Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[CynthiaZ]

a rational conclusion that your gawds and the gawds of others do not exist.

That is an ideology

Conclusions are not ideologies. I make decisions and reach conclusions every day about the choices I make. There is no ideological imperative involved.

You made a statement about your conclusion. You believe that your conclusion is rational but provided no proof nor any evidence that your conclusion is indeed rational. Your belief that your conclusion is rational implies that you believe your conclusion is truth and all other opinions contrary to your conclusion are wrong and those who hold opinions contrary to your conclusion are irrational. You belief that your conclusion is rational and implied belief that others are wrong also an Us vs Them mentality. And that hints at believing that you somehow atheism is somehow superior to theism because you believe it is more rational if not the only rational stance to take when it comes to the question as to whether God does or does not exist.

 

[Hollie]

a rational conclusion that your gawds and the gawds of others do not exist.

That is an ideology

Conclusions are not ideologies. I make decisions and reach conclusions every day about the choices I make. There is no ideological imperative involved.

You made a statement about your conclusion. You believe that your conclusion is rational but provided no proof nor any evidence that your conclusion is indeed rational. Your belief that your conclusion is rational implies that you believe your conclusion is truth and all other opinions contrary to your conclusion are wrong and those who hold opinions contrary to your conclusion are irrational. You belief that your conclusion is rational and implied belief that others are wrong also an Us vs Them mentality. And that hints at believing that you somehow atheism is somehow superior to theism because you believe it is more rational if not the only rational stance to take when it comes to the question as to whether God does or does not exist.

I already gave you the reasons why it is a rational conclusion such that your gawds do not exist.

Make your best case for your gawds (delineating how your gawds are rationally supported vs. all the other gawds), and anyone reading this thread can reach their own conclusions.

You can do that, right?

 

[CynthiaZ]

a rational conclusion that your gawds and the gawds of others do not exist.

That is an ideology

Conclusions are not ideologies. I make decisions and reach conclusions every day about the choices I make. There is no ideological imperative involved.

You made a statement about your conclusion. You believe that your conclusion is rational but provided no proof nor any evidence that your conclusion is indeed rational. Your belief that your conclusion is rational implies that you believe your conclusion is truth and all other opinions contrary to your conclusion are wrong and those who hold opinions contrary to your conclusion are irrational. You belief that your conclusion is rational and implied belief that others are wrong also an Us vs Them mentality. And that hints at believing that you somehow atheism is somehow superior to theism because you believe it is more rational if not the only rational stance to take when it comes to the question as to whether God does or does not exist.

I already gave you the reasons why it is a rational conclusion such that your gawds do not exist.

Make your best case for your gawds (delineating how your gawds are rationally supported vs. all the other gawds), and anyone reading this thread can reach their own conclusions.

You can do that, right?

If you did give a case as to how you came to this rational conclusion maybe you should point it out to me or reiterate again so we all may see the logic and rationality that brought you to this conclusion given that you have no idea what my concept of God is and neither do you have idea about what any other person God concept is about. But yet you say you have come to the rational conclusion that these God concepts cannot possibly exist. Please show us all how you came to that rational conclusion.

 

[Hollie]

a rational conclusion that your gawds and the gawds of others do not exist.

That is an ideology

Conclusions are not ideologies. I make decisions and reach conclusions every day about the choices I make. There is no ideological imperative involved.

You made a statement about your conclusion. You believe that your conclusion is rational but provided no proof nor any evidence that your conclusion is indeed rational. Your belief that your conclusion is rational implies that you believe your conclusion is truth and all other opinions contrary to your conclusion are wrong and those who hold opinions contrary to your conclusion are irrational. You belief that your conclusion is rational and implied belief that others are wrong also an Us vs Them mentality. And that hints at believing that you somehow atheism is somehow superior to theism because you believe it is more rational if not the only rational stance to take when it comes to the question as to whether God does or does not exist.

I already gave you the reasons why it is a rational conclusion such that your gawds do not exist.

Make your best case for your gawds (delineating how your gawds are rationally supported vs. all the other gawds), and anyone reading this thread can reach their own conclusions.

You can do that, right?

If you did give a case as to how you came to this rational conclusion maybe you should point it out to me or reiterate again so we all may see the logic and rationality that brought you to this conclusion given that you have no idea what my concept of God is and neither do you have idea about what any other person God concept is about. But yet you say you have come to the rational conclusion that these God concepts cannot possibly exist. Please show us all how you came to that rational conclusion.

