliefs.

Yep. True atheism would be summed up as, "No, we don't believe in God. However, we really don't care enough to create a belief system". In contrast, most "atheists" aren't even atheists at all, they're antitheists. They're just as "religious" about getting their point across as any JW or Southern Baptist.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Catholicism does not = Christianity as a whole.

True but many people call themselves Christian when they aren't.

[Macrobat]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
Religious devotion in Europe has had a series of peaks and troughs. The two most notable troughs for the church have been during the Plague, and during the French Revolution (as you pointed out). Each time, the church came back. However, this time I have a feeling that Christianity won't be coming back. It is quite likely that a majority of Europeans no longer believe the teachings of the bible, so I don't see how future generations of Europeans could possibly adopt Christianity.

Not to belabor the point, or pick nits, but they adopted it in the first place, didn't they?

I mean, they moved from their polytheism and ancestor-worship to Christianity, did they not?

[JohnSmithXTREME]

Originally posted by Macrobat:
Not to belabor the point, or pick nits, but they adopted it in the first place, didn't they?

I mean, they moved from their polytheism and ancestor-worship to Christianity, did they not?

Ya, it was imported from the east. The Romans imported all sorts of religions from the Orient, of which Christianity became the most popular. But the odds of Europeans "re-adopting" Christianity seems a bit unlikely to me. I think at this stage, people are searching for something new, and Christianity has no novelty left.

[budster101]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
Ya, it was imported from the east. The Romans imported all sorts of religions from the Orient, of which Christianity became the most popular. But the odds of Europeans "re-adopting" Christianity seems a bit unlikely to me. I think at this stage, people are searching for something new, and Christianity has no novelty left.

"No novelty left..." ?

That is what I look for in a religion. Novelty.

[JohnSmithXTREME]

Originally posted by budster101:
"No novelty left..." ?

That is what I look for in a religion. Novelty.

Don't you agree though? For some people, religion is not about commitment and faith, for them it is about giving them a diversion. Why do you think people join "wicca" or New Age religions? Because they want something new. These New Age religions cater to the "Me Generation" who want a religion that revolves around them.

[budster101]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
Don't you agree though? For some people, religion is not about commitment and faith, for them it is about giving them a diversion. Why do you think people join "wicca" or New Age religions? Because they want something new. These New Age religions cater to the "Me Generation" who want a religion that revolves around them.

Uhm. I'm bored. D&D anyone? My turn?

Yeesh.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Weyland-Yutani:
True but many people call themselves Christian when they aren't.

Of course.

It's not a country club you belong to

It's a way of life.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
i see dozens of muslim women wearing head scarfs while walking to work every day. i haven't talked to that many, but the one's i have asked about this have nothing against wearing them.

it is mostly (european) women of different faiths (or atheists) that see this as a "sign of opression".

Everyone seems to always know what is best for everyone else.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
Don't you agree though? For some people, religion is not about commitment and faith, for them it is about giving them a diversion. Why do you think people join "wicca" or New Age religions? Because they want something new.

Not so much 'new', I think, as 'different', and even that phrase has multiple meanings which change from person to person. There are people who are genuinely not satisfied with any belief system they have encountered thus far, and turn to these religions in a further search for the truth as they (hope to eventually) understand it. These are the earnest ones. Of course, there are also those who seek novelty or alternative-conformity (being 'different' just like everyone else), as you suggest. Right now I'd wager these make the majority, but this isn't because of any inherent flaw in said faiths; it's because they happen to be trendy at the moment. Sooner or later the trends will die down, and while the memberships of these faiths will shrink, what's left will consist of real believers.

These New Age religions cater to the "Me Generation" who want a religion that revolves around them.

I wouldn't say that. They exist to fulfill genuine needs. However, their current minority status affords them an air of novelty and "difference" that more powerful religions lack. In time, either these religions will grow to mainstream status and therefore cease to be cool, or a newer, smaller, trendier religion will emerge. Either way, the wannabees will migrate to their allegedly-greener pastures as they always do, the real believers will get on with their lives as they did before, and things won't be that much different from before this whole thing started.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
Ya, it was imported from the east. The Romans imported all sorts of religions from the Orient, of which Christianity became the most popular. But the odds of Europeans "re-adopting" Christianity seems a bit unlikely to me. I think at this stage, people are searching for something new, and Christianity has no novelty left.

I agree with your conclusion, but not your reasoning. Christianity has a remarkable ability to regain novelty at the strangest times. The religious revivals of the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the US show an example of that.

