(November 15, 2013 at 10:43 pm)arvind13 Wrote: Well, Christianity has a certain structure which makes it into a religion.This same structure is shared by two other entities: Islam and Judaism. So these three are the only religions in the world.
Nonsense - the part of the structure that makes these two religions is shared by many other religions of the world.
(November 15, 2013 at 10:43 pm)arvind13 Wrote: In my last post I spoke about the need for a scientific theory of religion, which lays bare the structure of religion, outlines the empirical consequences. Fortunately such a theory exists: http://www.hipkapi.com/2011/03/05/the-re...angadhara/
Where is it? All I found on the site was a bunch of drivel.
(November 15, 2013 at 10:43 pm)arvind13 Wrote: The theory solves many problems (as any scientific theory should) and answers many questions, such as:
It'd seem my definition answers these questions quite well.
(November 15, 2013 at 10:43 pm)arvind13 Wrote: Are beliefs central to religion? If so, Why?
Yes. Because they are the source of the rest - traditions, morals etc.
(November 15, 2013 at 10:43 pm)arvind13 Wrote: Why are doctrines so important to religion?
Because it lays out what the beliefs are supposed to be. Which is why it is important, not necessary.
(November 15, 2013 at 10:43 pm)arvind13 Wrote: What is the relationship between doctrines and religious practice?
Doctrine dictates practice.
(November 15, 2013 at 10:43 pm)arvind13 Wrote: What is worship?
Regarding something as "sacred" or "revered" as a result of certain beliefs and one's actions towards that entity.
(November 15, 2013 at 10:43 pm)arvind13 Wrote: This theory shows us why Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are the only religion. And its not so much about the word or concept religion. These three phenomena share a structure. Instead of calling this structure religion, call it X. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are examples of X. The pagan traditions of Greece, Rome, and Asia are not examples of X
Wrong again - as much of the structure you've laid out here, pagan traditions of Greece, Rome and Asia are examples of X as well.
(November 15, 2013 at 10:43 pm)arvind13 Wrote: And for the members mentioning that there were those that identified themselves as atheists long before Judaism and Christianity:
When Greeks and Romans used the word Atheos, they were referring to those who refused to take part in certain traditions, and rejected certain practices. The same applies to 'Nasthiks' (commonly translated as Atheists) in India. These were people who refused or rejected practices like going to the temple or participating in certain festivals.
But this had nothing to do with beliefs, as traditions weren't based on and didn't revolve around a belief system.
After Europe became Christian, the meaning of the word 'Atheos' radically transformed. Now it meant not believing in or 'lack of belief' in God. it became all about belief.
How do you not get this simple logical connection between belief and tradition? If you don't believe in the core doctrine, you are not going to follow the traditions. If a person doesn't believe in gods like Zeus or Athena, then it wouldn't make any sense for him to go to the temple to pray to them. If I don't believe in the authority of Vedas - the actual philosophical implication of being a 'Nastika', by the way - then I'm not going to follow all the traditions listed there. The traditions and practices always revolve around a belief system. Without them, the traditions die out pretty quickly.