So why is it that you steadfastly refuse to make a rational case for your gawds? As you believe it is irrational that someone would reject your "because I say so" argument, I would have thought that you, making the positive assertion for partisan gawds, could rationally make the case that lays out the groundwork for belief in those gawds.

 

[CynthiaZ]

That is an ideology

Conclusions are not ideologies. I make decisions and reach conclusions every day about the choices I make. There is no ideological imperative involved.

You made a statement about your conclusion. You believe that your conclusion is rational but provided no proof nor any evidence that your conclusion is indeed rational. Your belief that your conclusion is rational implies that you believe your conclusion is truth and all other opinions contrary to your conclusion are wrong and those who hold opinions contrary to your conclusion are irrational. You belief that your conclusion is rational and implied belief that others are wrong also an Us vs Them mentality. And that hints at believing that you somehow atheism is somehow superior to theism because you believe it is more rational if not the only rational stance to take when it comes to the question as to whether God does or does not exist.

I already gave you the reasons why it is a rational conclusion such that your gawds do not exist.

Make your best case for your gawds (delineating how your gawds are rationally supported vs. all the other gawds), and anyone reading this thread can reach their own conclusions.

You can do that, right?

If you did give a case as to how you came to this rational conclusion maybe you should point it out to me or reiterate again so we all may see the logic and rationality that brought you to this conclusion given that you have no idea what my concept of God is and neither do you have idea about what any other person God concept is about. But yet you say you have come to the rational conclusion that these God concepts cannot possibly exist. Please show us all how you came to that rational conclusion.

So why is it that you steadfastly refuse to make a rational case for your gawds? As you believe it is irrational that someone would reject your "because I say so" argument, I would have thought that you, making the positive assertion for partisan gawds, could rationally make the case that lays out the groundwork for belief in those gawds.

When I say "I believe that God exist" I am making a statement of faith I am not saying that I have the absolute truth but that I take it on faith that my concept of God exist. A statement of faith is hardly a positive assertion, I am not absolutely sure God exist but I believe on my faith that God exist. It is you who are making the positive assertion when you claim that you have the absolute truth and only rational conclusion when it comes to the question as to whether God exists or not.

 

[Hollie]

Conclusions are not ideologies. I make decisions and reach conclusions every day about the choices I make. There is no ideological imperative involved.

You made a statement about your conclusion. You believe that your conclusion is rational but provided no proof nor any evidence that your conclusion is indeed rational. Your belief that your conclusion is rational implies that you believe your conclusion is truth and all other opinions contrary to your conclusion are wrong and those who hold opinions contrary to your conclusion are irrational. You belief that your conclusion is rational and implied belief that others are wrong also an Us vs Them mentality. And that hints at believing that you somehow atheism is somehow superior to theism because you believe it is more rational if not the only rational stance to take when it comes to the question as to whether God does or does not exist.

I already gave you the reasons why it is a rational conclusion such that your gawds do not exist.

Make your best case for your gawds (delineating how your gawds are rationally supported vs. all the other gawds), and anyone reading this thread can reach their own conclusions.

You can do that, right?

If you did give a case as to how you came to this rational conclusion maybe you should point it out to me or reiterate again so we all may see the logic and rationality that brought you to this conclusion given that you have no idea what my concept of God is and neither do you have idea about what any other person God concept is about. But yet you say you have come to the rational conclusion that these God concepts cannot possibly exist. Please show us all how you came to that rational conclusion.

So why is it that you steadfastly refuse to make a rational case for your gawds? As you believe it is irrational that someone would reject your "because I say so" argument, I would have thought that you, making the positive assertion for partisan gawds, could rationally make the case that lays out the groundwork for belief in those gawds.

When I say "I believe that God exist" I am making a statement of faith I am not saying that I have the absolute truth but that I take it on faith that my concept of God exist. A statement of faith is hardly a positive assertion, I am not absolutely sure God exist but I believe on my faith that God exist. It is you who are making the positive assertion when you claim that you have the absolute truth and only rational conclusion when it comes to the question as to whether God exists or not.

We agree that your statement of faith is no better supported in terms of your partisan gawds than any other version of competing gawds.

