I don’t think my definition is clear (there are always grey areas of course!), and it certainly doesn’t stop discussion. Example: gravity seems easy to define, yet the world’s smartest physicists are still trying to figure out how gravity works in the quantum world. Besides all definitions break down into circular references. (Are there words in dictionary definitions that aren’t in the dictionary? Is that why they put pictures sometimes? Haha)

As for God spawning religion, my guess is that it’s human nature. One person tells another about their revelation, and soon enough a whole oppressive bureaucracy is born. That happens with other human affairs as well, not just religion.

Is it possible to reject religion altogether and still have God?

Sure, but you can’t tell anyone about it!

Maybe I didn’t use the right examples. In my opinion, anything can become a (religious) ritual, when the person starts to feel fear, guilt, and/or shame associated with the acts. The fear of possible consequences, guilt of letting self or another down, and shame/embarrassment of coming up short.

I’m not speaking of the way the word ‘religious’ is used in figurative ways. Words are just words. I’m speaking of the concept of something, a force, a mindset, an attitude… Whatever/whoever it may be… If that idea/thing/person/organization has power over us and prevents us from being a free agent, that is religion to me.

And why would something have so much power over us? What is the fear?

And if religion and God is such a ridiculous concept… if religion is as clearly defined and easy to describe as you have intimated, then why are we constantly discussing it and fascinated by it? Why are there still no answers after endless scientific and philosophical research and debates? And why is it that when we speak of God, religion always follows? Do they really have to go hand in hand? Is it possible to reject religion altogether and still have God?

I believe with all my heart that there’s something that we’re just not getting. There’s something that is so much deeper than what meets the eye.

Sometimes, I have no idea what I’m trying to say or how to say it. Therein lies my constant state of frustration.

Regarding your recycling and Darwin Day examples, I think those fall under the categories of “habits” and “customs”. We could get into a semantics debate on the overlap and differences (maybe draw some Venn diagrams too!) between habits, customs and rituals, but I think the typical person on the street has a general idea of what they mean. Gathering to pray, signing worship songs, meditation, burning incense at an alter, crossing yourself, etc etc are all rituals in my book. Brushing your teeth, jogging, and blogging are habits.

You can make a religion out of anything.

I agree to some extent, but not every custom, habit or ideology is a religion in my view. The word just loses all meaning. I don’t think Elvis worship is a religion yet, and any celebration of Darwin is still a million miles below that.

As a matter of fact, the way the American calendar revolves around holidays in itself is a religion, don’t you think?

As you might expect, I don’t.

Yes, but the fact remains that it started with more than one person. It takes more than one to become a religion.

I have to disagree there. Why can’t it start with one person? If I suddenly had a revelation from a god that no one has heard of, and I start praying and communing with this new god all by myself I think it is perfectly reasonable to call what I am doing religious.

Sure we can call things like flossing to be my morning ritual, but I think that is speaking figuratively not literally. People also say, “He watches American Idol religiously”, but it’s just a metaphor! The guy isn’t literally praying to Simon.

1. What if you did reach your beliefs on your own, and you happen to be in a mass of people who also reached their beliefs on their own. It seems like you can’t help believing what the masses do. And sometimes the masses are right.

Of course, that often happens, as we do think and act similarly as humans. However, there’s a difference between agreeing with the masses because of your own conclusions and blindly following the masses because you’re too lazy to think for yourself. Every thinking person has unique thoughts. Some of those thoughts overlap in many places with others. It becomes a problem when some people end up relying on others to think for them.

2. The A + B = C idea is kind of vague to me. Doesn’t that overlap with your part 1?

No, not necessarily. Part 1 merely points to the laziness of the person to think for themselves. Part 2 points to the belief that certain actions (i.e. prayer, sacrifice) will bring expected results, such as health and prosperity. Then Part 3 points to the actions of actually doing the rituals, judgments of imperfection, and the never-ending demands. They all go hand-in-hand. Maybe we’re basically saying the same thing.

Originally you said things like Environmentalism and Darwinism could be religions. What are the ritualistic behaviors there?

Many people recycle out of habit without knowing exactly how it will help the environment. Some people do it just because everyone else is. Or because they think it’s the “right thing to do.” That’s not thinking freely for themselves.

“Darwin Day” is my case in point. There probably will be people who will start to make it a ritual and send out “Darwin Day” cards, have gatherings in honor of Darwin, hang the “Evolution” flag on their front lawn, and make ape-shaped cookies to pass out to neighbors. They will most likely be the people who don’t have much knowledge about Darwinism to begin with.

You can make a religion out of anything. As a matter of fact, the way the American calendar revolves around holidays in itself is a religion, don’t you think?

