Originally posted by Lord Shark
The important point is whether this difference is salient. if you think not, you can easily draw an equivalence between dogmatic atheist systems and dogmatic religious ones.

I think there is a salient difference, but whether or not this matters is a question of which concerns are addressed.

Yes my friend, we agree that the difference you monitored is factual. But, since the outcome in both circumstances is the same, I prefer to draw an equivalence between dogmatic atheist systems and dogmatic religious ones.

You helped this Greek to express his thought perfectly in English and thankfull he remains😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Hey Palynka, this is what I think about Karma;

I will leave aside the miscellaneous exoteric traditions according to which Karma -Sk. Karman, meaning literally: mission/ debt/ role and only under esoteric terms action/ energy, T. las) is merely the mechanism you understand (positive/ negative actions produce positive/ negative results). This is the ...[text shortened]... quantum Darwinism is better expressed by the term quantum Karma, but that’s another story
😵

Thanks, bb. Forgive me if I take it as a description of what Karma is and not an invitation to discuss it at length. Maybe in some other thread, some other time...

Originally posted by Palynka
Thanks, bb. Forgive me if I take it as a description of what Karma is and not an invitation to discuss it at length. Maybe in some other thread, some other time...

It is just a description of Karma. I thank you too😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Yes my friend, we agree that the difference you monitored is factual. But, since the outcome in both circumstances is the same, I prefer to draw an equivalence between dogmatic atheist systems and dogmatic religious ones.

You helped this Greek to express his thought perfectly in English and thankfull he remains😵

You're welcome.

I still have a concern about what you term 'both circumstances' though. For some sets of circumstances, and thus their attendant concerns, the outcome will be the same, but for others, not.

We agree that authoritarian dogmatic systems, be they atheist or theist, are undesirable though, so perhaps that is the important point.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
You're welcome.

I still have a concern about what you term 'both circumstances' though. For some sets of circumstances, and thus their attendant concerns, the outcome will be the same, but for others, not.

We agree that authoritarian dogmatic systems, be they atheist or theist, are undesirable though, so perhaps that is the important point.

This is exactly my opinion too. I think it is necessary to cease dogmatize upon the nature of things based on miscellaneous so called “absolute truths”, regardless if they have a theist on an atheist origin. We could further agree that it is absurd to claim that every religious system pushes the individual and/ or the people to be fanatic activist/s, and that it is also absurd to claim the same for every political system.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I think that although there are similarities between some dogmatic systems which are atheist, like Maoism, and religion in the way they inspire adherents to behave, I think there is an important difference.

This difference is the involvement of concepts of supernatural agents.

Why is this difference so important? Also, how does a religion like Buddhism (not bound to the supernatural) or Confucianism fit in?

Originally posted by Palynka
Back-tracking? What backtracking? You were talking about a supernatural spirit of the nation when I said that would be religious. 😕

The difference is that again you go from the metaphor to equivalence of the concepts. There is a number of traits that we associate with fanatical religion, the metaphor conveys these traits in a succinct way. That's what me ...[text shortened]... e of religions that have none of those fanatical traits. So those are not necessary conditions.

I was kidding about the backsliding.

I'm hoping to show an organic correlation between systems.

I take it you've already stated the necessary condition for a religion?

I'm on holiday, so keep this thread warm for a week or so ...

Originally posted by black beetle
This is exactly my opinion too. I think it is necessary to cease dogmatize upon the nature of things based on miscellaneous so called “absolute truths”, regardless if they have a theist on an atheist origin. We could further agree that it is absurd to claim that every religious system pushes the individual and/ or the people to be fanatic activist/s, and that it is also absurd to claim the same for every political system.

I do further agree.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Why is this difference so important? Also, how does a religion like Buddhism (not bound to the supernatural) or Confucianism fit in?

I think the difference is important if one is seeking to understand the role of religions in society and to work out a response. By 'religion' I refer to belief systems involving concepts of supernatural agents and some recognised religions might not fit into that.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I was kidding about the backsliding.

I'm hoping to show an organic correlation between systems.

I take it you've already stated the necessary condition for a religion?

I'm on holiday, so keep this thread warm for a week or so ...

My definition stated the necessary and sufficient condition...

Enjoy your holiday.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I think the difference is important if one is seeking to understand the role of religions in society and to work out a response. By 'religion' I refer to belief systems involving concepts of supernatural agents and some recognised religions might not fit into that.

How to distinguish between the two if in fact 'religion' applies to both?

Originally posted by Palynka
My definition stated the necessary and sufficient condition...

Enjoy your holiday.

... which I reject.

Oh well!