Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Carla_Danger]

...<snip>...

Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief. I don't believe in unicorns. That is not a belief. Seriously, think about what you write.

It implies that you have a belief that unicorns do not exist. It is not a non-belief.

That means Tuatara no longer follows the Unicornist doctrine, and is not affiliated with the Unicorn Church. He/she does not share the unrealistic belief in Unicorns. Tuatara in now an Unicorneist. There is no doctrine for Unicorneism.

Hi Carla_Danger:
Again, I see there are MULTIPLE types, not just either/or.
I will look up this Dawkins list and see if that is what my other Atheist friend used to explain
there were different TYPES of Atheist beliefs, similar to denominations in religion and politics.

To make a simple analogy, let's look at Democrats vs. liberals.

Some people argue Liberalism is a religion, a belief and movement.
Fine, that's what it looks like to those people and there is a collective "agenda or influence"
in the "liberal media" that does seem to have a direction of its own.
You can blame it on Liberalism or Commercial media or whatever that pushes this trend.

Now, let's consider the FORMAL organized and registered Democrat PARTY.
Yes, this party has published principles, which include and Expressly State
the BELIEF that "health care is a right". So I see and say this is a Political Religion.

The Liberalism in the media is not a formal religion and cannot be traced to any one group.

The Democrat Party principles are written and can be shown to contain
the terms WE BELIEVE that health care is a right.

Now let's also consider the independent liberals running around
who are neither controlling the Liberal bias in the media, nor are formal
members or leaders of the Democrat Party.

Can we have ALL THREE going on?
This loose unnamed "liberalism" in the media going on whatever you call it or blame it on.

The FORMAL Democrat party that is prochoice yet pushes health care through govt as a mandate.
Whatever.

And the informal liberal thinkers not affiliated directly with either one.

Can you see why some people will say that all that is combined as one political religious movement?
And others will say, hell no, I am NOT connected with the Democrats, I'm an independent
and don't AGREE with what the liberal politicians are doing!

So we have Greens, atheists, independents, anarchists and socialists
who are NOT party of the Democrat elite defining this "liberal media" and "agenda"
BLAMES on "ALL LIBERALS" under "Liberalism."

Isn't the same thing true with atheists?
Some are part of organizations that do publicly lobby to push some agenda.
So what.
That does not mean all atheists believe or do that!

So there are different levels and we don't have to waste
time arguing that these are all part of "one big movement"
based on only certain people or groups, when in fact
there are many "liberals" not associated or in agreement
with the "liberalism" seen in the media or pushed by the formally organized Democrat party.

Those people who say liberalism is a religion are stupid.

 

[Carla_Danger]

...<snip>...

Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief. I don't believe in unicorns. That is not a belief. Seriously, think about what you write.

It implies that you have a belief that unicorns do not exist. It is not a non-belief.

That means Tuatara no longer follows the Unicornist doctrine, and is not affiliated with the Unicorn Church. He/she does not share the unrealistic belief in Unicorns. Tuatara in now an Unicorneist. There is no doctrine for Unicorneism.

Hi Carla_Danger:
Again, I see there are MULTIPLE types, not just either/or.
I will look up this Dawkins list and see if that is what my other Atheist friend used to explain
there were different TYPES of Atheist beliefs, similar to denominations in religion and politics.

To make a simple analogy, let's look at Democrats vs. liberals.

Some people argue Liberalism is a religion, a belief and movement.
Fine, that's what it looks like to those people and there is a collective "agenda or influence"
in the "liberal media" that does seem to have a direction of its own.
You can blame it on Liberalism or Commercial media or whatever that pushes this trend.

Now, let's consider the FORMAL organized and registered Democrat PARTY.
Yes, this party has published principles, which include and Expressly State
the BELIEF that "health care is a right". So I see and say this is a Political Religion.

The Liberalism in the media is not a formal religion and cannot be traced to any one group.

