Some Thought for the Mind
 

I just stumbled across my definition of religion in the most ironic of places. Through reading the book Witness a popular anti-communist (and largely bigoted book which was a leading force of the "Red Scare" in the 1950s), I came across this quote: "By ex-Communists I do not mean those who break with Communism over differences of strategy and tactics (like Trotsky) or organization (like Tito). Those are merely quarrels over a road map by people all of whom are in a hurry to get to the same place."

So here I assert my personal definition of religion: "Mere quarrels over a road map by people all of whom are in a hurry to get to the same place."

Well, some religious people think that they are going to be reborn in the next life (and so on). Others think they'll go to heaven and whatnot.

In this way they aren't trying to get to the same place.

From another viewpoint, religion is, on the whole, an attempt to connect with something beyond the scope of humanity. I say on the whole that looking at it like this your definition fits, but you could always find certain religions that have views where it wouldn't.

I was referring along these lines, not in the sense of "heaven." I think it applies to our natural desire for spirituality.

Okay, but I'm saying that "spirituality" can be so different for people in different religions that it might not be fair to say they are trying to get to the same place.

Unless that place is just any sort of connection with something beyond humanity at all.

I'm not aiming for 72 virgins, becoming nothingness, or dying and returning as a deer, frog, or offspring of Brad and Angelina. :P

Yes, there's a big difference. ;)

You're taking "same place" in the most literal of ways. What is the ultimate goal of religion to you?

Is it not to seek some form of salvation?

Yeah that's what I meant, "some place" is so vague. You could interpret it in too many different ways.

I recently came across a definition of religion that I really liked, too - it seemed to cover most things. From the book No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam by Reza Aslan:

I'd quibble slightly on the 'institutionalized' bit, but it's a definition I quite like, and seems to cover most, if not all, religions.

I think spirituality is important in order to maintain purpose; in saying that the institutionalization of religion is generally a bad thing and merely a mode of control. That is why I dissocate with religious institutions and I'm contented with that. :)

Yeah, I agree. I think the key to unity among religions is understanding that each religion is a roadmap or "story" like you said. Although each religion has a different journey, similar goals are entitled to the "destination" aspect.

I would agree that it's people working towards the same goal, only that that goal is a form of mind control, either controlling or being controlled.

^What a wonderful, thoughtful way to put it, HNM. :) I'm guessing you were really trying to strain yourself from saying that (like you've told me so many times how much you "try so hard"), but like all struggles, not everything can be won. Pity.

A bit like you with your comparisons to Hitler made in absence of a real argument? :P

As your sig states, things need to be questioned before they should be held to be true.

No, my signature does not state that we should question things.

My signature states that we should question our education, and then explains that in the process of questioning, we must "try it out", meaning we should see what works and what doesn't. However, you've stated yourself that you've "learned enough" regarding religion, and then proceed to flaunt your ignorance of it by constantly adhering to flame-based stereotypes of an adolescent nature.

Good job. Now go take a few religion classes and maybe your insults of the future will have some merit to them, instead of sounding like utter nonsense. Thank you. And also, I'd love to know how "hard" you're trying not to get involved in a discussion like this when you post what you did. You know what I'm talking about.

You're the one perpetuating the stereotype by acting into it. I genuinely do not see how any of the above is taken as an insult, unless you are insulted when I question your use of association fallacy.