That guy sure knows what he's talking about.

Haha.

No, my definition of religion is a lot more complex than that, as I think you know, though I suppose that's not a bad summary version.

Personally the more complex the better, when it comes to definitions. I think all of the definitions you listed here work and are applicable. I think with something as intangible and subjective as belief systems one can't really give a simple one line definition and encompass the concept. Accordingly, when determining what a belief system is, when have to look at several definitions as being applicable simultaneously and not just one.

It reminds me of diagnosing the mentally ill using the DSM. You have to look at all the aspects of the symptoms and all the aspects of the criteria for mental illness and make a judgement based on that. There are symptoms that are common to several different disorders, and if we only focus on one symptom or one criteria for mental illness, we'll probably get the diagnosis wrong.

Link didn't work. Just kept bringing me to the top of this debate. Unless that was your intent, in which case...

...?

No I mean like brushing my teeth itself is a religion by that definition. Not a part of, the entirety. My bathroom is my church. My dentist is my priest. The toothbrush, my god; the floss, his choir of heavenly spirits. Cavities and gum disease are the Devil and Hell. I would live by the code of dental hygiene, and better myself for it.

This all goes back to me thinking you're deliberately too vague so you can draw parallels where none exist, but I've banged my head bloody against that wall, already. I'm posting here cause it's a new debate, even though I think we'll end up at the same old standstill. =D

Also, did our discussion inspire this debate?

A system of belief that deals with but is not limited to god(s), the supernatural, clergy, faith, tithing, church, spirituality, well-being, moral values, scripture, prophecy, messiahs, mythology, magic, ritual, and the like. Religion is just philosophy + some superstitious mumbo-jumbo, essentially.

So brushing my teeth is a religion? I do it habitually; I can articulate reasons I do it based on my beliefs and values and it absolutely shapes my way of life.

Well, to be atheist is to be against religion. Atheist arguments by definition conflict with religious arguments. So examining the arguments atheists inevitably refute is important to understanding why atheists are constantly arguing against immature notions of god. My theory is that it is because immature notions of god (like the one I provided in the post you are disputing) are the ones most frequently presented by theists. So when you are discussing atheist vapidity you really are taking about theist vapidity as well, because atheism defines itself by and through contradicting theism.

How is it irrelevant? We are discussing why atheists supposedly only argue against the most immature notions of god. Ax pointed out that a lot of atheist arguments are narrow minded and stupid. I pointed out that a lot of the positions atheists argue against are equally narrow minded and stupid. So in attempting to answer why atheists invariably argue against only the most immature notions of god (which is what this debate is about) I proposed that it was because atheists are often presented with immature notions of god to argue against by theists. So just because I am pointing out the stupidity of the arguments atheists address and not only the stupidity of the arguments atheists make does not mean I am not taking about what the debate is about or that my post was irrelevant.

But nice try.

While I know there are many intelligent atheists, the lesser educated one's ruin debates by repeating arguments which are all paraphrases of "Christians are stupid, ergo their arguments are stupid".

While I don't disagree, would you not agree there are an equal number of theists to which this alteration of your post would apply?

"the lesser educated one's ruin debates by repeating arguments which are all paraphrases of "God exists because the Bible says so and the Bible must be true because it's the word of God who we know exists because it says so in the Bible and the Bible is the word of God so it must be true and we know God always speaks truth because it says so in the Bible and the Bible must be true because it's the word of God..."

I think you get the point.

Atheists almost invariably argue against only the most immature notions of god about as often as theists invariably propose the most immature notions of god. When more mature, though- out notions of god are presented, some atheists disregard and ignore it, of course (as surely as immature theists reject mature arguments of atheism), and others rise to the occasion and argue against it as they do.

and except in cases of severe mental illness are universally for the reasoned purpose of protecting valuables.

So emotions exist for the purpose of protecting valuables? Wanted to make sure I was understanding that correctly.

Mastering ones emotions is difficult, but worth the effort. Our emotional responses can be made to better serve us if they are carefully and consciously tended to, and NOT regarded as being, by definition, contrary to reason.

Well I've done just what you said not to. =p Over time I've beaten my emotions into submission in favor of reason and logic. I did this because more often than not my initial, knee-jerk reaction to something (and the action I want to take, on a whim) usually isn't the smartest or most well thought out thing to do in that situation. My emotions pull of influence me one way, but if I sit and just think about it for a bit, I can usually think of a more viable alternative and understand why my initial reaction was silly and groundless.

Well how about fear of being shot. One could stand there analyzing their odds of getting hit or go with their conditioned response and kiss the dirt or run for cover.

Understanding that you are about to be shot could also provoke a very reasonable and logical response in the form of taking cover or running; fear, an emotion, is just as likely to send you running as it is to make you freeze up when you find yourself at gunpoint, which is not a logical thing to do. Neither is getting irrationally pissed off when someone says something you disagree with, and neither is reacting, on a whim, to that by turning around and punching that person in the face. Inexplicable mood swings, are another good example of an emotional state that doesn't make a whole lot of rational sense, and that doesn't aptly justify any whimsical action made during that inexplicable mood swing.

Prove it

If you are jealous, or angry, or hateful, or depressed, or happy, or whatever you don't need to use a system of rational thought to achieve or justify any of these. If you hate spiders, seeing a spider immediately evokes primal fear and loathing from you, and you're likely to either freeze up like a deer in headlights or rampage out on the spider and kill it with a blowtorch or a sledgehammer - overkill. Rationally and logically you could look at a spider and see a big not all that different than most bugs, not worthy of any additional fear or hatred, and deal with it like you would deal with other bugs.

I don't really have any studies proving this, as once again I'm all the proof I need. Personally. I understand how this falls a little short for you, but personally I've been in far to many situations when my emotions themselves are irrational, and the actions they compel me to perpetuate are illogical. If I take a moment to control my emotions and apply logic and reason, I can usually arrive at a more amicable way to feel and act.

How so?

I've always seen emotions as knee-jerk reactions. We don't really have a whole lot of control over our emotions, even though we do control how we use them. So if you're confronted with a person or statement or object that triggers a certain emotion and you immediately act on that emotion, how is that reasoned thought and action?

I suppose to some degree a persons rational for saying or doing something could be based on how they feel emotionally, but this seems to be a little wordplay trick that only serves to justify the action, not the emotion itself. Emotions and, by extension, emotional thinking don't need any kind of logic or rational to exist.

Reason is automatic. It's how we think.

Could an applicable opposite to that not be emotional thinking? People who don't think so much as react on a whim?

Example: i worship a flying spaghetti monster.

I can only worship a flying spaghetti monster if a flying spaghetti monster exists.

Therefore the flying spaghetti monster exists.