The Democrat Party principles are written and can be shown to contain
the terms WE BELIEVE that health care is a right.

Now let's also consider the independent liberals running around
who are neither controlling the Liberal bias in the media, nor are formal
members or leaders of the Democrat Party.

Can we have ALL THREE going on?
This loose unnamed "liberalism" in the media going on whatever you call it or blame it on.

The FORMAL Democrat party that is prochoice yet pushes health care through govt as a mandate.
Whatever.

And the informal liberal thinkers not affiliated directly with either one.

Can you see why some people will say that all that is combined as one political religious movement?
And others will say, hell no, I am NOT connected with the Democrats, I'm an independent
and don't AGREE with what the liberal politicians are doing!

So we have Greens, atheists, independents, anarchists and socialists
who are NOT party of the Democrat elite defining this "liberal media" and "agenda"
BLAMES on "ALL LIBERALS" under "Liberalism."

Isn't the same thing true with atheists?
Some are part of organizations that do publicly lobby to push some agenda.
So what.
That does not mean all atheists believe or do that!

So there are different levels and we don't have to waste
time arguing that these are all part of "one big movement"
based on only certain people or groups, when in fact
there are many "liberals" not associated or in agreement
with the "liberalism" seen in the media or pushed by the formally organized Democrat party.

You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!

I wonder if she knows that there are some atheist who happen to be Republican?

 

[Derideo_Te]

[QUOTE="PratchettFan, post: 9828388, member: 37752"
Really. Which part isn't true? Did you not say you think it is probable there is no God (I am number 6)? Do you disagree with the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief?

I don't know why you're so fixated with that Dawkins list. I just happened to come across it online. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm right in between a 5 and a 6.

5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical. 6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.

And once again, not answering the questions. You said I was making shit up and I asked you to point out where. You presented the list, not me. Don't blame me for what you did. You said you were a 6 and I took you at your word. Don't blame me if you didn't mean it. I have asked you if the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief and you have never once said it isn't. In fact, you have never yet acknowledged the question.

Did you say you were a 6 on the Dawkins scale? yes or no
Do you agree the definition of Atheism is an absence of belief? yes or no

I'll bet I don't get an answer. Please prove me wrong.

You're asking for something that isn't black and white, as you'd hoped. Yes, I did say I was a 6, but now I think I'm between a 5 and 6, because this Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far. The Dawkins list is not going to fit every atheist like a glove, because all atheist are different. No, I do not agree that the definition of atheism is an absence of belief. I think it's a disbelief or doubt that there is a God/God's.[/QUOTE]

Just to reinforce that point the absence of any evidence for a deity coupled with the laws of conservation of matter/energy and the logical paradox of omnipotence are enough to convince me that there has never been any need for a "creator". The universe exists, has always existed and will always exist. Nothing more or less is needed. Do beings with "godlike powers" exist somewhere in the universe. Statistically the likelihood is high but none of them would be a "creator" in the sense that theists define it.

So does any of that fit on Dawkins scale? I don't know and nor do I care. I am atheist because logic, knowledge and reason tell me that there is no "creator" and religion is man made. I have no need of any "beliefs" because I have knowledge, logic and reason instead.

Those that insist that atheism is a "religion" are doing so out of their own insecurity, paranoia and fear. That is their problem, not mine.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief. I don't belive in unicorns. That is not a belief. Seriously, think about what you write.

You don't believe in something I already proved exists? How about this then?



I bet you are going to try to argue that is not what you mean when you say unicorn. Unfortunately, all the word means is one horned, so this is actually a unicorn.

 

[Derideo_Te]

...<snip>...

Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief. I don't believe in unicorns. That is not a belief. Seriously, think about what you write.

It implies that you have a belief that unicorns do not exist. It is not a non-belief.

That means Tuatara no longer follows the Unicornist doctrine, and is not affiliated with the Unicorn Church. He/she does not share the unrealistic belief in Unicorns. Tuatara in now an Unicorneist. There is no doctrine for Unicorneism.

