THOTH

Hm - well Fadixism meets this particular defintion in spades...does it not?

? I posted the link - I didn't take exerpts from it... And i fail to see where Atheism meets any of these criteria....

Found a bunch of definitions of religion from a variety of sources (funny - Domino - i can't really say that any of them conforms to your definaiton)... re·li·gion n. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. religion n 1: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality" [syn: faith, religious belief] 2: institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him" [syn: faith] religion \Re*li"gion\ (r[-e]*l[i^]j"[u^]n), n. [F., from L. religio; cf. religens pious, revering the gods, Gr. 'ale`gein to heed, have a care. Cf. Neglect.] 1. The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of faith and worship; a manifestation of piety; as, ethical religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion; revealed religion; the religion of the Jews; the religion of idol worshipers. 2. Specifically, conformity in faith and life to the precepts inculcated in the Bible, respecting the conduct of life and duty toward God and man; the Christian faith and practice. 3. (R. C. Ch.) A monastic or religious order subject to a regulated mode of life; the religious state; as, to enter religion. --Trench. 4. Strictness of fidelity in conforming to any practice, as if it were an enjoined rule of conduct. [R.] Those parts of pleading which in ancient times might perhaps be material, but at this time are become only mere styles and forms, are still continued with much religion. --Sir M. Hale. Note: Religion, as distinguished from theology, is subjective, designating the feelings and acts of men which relate to God; while theology is objective, and denotes those ideas which man entertains respecting the God whom he worships, especially his systematized views of God. As distinguished from morality, religion denotes the influences and motives to human duty which are found in the character and will of God, while morality describes the duties to man, to which true religion always influences. As distinguished from piety, religion is a high sense of moral obligation and spirit of reverence or worship which affect the heart of man with respect to the Deity, while piety, which first expressed the feelings of a child toward a parent, is used for that filial sentiment of veneration and love which we owe to the Father of all. As distinguished from sanctity, religion is the means by which sanctity is achieved, sanctity denoting primarily that purity of heart and life which results from habitual communion with God, and a sense of his continual presence. Entry: religion Function: noun Definition: belief Synonyms: adoration, bent, ceremonial, church, communion, connection, conscientiousness, consecration, creed, cult, denomination, devotion, devoutness, doctrine, faithfulness, fidelity, godliness, morality, myth, mythology, observance, orthodoxy, persuasion, pietism, piety, prayer, preference, religiosity, rites, ritual, sacrifice, sanctification, sect, spiritual-mindedness, spirituality, standards, superstition, theology, veneration Concept: religious entity Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.5) Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

Or from another (informed! lol) perspective (which clearly shows how belief in a divine power/powers not disbelief is what constitues "religion" - (note bold is mine...) H.L. Mencken, _Treatise on the Gods_ (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1930, revised 1946): Nevertheless, it [religion] is quite simple at bottom. There is nothing really secret or complex about it, no matter what its professors may allege to the contrary. Whether it happens to show itself in the artless mumbo-jumbo of a Winnebago Indian or in the elaborately refined and metaphysical rites of a a Christian archbishop, its single function is to give man access to the powers which seem to control his destiny, and its single purpose is to induce those powers to be friendly to him. That function and that purpose are common to all relgioins, ancient or modern, savage or civilized, and they are the only common characters that all of them show. Nothing else is essential. Religion may repudiate every sort of moral aim or idea, and still be authentically religion. It may confine itself to the welfare of the votary in this world, rejecting immortality and even the concept of the soul, and yet hold its character and its name. It may reduce its practices to hollow formulae, without immediate logical content. It may imagine its gods as beings of unknown and unknowable nature and faculties, or it may imagine them as creatures but slightly different from men. It may identify them with animals, natural forces, or innanimate objects, on the earth or in the vague skies. It may credit them with virtues which, in man, would be inconceivable, or lay to them vices and weaknesses which, in man, would be unendurable. It may think of them as numerous or solitary, as mortal or immortal. It may elect them and depose them, choose between them, rotate them in office, arrange them in hierarchies, punish them, kill them. But so long as it believes them to be able at their will to condition the fate of man, whether on this earth or elsewhere, and so long as it professes to be capable of influencing that will to his benefit, that long it is religion, and as truly deserving of the name as the most highly wrought theological system ever heard of.

