For discussion of politics, religion, and other content not fitting the rest of the site
[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 1428)
Message
BB Code
File
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PDF, PNG, TXT
  • Maximum file size allowed is 11742 KB.
  • Images greater than 260x260 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 496 unique user posts.
  • board catalog

File 163379800580.jpg - (720.18KB , 1080x1080 , 9b2e4dafa8c8953d40904ff4d7bf4fc3.jpg )
1428 No. 1428 [Edit]
Does a religion need any kind of supernatural element? Let's say I invited a religion called Soupism. The only rule is that you have to eat soup at least once a day. To be a Soupist, the only two conditions are that you follow this rule and consider yourself a Soupist. That's it. The symbol of Soupism is a cursive s. Does Soupism count as a religion?
Expand all images
>> No. 1429 [Edit]
And if Soupism is not a religion, what is it?
>> No. 1430 [Edit]
Careful, I hear religions based on the concept of soup-remacy aren't popular these days.
>> No. 1431 [Edit]
File 16343911276.png - (1.82MB , 1651x2332 , B684B91C-44E8-4771-883E-5CAE9070DABC.png )
1431
No, I don’t think you could call soupism a religion. In my own thinking, I’m not sure I ever identified the word “supernatural” as the unknown thing that takes something from a lifestyle or ideology to a religion, but I think you might be on to something. To me, what’s important is that a religion tacitly acknowledges the big universal questions of life (What am I doing here? How should I live my life? What happens after I die?) by giving mostly unquestionable answers to their followers. I wouldn’t call soupists, or even vegans, a group with much stricter rules, distinct moral beliefs, and culture a religion for that reason.
>> No. 1432 [Edit]
>>1431
your point about vegans is good
>> No. 1435 [Edit]
>>1431
s/supernatural/soupernatural

Kidding aside, you raise a good point. But the distinction gets a bit blurred with cults, which may also provide "answers" to some of those questions you cited.
>> No. 1436 [Edit]
File 163451810394.jpg - (281.85KB , 771x1100 , 7248f541eef78e6a577c3ade1732de0c.jpg )
1436
>>1435
I think cults are a subset of religion, or maybe the larval stage of religion. Lots of popular religions started with a cult of personality.
>> No. 1450 [Edit]
If it has no supernatural elements then it's a philosophy not a region.
>> No. 1460 [Edit]
File 164514529983.jpg - (66.05KB , 900x900 , (「・ω・)「.jpg )
1460
>>1450
This post reminds me of Wittgenstein's point about how the majority of philosophical debates are really just bickering over the definitions of words.

Sure, Soupism could be a religion, but if so then it's a very unsatisfying and boring one.
>> No. 1461 [Edit]
>>1460
What, you don't like soup?
>> No. 1462 [Edit]
>>1460
It's not just arguing semantics in this case.

To be a religion it has to have a supernatural element connected to it that explains it's rules. So for example, if there was a soup god that said you must eat soup once a day or you will die, that's a religion. But if it's just a group of people that decided that eating soup once a day is good for you or that eating soup once a day with like-minded people brings people together and is good to create lasting friendships, that's not a religion it's a philosophy or even a health choice.

Post edited on 18th Feb 2022, 6:09pm
>> No. 1463 [Edit]
>>1462
>if it's just a group of people that decided that eating soup once a day is good for you or that eating soup once a day with like-minded people brings people together and is good to create lasting friendships
Sounds pretty casual. What if you add fanaticism?
>> No. 1464 [Edit]
>>1460
>philosophical debates are really just bickering over the definitions of words
The bickering over "consciousness" always seems like this. People always redefine the term so they can defend a viewpoint that no one really meant in the first place. The "compatibilists" are a prime example of this.

At it's core there are only 3 options for the question of free will:

* The universe is completely deterministic (á la superdeterminism) at which point you obviously have no free will at all, and the notion of science itself which depends on the notion of independence faces a radical paradigm shift (maybe independence only holds at the macroscopic level or something, who knows). That is to say, the future is "predetermined" but not predictable given the complexity. Either way this is the option that no one dares to accept.

* The universe has true randomness at the quantum level, and our decisions/thoughts at any point in time are purely a function of our sensory inputs and brain patterns which evolve over time (plus maybe some minor random noise). In this case the future is "locally" predetermined (depending on the amount of random noise), and in the long term is undetermined (given the randomness). But if there's no mechanism by which you can influence the randomness, then there's no "will" here either.

* There is some unknown physics by which we can influence events at a non-material level. This is seemingly what most people cling to when confronted with the question.

But either way philosophy contributes nothing here. If this _is_ a decidable question it is one that can only solved by experimentation to learn more about the nature of the universe and how our sensory inputs are converted into thoughts.
>> No. 1465 [Edit]
>>1463
It would not change anything, many non-religious movements are quite fanatic, for example communism, anarchism or fascism.

View catalog

Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason  


[Home] [Manage]



[ Rules ] [ an / foe / ma / mp3 / vg / vn ] [ cr / fig / navi ] [ mai / ot / so / tat ] [ arc / ddl / irc / lol / ns / pic ] [ home ]