Hi Carla_Danger:
Again, I see there are MULTIPLE types, not just either/or.
I will look up this Dawkins list and see if that is what my other Atheist friend used to explain
there were different TYPES of Atheist beliefs, similar to denominations in religion and politics.

To make a simple analogy, let's look at Democrats vs. liberals.

Some people argue Liberalism is a religion, a belief and movement.
Fine, that's what it looks like to those people and there is a collective "agenda or influence"
in the "liberal media" that does seem to have a direction of its own.
You can blame it on Liberalism or Commercial media or whatever that pushes this trend.

Now, let's consider the FORMAL organized and registered Democrat PARTY.
Yes, this party has published principles, which include and Expressly State
the BELIEF that "health care is a right". So I see and say this is a Political Religion.

The Liberalism in the media is not a formal religion and cannot be traced to any one group.

The Democrat Party principles are written and can be shown to contain
the terms WE BELIEVE that health care is a right.

Now let's also consider the independent liberals running around
who are neither controlling the Liberal bias in the media, nor are formal
members or leaders of the Democrat Party.

Can we have ALL THREE going on?
This loose unnamed "liberalism" in the media going on whatever you call it or blame it on.

The FORMAL Democrat party that is prochoice yet pushes health care through govt as a mandate.
Whatever.

And the informal liberal thinkers not affiliated directly with either one.

Can you see why some people will say that all that is combined as one political religious movement?
And others will say, hell no, I am NOT connected with the Democrats, I'm an independent
and don't AGREE with what the liberal politicians are doing!

So we have Greens, atheists, independents, anarchists and socialists
who are NOT party of the Democrat elite defining this "liberal media" and "agenda"
BLAMES on "ALL LIBERALS" under "Liberalism."

Isn't the same thing true with atheists?
Some are part of organizations that do publicly lobby to push some agenda.
So what.
That does not mean all atheists believe or do that!

So there are different levels and we don't have to waste
time arguing that these are all part of "one big movement"
based on only certain people or groups, when in fact
there are many "liberals" not associated or in agreement
with the "liberalism" seen in the media or pushed by the formally organized Democrat party.

You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!

I wonder if she knows that there are some atheist who happen to be Republican?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, actually it is you, because it is what it is. There is no dogma in atheism. No, atheist cannot turn atheism into a religion, because it's not one.

Yet they have, despite your unwillingness to admit it.

Maybe the best treatment on Earth of the question as to whether or not atheism is a religion came from music god Frank Zappa, founder of the Church of American Secular Humanism (CASH). Secular humanism is defined as reason rejecting dogma and supernaturalism, which is a fancy way of saying it’s atheists who believe in people and not God. I am down with reason, and although I think I have psychic powers that allow my friends' dead parents to take over my emotions, I respect those who don’t believe in the supernatural. It is a lot easier to believe in fewer things than to accept a host of others on faith alone, and humanists are intellectual minimalists. They are the Design Within Reach to Christianity's Shabby Chic, and no one was more ready to clean house than Frank Zappa.
Maybe the best treatment on Earth of the question as to whether or not atheism is a religion came from music god Frank Zappa, founder of the Church of American Secular Humanism (CASH). Secular humanism is defined as reason rejecting dogma and supernaturalism, which is a fancy way of saying it’s atheists who believe in people and not God. I am down with reason, and although I think I have psychic powers that allow my friends' dead parents to take over my emotions, I respect those who don’t believe in the supernatural. It is a lot easier to believe in fewer things than to accept a host of others on faith alone, and humanists are intellectual minimalists. They are the Design Within Reach to Christianity's Shabby Chic, and no one was more ready to clean house than Frank Zappa.

Atheism Is a Religion - Reason.com

Before the usual idiots come in and say this is just a tax dodge I want to point out that Scientology is the biggest tax dodge ever created, and no one I have seen denies that it is also a religion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Have you ever noticed that you can't define these "beliefs" that you erroneously allege that atheists have?

