Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Pogo]

Touhanks Pogo. How I think the comparison with Constitutionalism can help
is to show WHEN it gets religious and WHEN it stay secular and universal.

both are based on natural laws.

So we can ask how so secular philosophies or systems of thoughts,
based on secular/natural laws, either act or are PERCEIVED as religions,
and what makes them count as NOT so?

I find the same things make a distinction between if someone (like me, included)
makes a RELIGION out of their Constitutional beliefs or keeps them secular and not
collectively expressed or imposed as a body of members that can be labeled.

I am personally studying this phenomenon myself.

What makes something a religion?

Some factors I find:
1. the act of EMBODYING that law by conscience, where you enforce it with
your thoughts, words and actions CONSCIOUSLY as your beliefs.

One friend of mine had a secular humanist philosophy of
* Respect for Truth
* Respect for Freedom
* Respect for People and the Environment
I told him this was like his own personal secular equivalent of the Trinity.
If he adopts this as his faith, his belief that he lives by,
and enforces and defends it religiously, then it can become like his religion.

2. How it is perceived in relation with "other people's beliefs or religions"
Regardless if we do not think we have a religion (just like Hindus or Buddhists
may say they are not following a religion, but just following natural laws that
already exist; or Christians will say they are following universal laws and not
a religion made up by man) as long as OTHER people label and perceive
it as a religion (as is done with Hinduism) then by THEIR context,
(not necessarily ours) it DOES constitute a religion. That is their way not ours.

Just like I have a Wicca friend who understands me as a White Witch.
That is clearly her system, not mine. but I am not going to argue I am not
that thing. If that is what I am in her system, I accept that.

To some people I am an Angel or a Buddha, to others a Demon or even
a Bugs Bunny character from another planet sent here for entertainment.
I am labeled a Conservative and Not a Democrat, and all kinds of things.

Some of this is for the convenience and concepts of OTHER people.

3. If people identify as a group among likeminded people who believe the same,
and connect on a SPIRITUAL level that has an identity of its own.

I don't mean collecting around golf or science and that automatically becomes a religion.

I mean like really bonding and finding direction and development
within a community that serves as the equivalent of a "church" for "fellowship"
and spiritual growth.

So whatever grouping or tribal identity that links you on this level with others
of that same "tribe" that is the equivalent of how religions serve to organize people by
identity for managing representation and resources among that common grouping.

Does any of that apply to what will answer the questions brought up?

There is both a literal definition and traditional sense of religion,
so of course, atheism does not fit that any more than Constitutionalism does
or liberalism, conservatism, and other beliefs not considered an "organized religion"

But there is a functional sense of religion, where there is
internal relations going on spiritually between members who relate to the same approach to natural laws and science
to understand and develop paths in life; and externally between how groups label and perceive each other.

To prevent fights, I would suggest address the three levels separately:
1. traditional meanings and organized religions that we recognize
2. internal functions of religions that atheism substitutes for and still serves
3. external labels and perceptions from outside groups that define what is perceived or called a religion

Dear POGO : i tried to cite your post about if Atheism is a religion, then who FOUNDED it?
(but this website is posting ads and downloading cookies triggering my firewall program to block the page)

Can I answer this way by giving an example of how Hinduism is also considered
not a religion but an expression of spiritual teachings that were already in existence and just passed
down until they were written down and given a name:

"Hinduism is a collective term applied to the many philosophical and religious traditions native to India. Hinduism has neither a specific moment of origin nor a specific founder. Rather, the tradition understands itself to be timeless, having always existed." Hinduism Origins Hinduism History Hinduism Beliefs

Thus the view of "Hinduism as a religion" is mostly imposed from the outside.
Same with views of Atheism and Constitutionalism.

Who founded Constitutionalism? These came from natural laws, that no man invented.
They were debated and written down in books from Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, etc etc.
and ended up as the influence that went into the Constitution and Amendments that WERE written down
by specific leaders. But still many will say these laws were Given by God and not made by man.

NOTE: As for not believing in God
Do you believe in Life or Love? Wisdom or Truth?
if you substitute that for God then you believe in THAT.
So what we are arguing about is the meaning or definition of God we do or do not believe in.

Hi Emily -- nice to see you here in the new playground. Forgive me if the post material I edited out below was relevant - it didn't look like it.