I conclude your gawds are no better supported than any other version of partisan gawds.

You certainly could resolve your confusion and the confusion shared by those who believe in competing models of gawds with a simple assembly of facts supporting your partisan gawds.

As usual, we're left with you making specious claims to gawds which you refuse to offer support for.

 

[CynthiaZ]

You made a statement about your conclusion. You believe that your conclusion is rational but provided no proof nor any evidence that your conclusion is indeed rational. Your belief that your conclusion is rational implies that you believe your conclusion is truth and all other opinions contrary to your conclusion are wrong and those who hold opinions contrary to your conclusion are irrational. You belief that your conclusion is rational and implied belief that others are wrong also an Us vs Them mentality. And that hints at believing that you somehow atheism is somehow superior to theism because you believe it is more rational if not the only rational stance to take when it comes to the question as to whether God does or does not exist.

I already gave you the reasons why it is a rational conclusion such that your gawds do not exist.

Make your best case for your gawds (delineating how your gawds are rationally supported vs. all the other gawds), and anyone reading this thread can reach their own conclusions.

You can do that, right?

If you did give a case as to how you came to this rational conclusion maybe you should point it out to me or reiterate again so we all may see the logic and rationality that brought you to this conclusion given that you have no idea what my concept of God is and neither do you have idea about what any other person God concept is about. But yet you say you have come to the rational conclusion that these God concepts cannot possibly exist. Please show us all how you came to that rational conclusion.

So why is it that you steadfastly refuse to make a rational case for your gawds? As you believe it is irrational that someone would reject your "because I say so" argument, I would have thought that you, making the positive assertion for partisan gawds, could rationally make the case that lays out the groundwork for belief in those gawds.

When I say "I believe that God exist" I am making a statement of faith I am not saying that I have the absolute truth but that I take it on faith that my concept of God exist. A statement of faith is hardly a positive assertion, I am not absolutely sure God exist but I believe on my faith that God exist. It is you who are making the positive assertion when you claim that you have the absolute truth and only rational conclusion when it comes to the question as to whether God exists or not.

We agree that your statement of faith is no better supported in terms of your partisan gawds than any other version of competing gawds.

I conclude your gawds are no better supported than any other version of partisan gawds.

You certainly could resolve your confusion and the confusion shared by those who believe in competing models of gawds with a simple assembly of facts supporting your partisan gawds.

As usual, we're left with you making specious claims to gawds which you refuse to offer support for.

1. You conclude that my God concept is not better supported than others even though you have no idea what my God concept is and neither have any evidence that it is less supported. So given you lack evidence it is better not to come to that conclusion.

2. I am not confused about anything and once again I am not making a claim to absolute truth as you are but merely making a statement of faith.

3. I have not in this thread made any claims about God other than having said I believe God exist and that is a claim about myself rather than God so I have no idea what you are talking. Where is this specious claim that I made?

And by the way are you or are you not going to provide any evidence of your claims that your conclusion is indeed rational because you don't seem very forthcoming in that matter. I really want to know how you came to the rational conclusion that my personal God concept is wrong and does not exist even though you have no information on what I believe and don't believe about God. How anyone can come to a rational conclusion about a subject they have absolutely no information on is beyond me. You must be psychic or something or maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster gave you a revelation of my beliefs.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Well that is fine with me. If your atheism is just merely a personal opinion then by no means should any one mistake it for religious conviction because mere opinion does not equal conviction. But if you certain beyond a shadow of doubt that the absolute truth is that God does not exist and all other opinions regarding this matter are wrong then you are being a bit more than religious. You personally might not be this way but I have certainly seen atheist who are that way. To them atheism is the only right answer to the question whether God exists or not.

I think it's important to define our various gawds here. Most references to the gawds are directed to the judeo- christian gawds for no other reason than those are the culturally correct gawds. Your references to the gawds do not represent a generic, one size fits all gawds but a very specific configuration of gawds. I would argue that you can select science, history, art, etc with abandon but you cannot do the same with gawds. I can only accept a claim of regeneration as an inarguable position (unsupported, but not debatable) on behalf of the religionist for their gawds, and that means there is no possibility of interpretation on the part of the theist.

As to whether gawds exist, which gawds are you referring to?

As to which Gods exist or not is not the point of this thread. We are discussing whether atheists can be religious or not and if atheism is a religion to some atheists.

