mjpb that Jack the Lads morals are from Christian ancestory is total garbage. First off a good person will not need moral guidence from a book only a bad person will seek moral guidence from a book. When you are cool life works mostly well , when you are smart you know it will be up and down. A bad person will not change and I could give a roll call of a thousand christians who I am personally certain will remain bad no matter what they believe in. Besides the Bible onlt doles out Taboo's not morals and morals are different depending on culture. Secularists never commited the pure evil of witch burning of the dishonesty of claiming to represent a universal god.

Foxy is saying that because some apes are superstitious then all of us believe in God , Philo is trying to make that claim too , but such a claim is false. What they are saying is typical though understandable , because they believe in deities then they cannot understand how nobody else can too. I can only assume and I mean no offence to Foxy and Philo by this is that religious people do not mature their understanding of the external world from when they are small children. As psychologists note , babies see other people as physical extentions of themselves. I am not calling you two babies, this sort of thing is common , many people do not emotionally mature , ethically mature , or mature motor skills and such, most people are infintire in at least one respect I would imagine, but in this case you two do present strong evidence supporting this , because in all reality I do not have any belief in magic , magical creatures including gods. I am not unique , I know many others so it is then a fact of life the belief in god is not universal.

Also foxy your argument falls short because everybody who believes in gods or other mythical creatures believe in different things.

Dear West,

If you're going to attribute something to me, please read all of my posts on this subject before doing so. I'm not stating what I personally do or do not believe - I'm talking about religion - generally.

As I've stated quite clearly religion is a universal social institution, which takes a multitude of forms. Believers may worship gods, ancestors, or totems; they may practice solitary meditation, frenzied rutuals, or solemn prayer. The great variety of religious
behaviour and belief makes it very difficult to say exactly what
"religion" is. Many definitions have been offered in the past, but most of the ones we are familiar with have been biased by ethnocentric Judeo-Christian ideas about religion. These ideas are based on a number of central beliefs: that there exists one supreme being or God; that God created the universe and all life and takes a continuing interest in the creation; that there is a life hereafter, and that our moral behaviour in this life influences our fate in the
next.

In cross-cultural terms, however, this particular combination of beliefs is unusual. Many religions do not recognize a supreme being, and a number do not believe in gods at all. Several religions ignore questions about the origins of the universe and life, leaving these problems to be dealt with instead by nonreligious myth. Many religions assume that the gods take little interest in human affairs.
Some have almost nothing to say about life after death, and many - perhaps most- do not link our earthly morality with our fate beyond the grave.

Obviously, religion cannot be defined in terms of Western religious tradition alone...

That's the way Foxy, keep the mindless irreligious defencless. They cannot mount a logical argument giving a true definition of what is "a religion". As we have been taught in our Churches that our core beliefs sum up who we are as humans, and determine what we do, and how we live in and politically construct our society. Beliefs based in an opinion for example of "what is the value of a human life". Answer that religious question and you begin to understand the persons religious values.

Our western society is built around entrenched Christian religious values. That they cannot accept. Two primary principles of Christianity are love and forgivness. The acceptance of those that fail in their real image of God, like we all do. Those that can accept forgivness for their failures. These attitudes are worked into how we ought to live and accept each other. West has a problem accepting himself and the religious reality that surrounds him. He is in denial of others reality. We must pray for him.

Foxy, I was intrigued by your statement:

>>As I've stated quite clearly religion is a universal social institution<<

Philo then weighs in with a whoop and a holler -

>>That's the way Foxy, keep the mindless irreligious defencless. They cannot mount a logical argument giving a true definition of what is "a religion"

If I understand this correctly, Philo is suggesting that it is the "mindless irreligious" who cannot provide a true definition of religion. But as Foxy points out, even the religious are finding it impossible:

>>Many religions do not recognize a supreme being, and a number do not believe in gods at all. Several religions ignore questions about the origins of the universe and life... Many religions assume that the gods take little interest in human affairs... Some have almost nothing to say about life after death, and many - perhaps most- do not link our earthly morality with our fate beyond the grave.<<

That pretty well covers how religions differ, but it doesn't get an awful lot closer to providing anything positive to cling onto, does it?

Is the observation "religion is a universal social institution" intended to be a definition, perhaps?

If so, it leaves out an awful lot that religionists tend to get quite worked up about. It mentions nothing about spiritual vs. temporal, nothing about beliefs, nothing about worshipping, praying, genuflection, animal sacrifices etc.

So Philo, maybe it's up to you: can you perhaps "mount a logical argument giving a true definition of what is 'a religion'"?

Bet you can't.

At least, I bet you can't without contradicting Foxy's dissertation.

Dear Pericles,

I didn't realize that this was going to be a dissertation on the subject. Seeing as we're only allowed 350 words I'll try to keep it simple...

You want religion defined - ok. Here goes. Religion is a system of community shared beliefs and rituals that are oriented toward some sacred, supernatural realm.

A single feature is common to all religions: a sharp distinction between the sacred and the profane. The sacred is anything that is regarded as part of the supernatural rather than the ordinary world; as such it inspires awe, reverence, and deep respect. Anything can be considered sacred: a god, a rock, the moon, a king, a symbol such as a cross.

On the other hand, the profane is anything that is regarded as part of the ordinary rather than the supernatural world; as such it may be considered familiar, mundane, even corrupting. Of course, the profane, too, may be embodied by a rock, the moon,a king, or a symbol.

Something becomes either sacred or profane only when it is socially defined as such by a community of believers.

A religious community always approaches the sacred through a ritual - a formal, stylized procedure, such as prayer, incantation, or ceremonial cleansing. Ritual is a necessary part of religion because the sacred has extraordinary qualities, and must be approached in a carefully prescribed, reverential manner.

So, again I repeat that religion is a system of community shared beliefs and rituals that are oriented towards some sacred, supernatural realm. The phenomenon is of such universal social importance that it has long been, and remains, a major focus of sociological interest.

I won't go into the various different religions by classifying them, there are a series of basic types according to their central belief:
simple supernaturalism, animism, theism, and transcendent idealism.
These are merely artificial categories, of course, and not all religions fit neatly into this classification.

I trust that this has answered your question. If it hasn't I suggest
you take a book out on the subject from your local library.

Thanks Foxy, your new definition, complete with the bit about the supernatural, seems to fit the bill quite nicely. I could argue the toss for a while about your pummelling of the word "profane" - I am not sure that I have ever heard of a profane rock, for example, and would strongly doubt that "anything" has the characteristic of profanity - but by and large it seems pretty workable.

What is interesting to me is that it also quite neatly takes the wind out of the "atheism is a religion" sails that we see so often filled by some gale-force huffing and puffing on this forum.

Atheists, by definition, accept no god, no supernatural, no sacred and no profane. The absence of belief in the sacred cannot connote its opposite without overturning the entire concept of logic.

And most telling of all, they do not group together in "community shared beliefs and rituals."

So, my thanks for helping put that old "atheists are religious too" canard to bed, once and for all.