Imagine there is one last worshiper of Zeus out there. He visits his temple regularly and prays to the Greek Gods. I would still say he is religious.

Yes, but the fact remains that it started with more than one person. It takes more than one to become a religion.

That sounds like a ritual to me. Atheists can do rituals too, such as if I meditate regularly, but without parts 1 and 2 of my definition that won’t be a religion.

I disagree. It’s not a ritual if I don’t do it on a regular basis. Brushing my teeth, eating breakfast, and even checking my emails can be rituals for me, but prayer definitely is not. I make a conscious effort not to let it become a ritual. Wait…. is the act of constantly trying not to let it become a ritual in itself a ritual? Now, you’re confusing me.

The word “ideology” is perfectly suited to the task, and I think your real beef is with organized religion.

Yes, I suppose you’re right. But I believe that even if organized religion as how most people view religion disappeared from our society, there still will be many people who will not be able to think freely. There still will be people who go through life like zombies and just blindly follow others, never knowing what freedom truly feels like. That’s what I find sad.

1. What if you did reach your beliefs on your own, and you happen to be in a mass of people who also reached their beliefs on their own. It seems like you can’t help believing what the masses do. And sometimes the masses are right. About 80% of Americans believe the Earth goes around the sun (sigh), and hey, that majority is right!

2. The A + B = C idea is kind of vague to me. Doesn’t that overlap with your part 1?

3. Well, we agree on that one!

Originally you said things like Environmentalism and Darwinism could be religions. What are the ritualistic behaviors there?

I don’t believe that most religious people actually believe in a god. I think it’s more likely that they hope for a god.

You could be right, but I can’t read people’s minds so I take their word for it when 90 or so percent of Americans say they do believe in God.

Having faith in a higher power/being/energy/whatever beyond ourselves in itself is not a religion

Right, that would only hit part 1 of my definition. But very few people stop there. Most think they know the nature of this higher power and what it wants (part 2) and then do something about it regularly (part 3).

Religion requires more than one person.

Imagine there is one last worshiper of Zeus out there. He visits his temple regularly and prays to the Greek Gods. I would still say he is religious.

Prayer for me is a time of cleaning out what clutters the mind and getting it back in focus.

That sounds like a ritual to me. Atheists can do rituals too, such as if I meditate regularly, but without parts 1 and 2 of my definition that won’t be a religion.

I still claim that if your definition of religion includes things like environmentalism or Darwinism then it isn’t a very useful definition. Of course you are free to define words as you want, but it may impede your ability to communicate with others. If you talk to a random person on the street and say “Bob is very religious” I don’t think any one will think “Gee, maybe Bob is a fanatic environmentalist”.

The word “ideology” is perfectly suited to the task, and I think your real beef is with organized religion.

My definition of religion has three parts also.

1. Belief in something according to the masses (not by one’s own conclusion)
2. Mindset that A+B will always equal C, as subscribed to by the group of people
3. Some sort of ritualistic behavior(s).

I don’t believe that most religious people actually believe in a god. I think it’s more likely that they hope for a god. Therefore, number 1 from your list does not really compute with me.

Having faith in a higher power/being/energy/whatever beyond ourselves in itself is not a religion, IMO. Religion requires more than one person.

I suspect your version of Christianity also hits all three parts. 1 and 2 might be easy to see, but do you have a 3? If you’re going to church and praying I think so.

Perhaps I have 1 and 2 according to your definition, but not according to mine. And I do attend church, but not as a ritual. I don’t go there to pray, nor do I go there to get approval from God or anyone else. I go there to see friends and to get encouragement. It’s not a ritual as much as it is a way to get recharged when I feel I need the interaction.

Also, praying is not a ritual for me. I don’t believe in praying for results, and I don’t believe in praying for mercy or forgiveness. That’s just silly. I don’t close my eyes, clasp my hands, or get on my knees any more than what I would do during times of deep thought. I do, however, take deep breaths and try to get my mind to focus on what I believe to be the reality during times of confusion or crisis. When others want to pray, I oblige out of politeness and my respect for them, and I cannot consider that ritualistic on my part. Prayer for me is a time of cleaning out what clutters the mind and getting it back in focus.

When I referred to the other things as religion, I meant they “CAN” become a religion for some people who are not willing to think for themselves. If one blindly believes a piece of information and starts following the ways of another just because someone else said so, it becomes a religion. They are not actually thinking things through for themselves.