That's been addressed previously. Atheism is no more a religion than you disbelieving in Odin as the one true gawd is a religion.

Except when atheists are being doctrinaire and dogmatic about their atheism. And by the way atheism equals not believing in god or gods, atheism does not equal not religious hence the reason we have non-theistic religions such some forms of Buddhism, Jainism, Raelism and Satanism

I don't see christian non-believers as being doctrinaire and dogmatic about their non-belief. And I think it's important to point out that the "Atheism is a religion" comments come exclusively from the more excitable component of the Christians on the board, at least in my experience. I get a sense of real anger coming from the more dogmatic Christians who take any criticism or critique of their dogma as an affront to their religious beliefs.

Although this has been gone over both repeatedly and tediously, Atheism has no practices, customs, beliefs or “ideologies.” To claim a conclusion as to the non-existence of something is a religion is nonsense. To be A-theistic belief is not a religion. There is no religion of A-Bigfoot'ism or A-Santa'Clausism. In reality, there is no real A-theist asserted philosophy, all of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic claims. Atheism is simply the rejection of the Theistic model as undemonstrated, unsupported and bereft substantiation not at all unlike the conclusion relative to Bigfoot and Nessie.

It appears to me that the visceral reaction of selected christian board members to rejection of their beliefs is a conclusion that they're intent to force their dogmatic opinions as "evidence" to fit into their particular world-view is flawed and untenable. The more excitable Christians apparently believe their entire world-view and existence breaks apart and collapses into nothingness if the fundamentalist interpretation of their creation fables aren't upheld (you know what, they're right-- if any part of any of the bibles is not literally true, then the whole thing is suspect, so they have every reason to be in panic mode).

That's so true. It's only Christian's that really, really, want atheism to be a religion, and insist that it is. I guess they can't fathom living without religion.

 

[Carla_Danger]

a rational conclusion that your gawds and the gawds of others do not exist.

That is an ideology

Conclusions are not ideologies. I make decisions and reach conclusions every day about the choices I make. There is no ideological imperative involved.

You made a statement about your conclusion. You believe that your conclusion is rational but provided no proof nor any evidence that your conclusion is indeed rational. Your belief that your conclusion is rational implies that you believe your conclusion is truth and all other opinions contrary to your conclusion are wrong and those who hold opinions contrary to your conclusion are irrational. You belief that your conclusion is rational and implied belief that others are wrong also an Us vs Them mentality. And that hints at believing that you somehow atheism is somehow superior to theism because you believe it is more rational if not the only rational stance to take when it comes to the question as to whether God does or does not exist.

I already gave you the reasons why it is a rational conclusion such that your gawds do not exist.

Make your best case for your gawds (delineating how your gawds are rationally supported vs. all the other gawds), and anyone reading this thread can reach their own conclusions.

You can do that, right?

If you did give a case as to how you came to this rational conclusion maybe you should point it out to me or reiterate again so we all may see the logic and rationality that brought you to this conclusion given that you have no idea what my concept of God is and neither do you have idea about what any other person God concept is about. But yet you say you have come to the rational conclusion that these God concepts cannot possibly exist. Please show us all how you came to that rational conclusion.

You do agree that religion is faith based, right?

 

[CynthiaZ]

That is an ideology

Conclusions are not ideologies. I make decisions and reach conclusions every day about the choices I make. There is no ideological imperative involved.

You made a statement about your conclusion. You believe that your conclusion is rational but provided no proof nor any evidence that your conclusion is indeed rational. Your belief that your conclusion is rational implies that you believe your conclusion is truth and all other opinions contrary to your conclusion are wrong and those who hold opinions contrary to your conclusion are irrational. You belief that your conclusion is rational and implied belief that others are wrong also an Us vs Them mentality. And that hints at believing that you somehow atheism is somehow superior to theism because you believe it is more rational if not the only rational stance to take when it comes to the question as to whether God does or does not exist.

I already gave you the reasons why it is a rational conclusion such that your gawds do not exist.

Make your best case for your gawds (delineating how your gawds are rationally supported vs. all the other gawds), and anyone reading this thread can reach their own conclusions.

You can do that, right?

