[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Saya

There's a lot of people who believe in aliens who feel they have proof. Its kinda easy to get sucked up in conspiracy theories, and yet I don't think all people who believe in aliens are religious or part of a religious community. Conspiracy theorists might be logical and rational, but very very wrong.

I'm confident that they are. I once saw a UFO. Scared the shit out of me. My point is; it's a mistake to assume something is actually true without proving it and continuing to think it's true despite lacking an ability to prove it doubly so. Is it a grievous sin? Eh. Worse things have been believed.

The definition of religion I work on is that it defines what it means to be human, in relation to divinity (or lack thereof?) and the subhuman, what it means to be born and to die, have a sense of tradition, have a sense of community, and have a vision for the future. And it is broad because that includes a ton of pop culture that isn't taken for true, but people find a lot of meaning and community in.

I'll have to disagree with you here. You're giving religion way too much range to the point of it being whatever preserves the word itself for the sake of... I dunno.

Trekkies for example, I would say are a kind of religious group. They might not really believe Star Trek is real, but like I said in my response for Jonathan, some religions don't believe in the supernatural at all, even their own supernatural stories. You can see that in a lot of fandoms, you can see that in nationalism. I'm starting to view the religion situation in America like Ancient Rome, you must worship the state, you should worship the religion the state likes the most, in the way the state likes the most. Americans have a higher purpose in the world! You're the leaders of the free world! Even the forefathers and the story of the revolution is very mythical, if I might say, and there's a lot of religious tones and themes surrounding American nationalism itself.

Yep. And it's pretty destructive. The Amero-religious fervor must be confronted viciously. That shit is empirically deadly. I still thing you're giving religion way too much of a range here though and really... you're kind of changing what religion actually is and talking about something entirely different than what is colloquially understood as religion. But I'm sure that desperate believers in actual religions would LOVE your definition because it eases the tension of cognitive dissonance.

And that's very unique. I couldn't even tell you why Canada became its own country. Don't know any major figures involved. We don't have a creation myth.

History can tell you. Why did it become a country? Because this lead to this which lead to this which lead to this which lead to the emergence of the Canadian state. Not to say that the Canadian state was inevitable. But you can trace how it came to be and why it is now the way it is in historical context. Everything changes; even Canada. Which it seems is the contradiction of Christian scripture. It asserted that there were timeless ideas. Now anyone can be a Christian and have a totally different narrative about it. That's indicative of something far more interesting if you ask me; that Christianity for all its "final revelation" posturing ended up amending and changing and reinterpreting and correcting and admitting that the Earth really is round in the 90s.

its not that i'd rather you lie, but think more critically about how religion functions, the oppression dynamics and the assumptions we have as non-Christians-but-still-hold-to-Christian-ideas-about-religion people.

Oh sure. I know what you mean. I think the religions that aren't so.... revelationy or whatever have a greater chance of adapting and staying relevant. If you ask me, Buddhism will outlive the 3 Abrahemic religions.

Among a lot of religious people, and even in tradition, doubt isn't a bad thing. The hegomonic orthodoxy in positions of power typically doesn't like it because it displaces their political power, but religions that do not gain privilege from its practioners tend to be pretty lax about orthodoxy and doubt. There's a lot of discussion about what faith is I won't bore you with, but in a more organic religious life I suppose, it goes hand in hand with doubt.

I guess that's significant for some people; but that's not really important to me. I don't really care about that. If they want to make a positive claim about reality, I'd be eager to see them demonstrate that fact. I invite them to make me a believer.

Like feminism or humanism?

Not really. Feminism isn't a religion. Lots of people can be dogmatic about it though. But I'd argue that that's actually a very good thing. Humanism? Eh.

If belief isn't even expected from followers, why do you suppose I require you to believe and not believe?

Then by all means, it's not something to really worry about then. How broad do we want to make religion before it becomes a vapid and useless term and we're back to being specific again?