For example, let’s say someone reads in a forwarded email that “the experts say that drinking a glass of water mixed with vinegar every morning will give you more energy and prolong your life by ten years.” This person starts to drink the vinegar water every morning and believes that it’s making a difference. He tells everyone in his office about how great he feels and gets everyone else to do the same. Soon, everyone is religiously drinking the vinegar water every morning, but no one really questions it. Eventually, that glass of water becomes so important to them that without it, their days become meaningless.

Does that sound like religion? It’s not the vinegar water. It’s the people who get together and start to worship it that make it a religion.

I have to jump in here to make a few comments in regard to your definition of religion. First how I classify things as religions; they usually have three parts:

1. Belief in some kind of supernatural entity or force.
2. Revealed knowledge or sacred truths.
3. Some kind of ritualistic behavior.
I think most religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.) hit each of those parts in some way. Most flavors of Buddhism do too, but some like Zen lack part 1 so that might not be a religion. I suspect your version of Christianity also hits all three parts. 1 and 2 might be easy to see, but do you have a 3? If you’re going to church and praying I think so.

From what you have written I think the thing you are criticizing is not “religion” but “organized religion”. If you disagree with my definition of religion, I’d like to hear how you define it. You do write, “Whenever someone is chasing the shell of the thing rather than the essence of it, then it becomes meaningless and what I classify as religion.” but I’m not sure I understand it.

You also say things like Darwinism, Environmentalism, and Patriotism can be religions. By my definition, I have to disagree, since those things lack the most important part 1, belief in some supernatural entity or force. Can you give an example of a “religious Darwinist”? I’m not even sure “Darwinists” exist anymore since Darwin’s theory of evolution has been modified and extended. Just like there aren’t any “Newtonists” anymore since Newton’s theory of gravitation has been superseded by Einstein’s.

Now some case might be made that some people, for example the Social Darwinists, did make a religion out of Darwin’s theory. They thought that Darwin was prescribing how life should be lived instead of just describing how life has changed. But, even in that case I claim those people are following an ideology, not a religion because they lack part 1, and don’t seem to do much part 3 either.

So I think “ideology” is a better word for those fanatic patriots, environmentalists and so on. Sure some people might say “baseball is my religion” but they mean that in a figurative sense. Until they start praying to a shrine built to Babe Ruth that is.

That’s the way religion controlled the masses for many years until Jesus came into the picture and started speaking out against the leaders. Jesus challenged the religious leaders again and again (i.e. Matthew 23). He tried to tell everyone that they should just be who they were meant to be and not try to be something they are not. He referred to nature, the animals and the plants behaving just the way they were meant to and not worrying about becoming something they are not (Matthew 6). He wanted everyone to be free from the religious law. He said that he came into the world to testify to the truth.

The message of truth that he shared over and over again comprise of three things, the way I understand the scripture: Love-Grace-Freedom. No more. No less. He wanted nothing to do with religion outside of those three things. For me, that’s the concept that resonates throughout the New Testament. Jesus died for the sake of that truth. Religion cannot afford to grant people freedom, because when people are free, religion becomes obsolete. That’s why Jesus had to be killed. Religion had to kill him in order for it to survive. Then shortly thereafter, following Christ became a religion called Christianity.

What I strongly believe is that whoever can jump out of the box of “religion” and be free has the spirit of Christ. For the last two thousand years, Christianity as a religion has gone through many transformations, but it still remains a religion. To me, the religion of Christianity is the anti-Christ that has permeated the lives of the religious people and robbed them of their freedom. But what I’m finding lately is that most people do not want to be free. Because freedom comes with a price. The price of rejection or persecution. The price of ridicule. The price of being called crazy. The price of loneliness.

I believe the practice of rejecting religion can also be a religion in itself. Darwinism can be a religion. Striving for success can be a religion. Environmentalism can be a religion. Patriotism can be a religion. Supporting a political party can be a religion. Fighting for a cause can be a religion. Whenever someone is chasing the shell of the thing rather than the essence of it, then it becomes meaningless and what I classify as religion. Anytime someone only looks at what is superficial (what seems obvious) and accepts or rejects something/someone without a closer and deeper examination, then they are not thinking freely.

I know that many people, atheists and theists alike, probably will not accept much of the above statements as anything other than just my own opinion.

They will never see it the way I see it. They will never accept it. That’s the fact. But that’s okay.

Do you ever hear the harmony to a song? The melody is what most people hear. But if you listen carefully, you can find (and almost hear) the harmony and you can sing it. It takes skill and practice, but the more you do it, the easier you can find it. But if you are not paying attention, you can quickly lose it and go back to only hearing the melody. The notes are not obvious, but they are there. They exist, waiting to be sung into reality…

Why do you believe the Bible? Why do you believe Jesus wanted this? Describe what the system of belief was like before Jesus, and what Jesus advocated.