The question about "who founded it" was just a little test to see how the poster would handle it. I know a religion doesn't need a founder. I pointed out earlier that religion is not the same as theism, lest we conflate the two, indeed everybody in history has some sort of religion but not everybody has theism. Taoism is another example.

On Constitutionalism, it's probably going to be counterproductive to muddy these waters with political philosophies. We've already wandered more than once into the question of whether God(s) exist, which is not the topic. The thread is simply about the definition of "atheism", as a result of another thread where one poster here kept trying to make the case that it is a "religion".

And that's where we are.

Hi Emily -- quick post, not much time to burn for the moment but I think you're taking an overly broad definition of "religion" here, seeming to include simple general philosophies and/or moral guidelines on how to live one's life.

When I was a child I read some kid's book that related (whether it was true or not is unimportant) an Indian teaching that said, when you die and are called to account, the question asked of you is, "how many people were made happier because you were born?" While I thought that was profound and took it to heart as a life guideline, I don't consider it a "religion" -- it's more along the lines of what I think you're describing above.

I believe religion is meant to address (since it cannot definitively "answer") the greater deeper mystery questions of the natural and particularly the supernatural worlds that are our environment. The nature of the universe, the meaning, the forces that make them tick. The nature of creation, the antiquity of creation, the nature of the spirit, where that spirit comes from, what it's made of and what happens to it when we die. I don't believe Constitutionalism or general life-attitude philosophies of the worldly and the immediate present address those deeper mysteries.

Nor does atheism, which is another reason it's not a religion. Any given religion, whether one accepts it or not personally, has to offer some sort of response to these questions (and not just say, "no, that approach over there doesn't work", which is what atheism is).

 

[emilynghiem]

Where do YOU get that religion has to ask or answer questions about these particular things?

* Buddhism does not claim to teach where the world or life came from.
Just to explain the natural spiritual laws that already exist.
* Science seeks to put natural laws into formulas, patterns and words to establish understanding and share with others.
* Constitutionalism put principles into statutory laws so these could be use for governance and democratic process and development.

Buddhism becomes a religion when people divide into groups and perceive their beliefs are different.
Constitutionalism becomes a religion when people try to enforce laws by natural authority and find disagreements
they attribute to differences in beliefs.

Secular humanism and liberalism become religions for similar reasons.

I don't get why you keep saying Atheism doesn't meet the same terms of religion,
when Buddhism doesn't either. And Buddhism is perceived as a religion even though its members will say it isn't either.

Is it because you can blame Buddhism as being focused on "worshipping" Buddha that you can label it religion?
Or say Hinduism is "worshipping" god figures that you can label it religion?

Not all people who call themselves Buddhist or Hindu worship anything outside themselves.
How are they any different from Atheists who do or who do not come across as religious to others?

In general, I would classify groups in the population as "Secular Gentiles" who follow natural laws.
And say this group INCLUDES Atheists, nontheists, Buddhists, secular humanists, Constitutionalists,
peace and justice activists, etc. who may believe in Truth, Justice and Peace but just not use symbols to express it.
They worship these principles in different ways that according to you should not count as religions.

That's fine but remember to treat other people the same way, like Buddhists Hindus and Christians who
also say they are following Spiritual Laws that naturally exist and are not worshipping any THING as a Religion.

Touhanks Pogo. How I think the comparison with Constitutionalism can help
is to show WHEN it gets religious and WHEN it stay secular and universal.

both are based on natural laws.

So we can ask how so secular philosophies or systems of thoughts,
based on secular/natural laws, either act or are PERCEIVED as religions,
and what makes them count as NOT so?

I find the same things make a distinction between if someone (like me, included)
makes a RELIGION out of their Constitutional beliefs or keeps them secular and not
collectively expressed or imposed as a body of members that can be labeled.

I am personally studying this phenomenon myself.

What makes something a religion?

Some factors I find:
1. the act of EMBODYING that law by conscience, where you enforce it with
your thoughts, words and actions CONSCIOUSLY as your beliefs.

One friend of mine had a secular humanist philosophy of
* Respect for Truth
* Respect for Freedom
* Respect for People and the Environment
I told him this was like his own personal secular equivalent of the Trinity.
If he adopts this as his faith, his belief that he lives by,
and enforces and defends it religiously, then it can become like his religion.

