3 ms·

>> I am an atheist, but I'm writing a religion. Sorry to go off topic like this, but I saw this on your profile and it's interesting to me. You're writing a re

• keiferski 14y ago
  Not the OP, but a guess: religion is basically just a value system. In that sense, it's no different than any other value system, other than the fact that it includes existence of X deity.
  • j45 14y ago
    This would be an interesting chat in a thread of it's own, or even offline, feel free to be in touch. I have long noticed that religion is but a dominant world viewpoint. Whether its sports, belief in a higher anything, or belief in nothing. This kind of stuff requires us to be able to be able to openly look at ourselves as easily as we look at others. If we live our lives according to any dominant world viewpoint, pretty well for most intents and purposes it plays the role of belief (even a belief in non-belief).
  • eru 14y ago
    > In that sense, it's no different than any other value system, other than the fact that it includes existence of X deity. While a recurring feature in practice, I don't think believe in a deity should be a defining feature of religion. (It is probably a sufficient feature, though.)
    • bgmarx 14y ago
      Agreed. The word "religion" comes from two Latin words: "res" + "ligare". "res" is loosely "thing" or can be used to refer to a concept (ie, "republic" - "res" + "pubblica" ['thing/item/abstract concept' of the people] and "ligare" is a 1st declension (if I recall correctly) verb meaning "to bind". To be religious - fundamentally speaking - is simply to follow a set of rules or an ideology; to be bound to something.
  • idle_processor 14y ago
    In the absence of deities, why call it a religious system instead of an ethical one?
    • eru 14y ago
      Depends. Religion can include ethics, but that's not all there is to it. E.g. you can have creation myths without deities, and they don't necessarily make for ethics.
      • idle_processor 14y ago
        Yes, but the context was value systems. Cosmology is a separate domain.
• drostie 14y ago
  I don't write for atheists per se, I write for everyone. However, as an atheist, I won't inject supernaturalism into the religion: therefore, the religion mixes effortlessly with whatever supernatural predispositions you already have or lack. In that sense I suppose it can be called "meta-religious". When I speak to myself I sometimes classify it as "a material dharma" -- but "dharma" is religious jargon from India and won't make so much sense if I don't explain its etymology and its meanings in those religions. (A passable definition is "essence", used idiomatically. So you have to ask, "the essence of what?") When we talk about authentic, virtuous living, the commitments we make, how we work together, how we conceptualize the world, and how we find meaning therein, then the supernatural might teach or inspire these things, but we should not mistake the supernatural as identical with these things. So, you might say for example, "the Light shines from God." I am not going to speak about God, but about the Light, which is its own thing; and I remain non-committal about its origins. (Too much blood has been shed historically because "They don't believe in Our Gods.") Or you might say for example "the True Reward from the Light is reaped in the afterlife." Again, that's fine by me, as long as you acknowledge that, in this life, the Light is its own reward -- authentic living is worth it for its own sake. Thus we head into a future where theism and atheism are as one and enlightenment depends upon the character one cultivates, not the doctrines one professes. (Edit: I want to add that the real paradox in that sentence is self-contained in the subsentence, "I'm writing a religion.")