Nice discussion of what constitues religion. Pay particualr attention to diagram outlining the characteristics of religious thought...except for perhaps "insight" I can't at all see where else anyting applied to atheism might fit here.... http://www.darc.org/connelly/religion1.html

Good one Anoushik! (once again)... Non belief in a divinity is not sufficient to be considered a religion. If this were the case I would be a Pantheist of infinite proportions...(and I've made this example before)...as i don't believe in Zeus, Odin, Mithra, Ra, Allah, etc etc, etc...and I don't (necessarily) share any common ritual, observances, ideas about creation, ideas about life/afterlife etc etc & whathaveyou as others who similarly disbelieve in these proposed entities...

wrong. Your comparisons are absurd IMO. See I can claim such too - just as you do with mine. Your claims are no more valid then mine. BTW spin that prayer wheel for me will ya?

Exactly Anoushik - I agree with your posting 100%. Non belief in some contemplated god is no religion. Anyone can come up with some idea of god/what god is etc - and just because it is rejected by someone else has nothign to do with the second person's religion - this is silly and meets no criteria for religious belief. And as far as Fadixs objections to gay marriage - well it seems that this is an issue of semantics alone (though it is clear that relying on this is masking predjudice). He chooses to define marraige a certain way (OK much as some folks choose to define god a certain way - rejecting all other varients) - well this is not a legitimate argument as definitions for word as well as standards for what constitutes accepted behavior/practice etc change as we evolve - socially and otherwise. Think of the definition of "citizen" - in the past this may sometimes constituted a land holder...but it does not now. Same with "voter" - in the past this could only have been a male - but our society has evolved...so is voting a right or a privaledge? Can we exclude someone from voting based on their sex? Is this fair? Or si this discrimination? Sorry Domino - you present no decent argument to oppose. And your condescending tone is likewise unappreciated and unwarrented.

Blind people not driving has nothing to do with gay people marrying/not marrying - this should be obvious. A blind person behind the wheel of a car is adanger to others - a blind person does not have the capability to navigate a car on the road - I mean come now... Again marraige is about two people loving one another, commiting themselves to one another - becomming one (legally and in terms of familial and societal relationships) and establishing kinship bonds between families. There is no reason why such should not be extended to gay couples - who already do exist in our society - but are not given the legal rights and protections and who are not allowed the dignity of being able to call themselves a married couple. This is just unfair, descriminitory and yes - is a clear question of rights!!

2 questions... 1) How can God forget? 2) When have I ever killed Gods Duck? I say this God needs to take care of his own things and leave me TF alone....! And good observation Stormy...don't forget Christianity (and Judiasm before it) is a Patriarchial (nomadic/sheaparding based) religion with historic hostility to Matriachial (sedentary/agricultural based) religions...thus the historic bias against women/exclusion of women from priesthood and such and overall villainization of women (dirty/unclean/wayward/responsible for sins [against the father]) and turning poor innocent obedient man...etc etc...etc etc

Thats very nice nairi...sounds...well relaxing in any event.. ..and whats this accelerated? talking without knowing anything again? I can assure you that your theory has no basis in reality...just a bit envious you are eh?

...it was a great speech regardless...regardless of Kocharian's many faults and failures...

Awesome speech - really, simply superb! Just a note however - MJ had previously posted this in the thread about Armenia and OCSE....

When did I say a Kurdish homeland in Western Armenia? I'm refering to Northern Iraq (primarily).... ...and just because the Kurds have a deficit of good leadership does this mean they should get no consideration? Does the same apply to the Chechens? Look - all I have expressed is my sympathies for these people - regardless of our past history - and I feel for these people who - like us have been without a homeland of our own....I haven't proposed any specific solutions and I know that there are a great many landmines and issues out there...

lol...