2. How it is perceived in relation with "other people's beliefs or religions"
Regardless if we do not think we have a religion (just like Hindus or Buddhists
may say they are not following a religion, but just following natural laws that
already exist; or Christians will say they are following universal laws and not
a religion made up by man) as long as OTHER people label and perceive
it as a religion (as is done with Hinduism) then by THEIR context,
(not necessarily ours) it DOES constitute a religion. That is their way not ours.

Just like I have a Wicca friend who understands me as a White Witch.
That is clearly her system, not mine. but I am not going to argue I am not
that thing. If that is what I am in her system, I accept that.

To some people I am an Angel or a Buddha, to others a Demon or even
a Bugs Bunny character from another planet sent here for entertainment.
I am labeled a Conservative and Not a Democrat, and all kinds of things.

Some of this is for the convenience and concepts of OTHER people.

3. If people identify as a group among likeminded people who believe the same,
and connect on a SPIRITUAL level that has an identity of its own.

I don't mean collecting around golf or science and that automatically becomes a religion.

I mean like really bonding and finding direction and development
within a community that serves as the equivalent of a "church" for "fellowship"
and spiritual growth.

So whatever grouping or tribal identity that links you on this level with others
of that same "tribe" that is the equivalent of how religions serve to organize people by
identity for managing representation and resources among that common grouping.

Does any of that apply to what will answer the questions brought up?

There is both a literal definition and traditional sense of religion,
so of course, atheism does not fit that any more than Constitutionalism does
or liberalism, conservatism, and other beliefs not considered an "organized religion"

But there is a functional sense of religion, where there is
internal relations going on spiritually between members who relate to the same approach to natural laws and science
to understand and develop paths in life; and externally between how groups label and perceive each other.

To prevent fights, I would suggest address the three levels separately:
1. traditional meanings and organized religions that we recognize
2. internal functions of religions that atheism substitutes for and still serves
3. external labels and perceptions from outside groups that define what is perceived or called a religion

Dear POGO : i tried to cite your post about if Atheism is a religion, then who FOUNDED it?
(but this website is posting ads and downloading cookies triggering my firewall program to block the page)

Can I answer this way by giving an example of how Hinduism is also considered
not a religion but an expression of spiritual teachings that were already in existence and just passed
down until they were written down and given a name:

"Hinduism is a collective term applied to the many philosophical and religious traditions native to India. Hinduism has neither a specific moment of origin nor a specific founder. Rather, the tradition understands itself to be timeless, having always existed." Hinduism Origins Hinduism History Hinduism Beliefs

Thus the view of "Hinduism as a religion" is mostly imposed from the outside.
Same with views of Atheism and Constitutionalism.

Who founded Constitutionalism? These came from natural laws, that no man invented.
They were debated and written down in books from Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, etc etc.
and ended up as the influence that went into the Constitution and Amendments that WERE written down
by specific leaders. But still many will say these laws were Given by God and not made by man.

NOTE: As for not believing in God
Do you believe in Life or Love? Wisdom or Truth?
if you substitute that for God then you believe in THAT.
So what we are arguing about is the meaning or definition of God we do or do not believe in.

Hi Emily -- nice to see you here in the new playground. Forgive me if the post material I edited out below was relevant - it didn't look like it.

The question about "who founded it" was just a little test to see how the poster would handle it. I know a religion doesn't need a founder. I pointed out earlier that religion is not the same as theism, lest we conflate the two, indeed everybody in history has some sort of religion but not everybody has theism. Taoism is another example.

On Constitutionalism, it's probably going to be counterproductive to muddy these waters with political philosophies. We've already wandered more than once into the question of whether God(s) exist, which is not the topic. The thread is simply about the definition of "atheism", as a result of another thread where one poster here kept trying to make the case that it is a "religion".

And that's where we are.

Hi Emily -- quick post, not much time to burn for the moment but I think you're taking an overly broad definition of "religion" here, seeming to include simple general philosophies and/or moral guidelines on how to live one's life.

When I was a child I read some kid's book that related (whether it was true or not is unimportant) an Indian teaching that said, when you die and are called to account, the question asked of you is, "how many people were made happier because you were born?" While I thought that was profound and took it to heart as a life guideline, I don't consider it a "religion" -- it's more along the lines of what I think you're describing above.