Wow… that’s a challenge. I purposely try not to memorize or quote scripture as much as I can, because I believe in the ideas contained therein instead of the words. Besides, I’m not a theologian or a scholar. But since we came this far and I don’t want to give up now, I’ll try my best to answer those questions:

Please keep in mind this is how it looks and makes sense to me. But I’m only one person. One thing I do not do is listen to someone else’s word and follow it as if it were my own. As we discussed before, we hold up all new information to the knowledge base that already exists and process them in a logical and practical way. But I have to first clean out all of the unnecessary or incorrect data that may affect the new piece of information. If any part of the pre-existing data base is from a second-hand knowledge, and more information is added because of and on top of that knowledge, it could throw off the whole system. There is so much information out there that are referenced to what someone else has said, as if referencing someone who claims to know or who has the credentials somehow makes that information true beyond doubt. I want to keep an open mind about everything. I take the words of experts with a grain of salt. I want it to make perfect sense to me before I make it part of my database.

(I suddenly have a new thought about my everything and nothing theory. But I’ll have to process it first. I’ll get back to you.)

The problem arises when what makes sense to me and what makes sense to you are two different things. There are people who claim that Jesus the man never even existed. What do I do with that?

What makes sense to me is this:

The system of belief before Jesus was everything you read in the OT. People were controlled by religious leaders who strictly adhered to the rules written in the scripture. i.e. The Ten Commandments. It doesn’t take rocket science to figure out as social animals what we like and dislike, what works and does not work in order to co-exist together. I now believe that the moral code and the written “rules” came as a result of many years of trial and error by humans living together in tribal settings. (I have an ongoing thought project about morals – but that’s another subject.) As we progressed through history, human nature to seek power over others produced religion and religious leaders. Did religion exist before the religious leaders or the other way around? Hmmm… There are leaders and there are followers. The followers need instructions and guidelines in order to follow. The leaders need rules, rewards, and punishments in order to control.

I can keep going, but I don’t know if this is what you’re looking for. And I’m thinking as I’m going along. I like this homework, but I can do it somewhere else if you want me to stop. I have a feeling it won’t be short and sweet… (or maybe it will end up to be simpler than I thought, who knows?) But I don’t want to waste your time if you think it’s off target.

Okay, I can agree with you on both points. However, isn’t it possible that the same stimulus may trigger different operations in the brain for different people? I’m not at all familiar with neurology, but isn’t the critical thinking part different than the creative part of the brain? So if we both encounter a new experience and you end up writing an in-depth analysis and I end up writing a symphony from the same piece of information, are we using the same part of the brain?

Yes, different operations usually means different parts of the brain, although complex tasks will involve many parts. It would be the same for both of us, we could do both things. I would argue that we’re probably using both parts of the brain, but to different degrees.

I said I have to use everything AND nothing at the same time to process the new information. If I only rely on what I already know, then I can only see things within those limits. Stepping outside of the box with a thought requires a blank canvas. You have to be willing to jump into the unknown. The pre-existing knowledge can be the tools with which you can think, but the blank canvas is the nothing that holds all the possibilities of a brand new thought. If you are always painting by numbers, that is not free thinking.

We our limited by our experience, but that doesn’t mean we are limited to our experience. Thinking of unknown, new concepts, uses past experience. Thought experiment, requires past experience. Even if it appropriates something unrelated.

Of course you also have to use your previous experiences and pre-existing knowledge, as I said above. Otherwise, the new evolved thought has no basis. There is a fine line between a free thought and an irrational thought, although you may disagree with me on where that line is.

I’m going to have to have some examples of what you have come to through that, what sort of reasoning. You’re going to have to explain the thought not using previous experience. I have nothing to go on, you haven’t explained it at all.

Free thought, and free thinking, are terms that will be familiar in another context to many atheists.

Oh no… here we go. This is the part where others may cringe, but you asked…

It’s all so very simple and yet so hard to explain. I did my best. Am I still not making sense to you? Your questions are tough, but I like how they make me think.

Read your paragraphs between these two quotes and tell me what you think of them, whether they give an explanation of why you hold the positions, or if they answered my question.

You can give your opinion on Jesus, I understood that most of it was your opinion, and what you felt about coming to that opinion. You said that you didn’t want to speculate about other things you have no basis for. That suggests you have basis for your opinion on Jesus. Surely that’s a key component of the answer to my quesiton.

Why do you believe the Bible? Why do you believe Jesus wanted this? Describe what the system of belief was like before Jesus, and what Jesus advocated.