LOL - good one. OK - I think I see your point (is this the same as me saying don't you think I already know that? LOL) ....and I can understand your view...but I still see it differently...

Awww - a cutey for sure...and good Uncle Azat showing the love!

If you don't think I understand what the Kurds (funny I typed turks at first) did to us - during the Genocide and before (the mention of parasites etc - understood) then you are gravely mistaken. And there is no question that they gleefuly pounced when the oppurtunity was there. Don't you think it hurt me greatly when I saw our lands and towns and villages and there were no Armenians there? I understand and appreciate all of these things...still I cannot blame Kurdish people today who are just people living their lives - and I particualrly cannot feel animosity towards people - who like us (like we were) - are without a homeland to call their own - and who are being repressed. These are just people - and they are people who are really alot like us (even if this is a result of theft or what have you...) - regardless - but that was the past - will these blood fueds just go on forever? Sure I can be bitter about what Kurds have done - much like Turks - though with some differences of course...but even with Turks - do we not rise above and say we do not hold those who live now responsible - that it is their government and those who actively deny - and who continue to hate - that it is these types who deserve our animosity - not those who are ignorant - or in the case of many Kurds today - who relise what was done - and who are shamed and do regret - as many do... I have some Kurdish friends (originally from Iran). And when they talk about their families - what they do togther - and such - well I can't help but see them as very much like us - even if some of this is because of what they assimilated from us. And these are good people - aware people - knowledgable people - who know what was done to the Armenians - very much so...and they now find themselves in a similar plight as we once were in - and to some extent still are (not the same at all of course)...but still they are befrit of nation and at the mercy of others and their culturte is supressed. And I have met other Kurds - here in the states primarily - who always react with compassion and understanding when I tell them I am Armenian - and they view us as brothers. Sure - obviously this was once not at all the case...but when does it stop? Can we hope to survive and prosper if we continue to keep all animosoties alive? Shouldn't we thus hate the Persians, the Russians, the Greeks and just about everyone else we have encountered in our history? Sure - our experience with the Kurds has been most recent - and more directly affecting those of us today...but we cannot hate people just for the sins of their forefathers and shouldn't turn a blind eye to the inequities being experienced by others just because of our past history with them.

more - from another site (http://westernreformtaoism.org/home.php) I was never particularly comfortable with the idea of Christianity, because it simply didn't make sense to me. How could people blindly trust their lives to the writings in a two thousand-year-old book? The answer, I was told, was "faith." But when I asked why Christians had faith, the answer was "The Bible." Is this circular logic, or is it just me? Christianity also seemed to have a serious Achilles' Heel, arising from the undeniable existence of evil in the world. God is generally described by Christianity and the New Testament as omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. If that description is accurate, though, then God is logically incapable of allowing or causing evil to exist. In other words, the existence of God and the existence of evil are mutually exclusive. Both cannot exist simultaneously. It was this argument, above all else, that convinced me that the existence of God, at least in the form envisioned by the Christianity of my youth, is very unlikely. The most appealing aspect of Taoism, though, was that it didn't claim to be "divinely-inspired." Laotse never claimed to have been visited by a deity and commanded to write the Tao Te Ching. He wrote it because he observed patterns in the world around him -- patterns that didn't require blind faith and acceptance of logical contradiction to recognize -- and realized that everything must be connected somehow. "Some people try very hard to impress a deity in whom they believe, in order to gain special favors or blessings, but this is only a fantasy that demonstrates the person's lack of true spiritual development. Unconditional sincerity is what evokes a response form the subtle realm of universal divine power."