I believe religion is meant to address (since it cannot definitively "answer") the greater deeper mystery questions of the natural and particularly the supernatural worlds that are our environment. The nature of the universe, the meaning, the forces that make them tick. The nature of creation, the antiquity of creation, the nature of the spirit, where that spirit comes from, what it's made of and what happens to it when we die. I don't believe Constitutionalism or general life-attitude philosophies of the worldly and the immediate present address those deeper mysteries.

Nor does atheism, which is another reason it's not a religion. Any given religion, whether one accepts it or not personally, has to offer some sort of response to these questions (and not just say, "no, that approach over there doesn't work", which is what atheism is).

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wouldn't consider AA a religion, since your higher power can be a rock. The majority of people who attend AA might be Christian, but that doesn't mean AA IS a religion. It's a support group for recovering alcoholics. You are not required to believe in God to attend.

And yoga by itself is not a religion, therefore, people who are simply going for fitness/health, are not a involved in the religious aspect. Furthermore, I believe in yoga class. I've done yoga. I've had friends in yoga.

Everyone has a collection of beliefs. Again, we're back to the "do you believe in Bigfoot?"

See, someone took the time to write a book about all the sightings since 1818. I haven't seen Bigfoot and neither have you. No one I personally know has ever seen Bigfoot, therefore I do no believe Bigfoot exists.

IS THAT A FREAKING RELIGION?

Probably not, but it could be, if people wanted to make it one. I think your problem is that you want to define religion in a way that excludes your beliefs. Life doesn't work that way.

By the way, what do you think of spiritual atheists?

 

[emilynghiem]

Isn’t atheism a religion?
Sure. And not smoking is a habit.

The Thinking Atheist - FAQ

Am I the ONLY one here who recognizes you CAN make a religion out of it but it is NOT NECESSARILY
true or false for all people; it depends on the circumstances?

Some people make Buddhism and Christianity their religion;
I use these as languages, the same way I would use science to interact with scientists
or music to interact with musicians. This does not make any of these my religion.
But to some, YES, they make religions out of them!
It is not either/or but "it depends on the person and how they are using that thing"

Same with Atheism, Constitutionalism, making religion out of science
or out of your work ethic.

As for smoking or nonsmoking.
Some people DO smoke as a habit and some people do not.
Some people DO make it some ritual or condition NOT to smoke
and some people don't treat it like that.

Can someone PLEASE explain to me what is the NAME for this
RITUAL of dividing everything into A. it has to be this way or
B. it has to be this other way, and arguing the other way is wrong.

Is this called polarizing the issue? Politicizing it?

Is this some practice or belief I should know about?
Does it have a formal name? Is this a religious practice?

If it is so common that people from all religious or a-religious
views practice it, then is it human psychology to divide issues in conflict?

If my beliefs are different, does it mean I am the one with
a different religion than all the other people who believe in
dividing questions into sides and insisting only one has to be right for all cases?

If that isn't a religion then why are so many people practicing it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hi Emily -- nice to see you here in the new playground. Forgive me if the post material I edited out below was relevant - it didn't look like it.

The question about "who founded it" was just a little test to see how the poster would handle it. I know a religion doesn't need a founder. I pointed out earlier that religion is not the same as theism, lest we conflate the two, indeed everybody in history has some sort of religion but not everybody has theism. Taoism is another example.

On Constitutionalism, it's probably going to be counterproductive to muddy these waters with political philosophies. We've already wandered more than once into the question of whether God(s) exist, which is not the topic. The thread is simply about the definition of "atheism", as a result of another thread where one poster here kept trying to make the case that it is a "religion".

And that's where we are.

Hi Emily -- quick post, not much time to burn for the moment but I think you're taking an overly broad definition of "religion" here, seeming to include simple general philosophies and/or moral guidelines on how to live one's life.

When I was a child I read some kid's book that related (whether it was true or not is unimportant) an Indian teaching that said, when you die and are called to account, the question asked of you is, "how many people were made happier because you were born?" While I thought that was profound and took it to heart as a life guideline, I don't consider it a "religion" -- it's more along the lines of what I think you're describing above.

I believe religion is meant to address (since it cannot definitively "answer") the greater deeper mystery questions of the natural and particularly the supernatural worlds that are our environment. The nature of the universe, the meaning, the forces that make them tick. The nature of creation, the antiquity of creation, the nature of the spirit, where that spirit comes from, what it's made of and what happens to it when we die. I don't believe Constitutionalism or general life-attitude philosophies of the worldly and the immediate present address those deeper mysteries.

