There's too many other labels a person carries with them throughout life to say that they are only one thing or not.

True.

But if you come at it from the religion, not the individual..... It's really kinda a trick question since religions, like people are very complex.

"People are NOT their culture"

Who would think that is true? Again it's complicated and such a question is an oversimplification. But why should religion get a different sorta take? Like culture, one can cherry pick what they chose to act on within their religion.... but you cannot have such and such a culture if there are no people within that culture. Indeed, the very fact that every religion has different sects and branches that people even kill other over sorta supports that people are their religion..... or more their religion than some would like to admit.

Some people take that seriously, and a lot of people find it to be bullshit. There's no winning that argument, but I can freely declare it bullshit if I want to.

although I cannot imagine why your comments were taken so badly.

I agree that people are not their religion, simply because all (most?) people are much more complex than just their religious beliefs. Think about how believers are all so different. If people were their religion, then all members of a certain religion/sect would be very much the same.

But your comments are valid. There is no religion without the people who support it.

And I am not sure why the "leaders use religion" even got into the discussion. I don't see any argument in that, from anyone.

100+ recs based on a colossal lie....



Ummm....yeah back to your topic.

I think that before you can determine if people are their religion or not its important to define exactly what one means by religion. I would typically define it as "a revealed truth as to the correct way to live one's life."

With regards to organized religion, I would imagine that this revealed truth changes as more and more people join in and eventually you reach a point where competing ideas on the nature of this "truth" forces the people to sit down and decide on an official version.

At this point it becomes rigid and resistant to change and to a degree. Over time it can even hold beliefs contrary to the people (slavery for example) but overall it still requires that most of its core principles be held by its adherents or else the people will leave it and it will die.

So, I guess after rambling about here for a bit, it I would have to agree with you. Though I feels its important to note that it can take on a life of its own in some limited ways.

Just my $0.02

And I never ask.

and a religion isn't one of them.

When people espouse a belief, they presumably stand by that belief, religious or otherwise. Belief systems span from general to specific, too. Marianists is more specific than Catholic is more specific than Christian, is more specific than Theist, etc. If someone says "I'm a strict Catholic" they embrace the values espoused by the religion. They are not the embodiment of the religion. I know from that statement a lot about that person. Of course Catholicism is easy. They have spokespeople who are pretty clear (arbitrary but clear) about their positions on a wide range of things.

The religions themselves are defined by the institutions that run them. The people are certainly the meaningful component I fear that argument edges into the territory of "corporations are people my friend."

Ultimately, people can change. Arguably so can religion, but it's typically not as fast of a process.

goes into something I find frustrating when someone, usually religious, says that atheism is a religion itself. For me being an atheist is a 'not thing' there is nothing assertive I just don't find faith without evidence convincing. Apparently there are atheists forming groups and meeting to discuss their atheism, but I can't see why. It's like a bunch of older kids who found out Santa isn't real asking each other "What did you get for Christmas that Santa could not have possibly brought because he isn't real."

then religion is independent of the people who believe it, it exists outside of human civilization as this "truth". Kind of like math but without the intellectual rigor of logical consistency (to a point) and minimal assumptions and verifiability.

Otherwise religion is no different than any other ideology, without believers it has no vitality. It can 'exist' in books and other persistent records as a description of a belief system that was once vital, but that is not really the same thing.

Who would have guessed?