If you did give a case as to how you came to this rational conclusion maybe you should point it out to me or reiterate again so we all may see the logic and rationality that brought you to this conclusion given that you have no idea what my concept of God is and neither do you have idea about what any other person God concept is about. But yet you say you have come to the rational conclusion that these God concepts cannot possibly exist. Please show us all how you came to that rational conclusion.

You do agree that religion is faith based, right?

Of course I do. Given that God is a metaphysical concept how else am I to approach this concept except by faith? But given that there are a lot more metaphysical concepts other than God that must be taken in faith.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Conclusions are not ideologies. I make decisions and reach conclusions every day about the choices I make. There is no ideological imperative involved.

You made a statement about your conclusion. You believe that your conclusion is rational but provided no proof nor any evidence that your conclusion is indeed rational. Your belief that your conclusion is rational implies that you believe your conclusion is truth and all other opinions contrary to your conclusion are wrong and those who hold opinions contrary to your conclusion are irrational. You belief that your conclusion is rational and implied belief that others are wrong also an Us vs Them mentality. And that hints at believing that you somehow atheism is somehow superior to theism because you believe it is more rational if not the only rational stance to take when it comes to the question as to whether God does or does not exist.

I already gave you the reasons why it is a rational conclusion such that your gawds do not exist.

Make your best case for your gawds (delineating how your gawds are rationally supported vs. all the other gawds), and anyone reading this thread can reach their own conclusions.

You can do that, right?

If you did give a case as to how you came to this rational conclusion maybe you should point it out to me or reiterate again so we all may see the logic and rationality that brought you to this conclusion given that you have no idea what my concept of God is and neither do you have idea about what any other person God concept is about. But yet you say you have come to the rational conclusion that these God concepts cannot possibly exist. Please show us all how you came to that rational conclusion.

You do agree that religion is faith based, right?

Of course I do. Given that God is a metaphysical concept how else am I to approach this concept except by faith? But given that there are a lot more metaphysical concepts other than God that must be taken in faith.

Basically, you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.

 

[CynthiaZ]

You made a statement about your conclusion. You believe that your conclusion is rational but provided no proof nor any evidence that your conclusion is indeed rational. Your belief that your conclusion is rational implies that you believe your conclusion is truth and all other opinions contrary to your conclusion are wrong and those who hold opinions contrary to your conclusion are irrational. You belief that your conclusion is rational and implied belief that others are wrong also an Us vs Them mentality. And that hints at believing that you somehow atheism is somehow superior to theism because you believe it is more rational if not the only rational stance to take when it comes to the question as to whether God does or does not exist.

I already gave you the reasons why it is a rational conclusion such that your gawds do not exist.

Make your best case for your gawds (delineating how your gawds are rationally supported vs. all the other gawds), and anyone reading this thread can reach their own conclusions.

You can do that, right?

If you did give a case as to how you came to this rational conclusion maybe you should point it out to me or reiterate again so we all may see the logic and rationality that brought you to this conclusion given that you have no idea what my concept of God is and neither do you have idea about what any other person God concept is about. But yet you say you have come to the rational conclusion that these God concepts cannot possibly exist. Please show us all how you came to that rational conclusion.

You do agree that religion is faith based, right?

Of course I do. Given that God is a metaphysical concept how else am I to approach this concept except by faith? But given that there are a lot more metaphysical concepts other than God that must be taken in faith.

Basically, you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.

No I am not. What I am saying is that my belief in God is a matter of faith. I am not saying that I have no evidence as to whether God exist, in fact I do but it is personal evidence that only pertains to me and it is this evidence that leads me to believe that the existence of God is plausible. I have faith in the evidence that is available to me.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I already gave you the reasons why it is a rational conclusion such that your gawds do not exist.

Make your best case for your gawds (delineating how your gawds are rationally supported vs. all the other gawds), and anyone reading this thread can reach their own conclusions.

You can do that, right?

If you did give a case as to how you came to this rational conclusion maybe you should point it out to me or reiterate again so we all may see the logic and rationality that brought you to this conclusion given that you have no idea what my concept of God is and neither do you have idea about what any other person God concept is about. But yet you say you have come to the rational conclusion that these God concepts cannot possibly exist. Please show us all how you came to that rational conclusion.

You do agree that religion is faith based, right?

Of course I do. Given that God is a metaphysical concept how else am I to approach this concept except by faith? But given that there are a lot more metaphysical concepts other than God that must be taken in faith.