And more from the same (above link) When one speaks of “God” it is a noise, a concept, a notion, an abstraction, not the reality. Just as you cannot get wet in the word "water," neither can you get saved in a concept or notion of God. Nevertheless, we cling to the notion as a mental idol. The Reality is beyond what we can talk about. As soon as we begin to talk about God, it is no longer God we are talking about. Lao Tzu knew the same in relation to Tao, and opens with: "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; the name that can be named is not the eternal Name.” Tao means “word” or “way” (among other meanings)

You might even like this site Sasun... http://www.yakrider.com/christianity/Christianity.htm And for Gevo - the test with which I chalenged him a ways back - (note I might not totaly agree with this guys interpretation of this passage...) “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” Jesus continued: "You know the commandments: Do not murder; Do not commit adultery; Do not steal; Do not bear false witness; Do not defraud; Honor your father and mother.” The man said, “Rabbi, all these have I kept since I was a boy.” And Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “There is one thing you lack: go, sell all you have and give it to the poor, and you will have heavenly treasure; then come and follow me.” When the man heard this his face clouded over and he went away sick at heart, for he was a man who had large estates. And Jesus looked around at his disciples and said, “Children, how hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” What is good? Jesus ignored the man's claims to following an abstract code and asked the man to do one thing based on true compassion instead of moral conceptualism. And, you want to know eternal life? A camel doesn’t get through the eye of a needle unless it becomes nothing. Jesus told his followers. “Unless your righteousness is deeper than the righteousness of the scribes [copyists of the written religious/moral law], you will never enter the kingdom of God.” Confucius said it in his way, “Goody-goodies are the thieves of virtue.” There is no real way to practice a Christianity that has become destitute of its deeper, or mystical, element. We are left with shallow Jesus-imitations but without daring to or knowing how to really live in his freedom, love, confidence or mind-heart.

Taoist Beliefs and Practices: Tao is the first-cause of the universe. It is a force that flows through all life. "The Tao surrounds everyone and therefore everyone must listen to find enlightenment." Each believer's goal is to become one with the Tao. The concept of a personified deity is foreign, as is the concept of the creation of the universe. Thus, they do not pray as Christians do; there is no God to hear the prayers or to act upon them. They seek answers to life's problems through inner meditation and outer observation. Taoists generally have an interest in promoting health and vitality. Development of virtue is one's chief task. The Three Jewels to be sought are compassion, moderation and humility. Taoists follow the art of "wu wei," which is to let nature take its course. For example, one should allow a river to flow towards the sea unimpeded; do not erect a dam which would interfere with its natural flow. A Taoists is kind to other individuals, largely because such an action tends to be reciprocated. Taoists believe that "people are compassionate by nature...left to their own devices [they] will show this compassion without expecting a reward."

Also folks may want to check out the concept of Scientific Pantheism....(which IMO totally obviates Sasun's attack against science) http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/index.htm "A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge." Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot (1994)

Sasun - you just know too much... "To know is not to know" Lao Tzu Nice little summation of Daoism - pay special attention to the discussion of Dao vs God (not the same) and the fact that the Dao is indifferent to human affairs http://members.aol.com/heraklit1/laotzu.htm "Philosophical Taoism overlaps in many respects with Scientific Pantheism. Both are non-dualist, and deny that spirit and matter are separate substances. Both are non-theist, and deny the existence of any personal creator God or supernatural realm. Yet both have a deeply religious reverence for nature and the universe. Both stress the importance of living in harmony with nature. If you are attracted to the Taoism of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, then you will find scientific pantheism totally congenial."

Yes very interesting Arpa. Poor Kurds - I really do feel for them....no easy solutions - and many enemies, many issues. Regardless of their past outrages against Armenains - Kurds are a people deserving more then their current lot. And in fact Kurds are ethnically very close to Armenians - perhaps besides the point but it is true - and they have adapted much of the Armenain culture (as they became sedentary) and in some case carry on in place of Armenains in Eastern Anatolia where once Armenains were. Of course its very sad (bittersweet at best...) when one sees Kurds carrying on inhabitance of towns and villages and farming the land that were once Armenian...but at the same time you can also see that in a sense they are carrying on the tradition of culture/civilization that has existed there for milenia. And when I was there lookign upon the villages and the fields and the sheperds with their herds I saw Armenians of the past living on the land the very same way. Yes - the thought of them (effectively) supplanting us hurts a great deal - but just the same - in a sense the tradition carries on....amd how many of them actually have some (or a great deal) of Armenian blood in them? As for NATO - it is my belief that the alliance's days are seriously numbered...with the Iraq debacle only quickening the rift...