I have a bunch of friends that would say they are christian of some denomination or another but really they hold no belief in it at all, it’s just that their families/parents are largely of that religion.
do they not understand that it’s a personal belief and not an inherited mark?
it always confused me and now it just kind of irritates me because they go around saying they’re luthrian or catholic when really they either dispise God or don’t give a crap about him or his church.
Given the cultural component of religion, why can’t someone be a non-believer of a particular religion, yet still a member. Jews and Catholics are always gonna be Jews and Catholics. Similarly, a Hindu is a Hindu.
Religion has always been tied to tribal identity.
Fear.
Thats how religion spread throughout the world. Fear. People fear they will be killed in life, by religious nuts, and fear hell in death.
Terrorism.
jews are both a religious group as well as a national group much like a gypsy. theres a distinct difference between a reilgious jew and a jew by blood.
catholics, I have no idea.
but I guess you’re saying its a miss communication of terms?
religion by definition is a belief based life style. if you don’t have the belief and you don’t adhere to the lifestyle how can you call yourself religious?
uh…huh…
I don’t even see how that relates.
You said something about religion, Duder hates religion, so it relates.
if you hate religion, why do you bother to stick your nose into a thread and try and give a disloged answer from a distant viewpoint?
I mean, you have every right to give your opinion, but I fail to see how it does any good here. you’re not enlightening anyone.
sorry, that’s kind of a side rant spurred on by past encounters with simular people.
Sorry, but Duder loves the truth so much that he’s offended when arrogant people claim to represent an all-mighty, perfect god which is willing to torture and be evil towards those who disobey the humanly constructed commandments.
He chose to care in a certain way.
But about the OP:
Persons can passively believe in what they have been indoctrinated within, then later on it is optional for their faith to increase, if something happens in their life which causes such a reaction.
People say they believe in some things because they feel there is no real harm in passive belief.
People say such because to not believe in such things makes one an outcast amongst certain groups. Or because they either willingly/unwillingly accept Pascal’s Wager.
People like false sense of safety.
It doesn’t really matter what others believe or don’t believe, what really matters is you yourself, how you conduct your life. If you have integrity then you are able to action your own words.
A
You’ve been more accurate then me, thanks.
YEah, I think ithas allot to do with security.
Integrity is cool, but the ability to change and adapt is vital.
I think how versatile a person is matters allot, in all ways.
one day I’ll take on the argument that there is no such thing as passive belief.
until then, I think Satori’s answer made the most sense. especially since I live in the bible belt and most every here has to be christian or be an outcast.
It is not really a miscommunication, it is more a difference between orthoprax and orthodox religions. In Orthodox religions what you believe is what is important. In this case, what you said about religion being a belief-based lifestyle is really only half the picture.
Now, most Protestant Christian groups really try and stress the orthodox elements of Christianity, but that is an incomplete picture.
Couple that with religion’s relation to culture. Ask any American about Christmas and Easter and they’ll be able to tell you about them. Indeed, most Americans won’t be at work on those days; whether or not they are Christian. They might even have a Christmas tree. That is culturally Christian, but devoid of the belief in Jesus or any of that.
In that way they are acting like Christians, observing many Christian rituals. So, what would you call these people? I’d go with Christian.
I’ll leave it to others to analyze whether Duder’s post history indicates a love of truth, or a hate of religion. Meanwhile, I’m still here, and still ready to talk about any issue noble truth-seekers such as he, oldphil, and so on care to discuss.
Wrong thread. Bizarre.
Either that or I was being overly positive…
Both.
I’ve noticed three classes of concern about religion:
First I would like to remind you all of something which you may have forgot. People of firm faith in one belief still tend regard the other religions as untrue, therefor theists act like atheists, when they talk about how untrue the false religions are.
There are about 3 different sorts of views I notice about religion.
The critics want to “cut-the-crap”. They are tiered of lies and noise, or some of them just hate stuff for the heck of it…
The defenders of religion want to look at the good side of it all. Critic reveals the negatives, and the defenders wish to shield their uforic positivity from the evils of the critic, so they bring up all of the “good” points and focus on those instead. They may also tend to bring up the “bad” points of the person who is critisizing.
The third class, neither left or right: these are either uninformed or apathetic.
~
When you get the left and the rightist dudes all in one thread, feathers fly.