Basically, you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.

No I am not. What I am saying is that my belief in God is a matter of faith. I am not saying that I have no evidence as to whether God exist, in fact I do but it is personal evidence that only pertains to me and it is this evidence that leads me to believe that the existence of God is plausible. I have faith in the evidence that is available to me.

Basically, you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.

 

[CynthiaZ]

If you did give a case as to how you came to this rational conclusion maybe you should point it out to me or reiterate again so we all may see the logic and rationality that brought you to this conclusion given that you have no idea what my concept of God is and neither do you have idea about what any other person God concept is about. But yet you say you have come to the rational conclusion that these God concepts cannot possibly exist. Please show us all how you came to that rational conclusion.

You do agree that religion is faith based, right?

Of course I do. Given that God is a metaphysical concept how else am I to approach this concept except by faith? But given that there are a lot more metaphysical concepts other than God that must be taken in faith.

Basically, you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.

No I am not. What I am saying is that my belief in God is a matter of faith. I am not saying that I have no evidence as to whether God exist, in fact I do but it is personal evidence that only pertains to me and it is this evidence that leads me to believe that the existence of God is plausible. I have faith in the evidence that is available to me.

Basically, you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.

Basically I am conceding no such thing . I have faith that God exist based on my own personal experiences in regards to the question whether God exists or not. I by faith believe my own person experiences are sufficient evidence to me and me alone that the existence of God is plausible and given the evidence available to me I by faith alone believe that God exists and that personal evidence has merit to me and to me alone.

 

[Carla_Danger]

You do agree that religion is faith based, right?

Of course I do. Given that God is a metaphysical concept how else am I to approach this concept except by faith? But given that there are a lot more metaphysical concepts other than God that must be taken in faith.

Basically, you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.

No I am not. What I am saying is that my belief in God is a matter of faith. I am not saying that I have no evidence as to whether God exist, in fact I do but it is personal evidence that only pertains to me and it is this evidence that leads me to believe that the existence of God is plausible. I have faith in the evidence that is available to me.

Basically, you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.

Basically I am conceding no such thing . I have faith that God exist based on my own personal experiences in regards to the question whether God exists or not. I by faith believe my own person experiences are sufficient evidence to me and me alone that the existence of God is plausible and given the evidence available to me I by faith alone believe that God exists and that personal evidence has merit to me and to me alone.

You said that your belief in Gawd was a matter of faith. Faith is based on doctrines of religion rather than proof. That is the definition of faith. You saying you have evidence to you, and you alone, is no evidence. So you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.

 

[Carla_Danger]

You do agree that religion is faith based, right?

Of course I do. Given that God is a metaphysical concept how else am I to approach this concept except by faith? But given that there are a lot more metaphysical concepts other than God that must be taken in faith.

Basically, you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.

No I am not. What I am saying is that my belief in God is a matter of faith. I am not saying that I have no evidence as to whether God exist, in fact I do but it is personal evidence that only pertains to me and it is this evidence that leads me to believe that the existence of God is plausible. I have faith in the evidence that is available to me.

Basically, you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.

Basically I am conceding no such thing . I have faith that God exist based on my own personal experiences in regards to the question whether God exists or not. I by faith believe my own person experiences are sufficient evidence to me and me alone that the existence of God is plausible and given the evidence available to me I by faith alone believe that God exists and that personal evidence has merit to me and to me alone.

No one talks about faith in gravity. There's no need for faith when talking about gravity. People only speak of faith when they wish to substitute emotion for evidence.

 

[Treeshepherd]

It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.

Religion involves both doctrine and practice.

Surely you have ethics which are not derived from logical machine language.

Surely you have practices, exercises and disciplines for self-improvement.

 

[Carla_Danger]

It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.

Religion involves both doctrine and practice.

Surely you have ethics which are not derived from logical machine language.

Surely you have practices, exercises and disciplines for self-improvement.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with faith/religion. People don't need religion to evolve ethics and morality.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Sure, but that has nothing to do with faith/religion. People don't need religion to evolve ethics and morality.

If you have a set of ethics and morality, and you have a practice that helps to attune you with those ideals, then you have a religion.

And from what I can tell from your other posts, you feel that your religion is quite superior.

 

[Treeshepherd]

After all, it is completely logical to lie, steal and murder if there is material gain to be had.