Nor does atheism, which is another reason it's not a religion. Any given religion, whether one accepts it or not personally, has to offer some sort of response to these questions (and not just say, "no, that approach over there doesn't work", which is what atheism is).

Why does religion have to address those issue? What makes you the worlds authority on religion? Why do none of your arguments for what makes a religion appear anywhere outside your posts?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Don't like 'atheism' or 'religion', folks?

Talk about belief systems without a foundation of empirical data, yo.

 

[PratchettFan]

Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?

We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.

We don't have anything like a bible.

We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.

We have no myths to defend.

we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing to some made up tenents.

If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.

You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life. I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.

The myth which is being so vehemently defended is that Atheists have no beliefs. I have no need to label Atheists, but they have this desperate desire to pretend their position is not based upon belief. Once belief overshadow reality, where reality is being denied in favor of the belief, then you are in the arena of religion. It isn't about labels, it is about actions.

You said you actively try to convince people about the truth. Your "truth" is based solely upon belief. So now we have an example of proselytizing as well as faith overshadowing reality. Faith, dogma and proselytizing. I ask again, how is that not religion?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You're on the wrong thread, with your communist and Obama BS.

The sign above the door CLEARLY states "Poking Huggy with a sharp stick welcome!"

 

[Uncensored2008]

False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.

Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.

What about this fact do you not grasp?

 

[asaratis]

Most folks seek comfort from similar folks: that's natural.

Atheists seek atheists, religionists seek religionists, because faith believers in both groups do not know the fact, they only believe in their hopes.

I can't speak for any other atheists but I don't seek or desire to seek other atheists for any comfort. That goes to the heart of the reason why atheism isn't a religion in my book.

.....

That you do not seek comfort from other atheists does not mean that other atheists have not formed a religious group for that or any other purpose. You are simply choosing to not be religious....just as many Jews choose not to practice, many Baptists choose not to go to church...they (and you) are simply choosing not to be religious. That does not mean that their religion is non-existent. I suspect there are many other atheists that do not practice the religion of Atheism that is now available too them.

The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions.

........

Atheism is not a religion simply because there is no need for it to be one.


......

Perhaps not for you and many other atheists. However, for many others there was a need...and they fulfilled their need by forming churches...Atheist churches. Should you ever choose to join them, I'm sure they would welcome you with open arms. They seek the comfort of like-minded individuals such as you.

BTW, there are many Christians that believe in God but hold that the Bible should not be taken literally. Many believe in evolution instead of the Garden of Eden and the 6 day creation of all things. I contend that as early humankind became curious about where they and all things around them came from, stories that could be understood came about....as the concepts of geological time and evolution were hundreds of generations away from being discovered.

Here's a partial list of advertizements for atheist participation. I've already posted the websites of several Atheist churches.

http://www.search.ask.com/web?l=dis...13350:src=ffb:o=APN10645&p2=^AG6^BND406^YY^US


Richard Dawkins calls it Pantheism...rather than Atheism. Either way, it has all of the trappings other religions except for a supernatural deity.
Pantheism as Sexed-up Atheism World Pantheism

Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, has described Pantheism as "sexed-up atheism." That may seem flippant, but it is accurate. Of all religious or spiritual traditions, Pantheism - the approach of Einstein, Hawking and many other scientists - is the only one that passes the muster of the world's most militant atheist.

So what's the difference between Atheism and Pantheism? As far as disbelief in supernatural beings, forces or realms, there is no difference. World Pantheism also shares the respect for evidence, science, and logic that's typical of atheism.

However, Pantheism goes further, and adds to atheism an embracing, positive and reverential feeling about our lives on planet Earth, our place in Nature and the wider Universe, and uses nature as our basis for dealing with stress, grief and bereavement. It's a form of spirituality that is totally compatible with science. Indeed, since science is our best way of exploring the Universe, respect for the scientific method and fascination with the discoveries of science are an integral part of World Pantheism.

If you are looking for atheist groups or freethought groups or brights groups and email lists, and if you would like ones that do a lot more than just attack religion, then you may well find World Pantheism the place you were looking for.

Why go beyond straight atheism?
Does atheism need sexing up? As such, atheism answers only a single question: is there a creator God, or not? That's an important question, but if your answer is "no" it is only a starting point. You may have reached that viewpoint based on your respect for logic, evidence and science, and those too are vital values. Yet after you've reached that initial "no God" answer, all the other important questions in life, all the options for mental and emotional wholeness and social and environmental harmony, remain open.