What makes this time really different is the prevailing attitude towards Christianity, among non-believers. During the plagues, even though faith waned under the burden of crushing depression, Christianity was still looked upon as a fundamentally good thing, if only one had the emotional energy to deal with it (keeping in mind that this was not a good time and place to be alive). The French Revolution was mostly localized to France, but looking at what happened then and what's happenning on a wider scale now, some interesting parallels can be drawn.

In France at the time, and in the rest of Europe now, religion is considered "unenlightened". That is to say, it's seen as anti-human, anti-progress, and oppressive overall. Some would even call it outright evil. During the French Revolution this was focused almost exclusively on Christianity, which was understandable since the idea of God-concepts outside the Judeo-Christian paradigm had not really been reintroduced to Europe at that time. Nowadays the focus is much broader, though Christianity is still the favorite example. The arguments nowadays, however, are much more coherent and powerful than they were then.

The end result? Christianity -and indeed, religion itself- never really recovered in France; it can still be found, of course, but it is a pale shadow of its former self, and the government's attitude towards religion is one of only the most grudging tolerance and rapidly-diminishing patience. Why don't people think this will happen on a larger scale, given that the prevailing attitudes are almost identical?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by budster101:
Uhm. I'm bored. D&D anyone? My turn?

Yeesh.

Only if I get to play an Elven F/MU/T, and no 3rd edition rules either (it's bloody sacrilege).

[budster101]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Only if I get to play an Elven F/MU/T, and no 3rd edition rules either (it's bloody sacrilege).

When I was younger, we, my 3 best friends and I used to play D&D religiously... now we play poker.

[zigzag]

Don't confuse skepticism with religion. If Joe Blow walks up to me and says "Pink elephants and/or God created and ordered the universe," my skepticism doesn't represent an alternate religion or faith - it just means that, without proofs, I don't accept his positive assertion. That's all. Having an alternate theory is strictly optional. Indeed, I don't have an alternate theory - I'm not knowledgeable enough. I have trouble following recipes much less coming up with theories about the origin of the universe. A-theism - an absence of theism - is not a religion. To call it one robs the term of any useful meaning.

Not even anti-theism is a religion in any meaningful sense. It doesn't bear any of the hallmarks of religion. It doesn't have icons, it doesn't have rituals, it doesn't have sacred texts, it doesn't have goofy hats, it doesn't have any of that stuff. It might be a cause, but it's not a religion.

Agnostics are, in fact, atheists. If one doesn't believe in a deity, one is an atheist. One might be an agnostic atheist, but one is still an atheist, because one lacks an affirmative belief in a deity. The problem is that in this country, identifying oneself as an atheist is tantamount to identifying oneself as a serial murderer, so people prefer the more benign-sounding agnostic. That's fine if it's the common usage, but it doesn't make my atheism a "religion."

The hostility that many atheists feel towards religion is not necessarily towards the concept itself - religion can have many positive attributes - it's towards the superstition, charlatanism and corruption that so often accompanies it. I'm hostile towards religion for the same reason I'm hostile towards politicians and astrologers. Apart from that, I don't care what you believe as long as you mind your own business and don't try to convince me that your internal reality has some universal external validity.

As I said, don't confuse skepticism with religion. They're two very different things.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Agnostics are, in fact, atheists. If one doesn't believe in a deity, one is an atheist. One might be an agnostic atheist, but one is still an atheist, because one lacks an affirmative belief in a deity.

No, that's not right. There may be a fine line between agnosticism and atheism, but it is an important line. It's not just unwillingness to be labeled as atheists but a rather deep feeling that the leap of faith into affirmative non-belief that is true atheism isn't one that we can all make (or in my case, it is a leap that I have made and later in life found myself unable to maintain). Thus, agnosticism is a true position, quite distinct from atheism.

As you said: "don't try to convince me that your internal reality has some universal external validity." That includes respecting agnostics' right to describe their own understanding of where they are philosophically.

Not even anti-theism is a religion in any meaningful sense. It doesn't bear any of the hallmarks of religion. It doesn't have icons, it doesn't have rituals, it doesn't have sacred texts, it doesn't have goofy hats, it doesn't have any of that stuff. It might be a cause, but it's not a religion.

These are just the external manifestation of religion as tradition. Do you really think of religion entirely in such trivial terms? I'm surprised.

[JohnSmithXTREME]

All I know about agnosticism is that it's a bit self-defeating.