If atheism, humanism and naturalism are to advance, then they need approaches that don't simply leave the individual alone in the face of an increasingly threatening physical, social and international environment. They need ways of life that offer as rich a range of benefits as traditional religious ones.

Atheism is advancing. Growing numbers of people, across almost all nations, declare themselves to be non-religious or atheistic. Atheistic books on religion, like those of Dawkins, Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens, are best-sellers.

But so far atheism and atheist groups have focused on attacking conventional religions, especially the Western theistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It's true that these religions often come with high costs: submission to written or priestly authority, belief in terrifying concepts such as demons, Apocalypse, Last Judgment and Hell, or the drive to impose one's beliefs or religious values on other people. In many cases they give cachet and endurance to backward, repressive or destructive social values, developed in agrarian societies many centuries ago. And it's valuable to highlight these costs.

The attractions of religion
But negative critiques will not suffice. There are many motives beyond fear or habit why people hold fast to old religions or convert to new ones. There are many reasons besides ignorance and folly why they make religion the center of their personal and social lives.

Religions are not just a confidence trick on the part of prophets and preachers, or a self-destructive aberration on the part of believers. They have had social survival value in the past, and they continue to provide individual and personal benefits today, and these benefits are the source of their continuing numerical strength.

Religions provide communities of mutual support.


They overcome existential isolation and alienation, giving people a meaning for their lives and a sense of their place in the universe and nature.


They provide remedies for grief at the death of loved ones, and for the fear of one's own death.


They combat the feeling of helplessness in a threatening world full of crime, conflict and disaster.


These benefits show up in the form of better health and longer life.

Of course, if you're buying these benefits at the price of abandoning logic, ignoring evidence, believing in contradictions and impossibilities, teaching your children to fear a God who is getting ready to destroy the planet, signing on for social values that repress the rights of others, let alone sacrificing your life to slaughter those who disagree with you, then maybe the price is too high.

A naturalistic spirituality
Are these negatives an inevitable part of the bargain? They may well be an inevitable part of belief in the unbelievable or of uncritical adherence to ancient scriptures.

But is it impossible to get the benefits that conventional religions offer, without giving up one penny of the value offered by reason, science, and progressive respect for the human rights of everyone? Don't we need approaches that offer the same range of advantages as supernatural religions – but without the costs?

Can there be such a thing as a religion without god, an atheistic religion or a religious atheism? The Buddhism of the Pali scriptures does not have a God or gods. Nor does the Taoism of Lao Tzu or ChuangTzu.

Can there be such a thing as a completely naturalistic form of "spirituality" with no supernatural elements?


Increasingly, leading atheists and humanists are saying yes. This compilation from Dawkins, De Grasse Tyson and Sam Harris neatly embodies some of the trends.





When you pursue this approach of celebration and spirituality further, you are no longer in the real of basic atheism - which does no more than deny the existence of gods.

You have in fact arrived at Naturalistic Pantheism. At World Pantheism we have been exploring this possibility since the beginning of 2000 CE. We do so through our global and local mailing lists, through our magazine Pan, and through a growing number of local groups. We have lists about scientific and philosophical ideas, as well as about practical ways of developing our naturalistic spirituality. You can find links to these on our main page.

Our completely naturalistic Pantheism does not believe in any supernatural beings, forces or realms and is fully compatible with atheism and skepticism. As Richard Dawkins writes:

Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a nonsupernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings.

In practice, while a significant minority of our members like and use the word God to express the depth of their feelings for Nature and the wider Universe, the majority do not use the word about their own beliefs.

There are other names for similar approaches, such as religious naturalism or naturalistic paganism. We have gone with Pantheism simply because it's the best known, and has a long pedigree.

 

[PratchettFan]

Far more sense than atheists saying the don't have a faith belief if they don't believe in God though they can't prove it.

Logic and philosophy completely unground any such empirical statement by you, CarlaDanger.

You are no better than any religionist when it comes to faith or lack of it.

Nonsense. Thinking God is improbable, is not the same as having faith that he/she exists. I'm not going to fly a plane into a building due to faith of a non God. Don't you dare try to put me on that level.

Respectfully, I'm going to agree to disagree with your false analogy.

Actually, it is exactly the same thing. Unless you have some evidence for thinking God is improbable. If not, then what you just said is called belief. Welcome to that level.

 

[PratchettFan]

Hollie, your denial is the falsehood.

You believe that God does not exist, and thus hoisted on your own petard.

But since you can't prove it, your denial means nothing.

False. Gods are easily disproved. But since you can't disprove my disproof, your denials mean nothing.

I'm open. What's your disproof?

 

[Hollie]

False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.

Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.

What about this fact do you not grasp?

The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.

What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, your denial is the falsehood.

You believe that God does not exist, and thus hoisted on your own petard.

But since you can't prove it, your denial means nothing.

False. Gods are easily disproved. But since you can't disprove my disproof, your denials mean nothing.

I'm open. What's your disproof?

Wait. What? You want evidence?

What an audacious statement.

I'll ask that of those making the positive claim for their partisan gods.

 

[PratchettFan]

Isn’t atheism a religion?
Sure. And not smoking is a habit.

The Thinking Atheist - FAQ

Am I the ONLY one here who recognizes you CAN make a religion out of it but it is NOT NECESSARILY
true or false for all people; it depends on the circumstances?

Some people make Buddhism and Christianity their religion;
I use these as languages, the same way I would use science to interact with scientists
or music to interact with musicians. This does not make any of these my religion.
But to some, YES, they make religions out of them!
It is not either/or but "it depends on the person and how they are using that thing"

Same with Atheism, Constitutionalism, making religion out of science
or out of your work ethic.

As for smoking or nonsmoking.
Some people DO smoke as a habit and some people do not.
Some people DO make it some ritual or condition NOT to smoke
and some people don't treat it like that.

Can someone PLEASE explain to me what is the NAME for this
RITUAL of dividing everything into A. it has to be this way or
B. it has to be this other way, and arguing the other way is wrong.

Is this called polarizing the issue? Politicizing it?

Is this some practice or belief I should know about?
Does it have a formal name? Is this a religious practice?

If it is so common that people from all religious or a-religious
views practice it, then is it human psychology to divide issues in conflict?

If my beliefs are different, does it mean I am the one with
a different religion than all the other people who believe in
dividing questions into sides and insisting only one has to be right for all cases?

If that isn't a religion then why are so many people practicing it?

No, you're not the only one. Religion is an action. I have known ex-smokers who were almost impossible to be around because they could not stop trying to convert others. Handing out pamphlets, talking about the evils of smoking, offering to help others. Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one. Same with Atheism. In and of itself, it is not a religion. But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way. Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.

 

[PratchettFan]

False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.

Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.

What about this fact do you not grasp?

The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.

What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?

The part where you present your evidence. Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.

You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence. Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.

 

[PratchettFan]

Hollie, your denial is the falsehood.

You believe that God does not exist, and thus hoisted on your own petard.

But since you can't prove it, your denial means nothing.

False. Gods are easily disproved. But since you can't disprove my disproof, your denials mean nothing.

I'm open. What's your disproof?

Wait. What? You want evidence?

What an audacious statement.

I'll ask that of those making the positive claim for their partisan gods.

I have and they consistently fail to provide it. Their position is one of belief. You said you can easily disprove gods. That is your claim. So we are dealing with it. I presume that is being handled in your other post, so I'll wait for your evidence there.

 

[Hollie]

False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.

Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.

What about this fact do you not grasp?

The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.

What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?

The part where you present your evidence. Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.

You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence. Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.

You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, your denial is the falsehood.

You believe that God does not exist, and thus hoisted on your own petard.

But since you can't prove it, your denial means nothing.

False. Gods are easily disproved. But since you can't disprove my disproof, your denials mean nothing.

I'm open. What's your disproof?

Wait. What? You want evidence?

What an audacious statement.

I'll ask that of those making the positive claim for their partisan gods.

I have and they consistently fail to provide it. Their position is one of belief. You said you can easily disprove gods. That is your claim. So we are dealing with it. I presume that is being handled in your other post, so I'll wait for your evidence there.

We're not dealing with anything.

Where is your disproof?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hollie, you can't disprove anything is the point, yet you believe.

That is your issue to own, no one else.

Just pointing out to you that you are as hypocritical as JimBowie or Androw insisting god lives though they can't prove it.

Being an atheist does not mean you get a pass from anyone who can think logically.

So you are victim of your own confirmation bias, which is fine, but don't deny it.