Do you even know what the definition of the term belief?

Do you?

Belief is an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
​

In other words, if you accept that the statement "There is no evidence that God exists" as true you have a belief. That is not a non belief, despite myraid attempts to define it that way.

Did you even think through what you were posting before you hit reply?

You obviously didn't.

Did you understand that you would assume the onus of having to prove not only these "beliefs" but that atheists actually have them?

So now that you have covered your face with egg how do you intend to wipe it off?

The only egg on anyone's face is on the idiots that claim they don't believe anything when they do.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sure, Carla.
And I know an atheist personally who STILL teaches the concepts of forgiveness, abundance of free grace,
etc. just the same message as taught in Christianity, does NOT reject Christians, supports people to follow what works
for them, and is an atheist, does not believe in a personified God but does not go around arguing with people who do.

So yes, he is an atheist, but no, he has no issues with Christians and even refers people to local churches for support.

Carla, my point is I have no problem with people who consider atheism a religion,
just like people do with Buddhism or Hinduism while many followers will say no, it is not a religion.

same with Constitutionalism that to some is a religion with followers and leaders preaching principles as mandatory.

So what?

Why can't we have DIFFERENT types going on?

Just because SOME people AREN'T following these things "like a religion"
does NOT mean there aren't THOSE WHO DO make a RELIGION out of it.

What harm is caused by acknowledging all these types exist, and do not have to "be each other"?

If you want so BADLY for people to see that SOME are NOT religious or a religion in any way.
why can't you be equally as open that some ARE?

I am perfectly open to understand that some are and some aren't!
So what? why does it have to be one side saying NONE are that way, and one side saying ALL are that way.

And if people believe it IS all one way, well, as many people believe the opposite,
so they balance each other out. I can see all these different ways are going on.

I have atheist friends who are perfectly at peace knowing some people can only see it their one way.
So let those people keep doing that for themselves.

Just make sure you aren't doing that, and I make sure I'm not. That's all we can do.
I am just fortunate to have such diverse friends I recognize these generalizations have holes in them.
I likely know exceptions to just about every rule.

My atheist friend who believes and teaches free grace is proof that you can totally agree
on the meaning and message taught in Christianity and still be atheist or secular gentile and not have an issue.

The key is FORGIVENESS. As long as you can forgive differences, they don't have to be
fully changed or resolved to work out what really is important underneath. That's the common factor
I have found that helps people align "faith" regardless of political, religious or areligious viewpoint.

If you don't have forgiveness, but impose conditions on each other,
then even people of the same religion or party will clash.

It's not a matter of having the same beliefs or labels, because there will always be conflicts.
It's a matter of being able to forgive and include each other's views in order to work through whatever issues come up.

Thanks, Carla
The world is probably a mix of all the above, not either/or, where everyone is right about their parts of the puzzle.

...<snip>...

Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief. I don't believe in unicorns. That is not a belief. Seriously, think about what you write.

It implies that you have a belief that unicorns do not exist. It is not a non-belief.

That means Tuatara no longer follows the Unicornist doctrine, and is not affiliated with the Unicorn Church. He/she does not share the unrealistic belief in Unicorns. Tuatara in now an Unicorneist. There is no doctrine for Unicorneism.

Hi Carla_Danger:
Again, I see there are MULTIPLE types, not just either/or.
I will look up this Dawkins list and see if that is what my other Atheist friend used to explain
there were different TYPES of Atheist beliefs, similar to denominations in religion and politics.

To make a simple analogy, let's look at Democrats vs. liberals.

Some people argue Liberalism is a religion, a belief and movement.
Fine, that's what it looks like to those people and there is a collective "agenda or influence"
in the "liberal media" that does seem to have a direction of its own.
You can blame it on Liberalism or Commercial media or whatever that pushes this trend.

Now, let's consider the FORMAL organized and registered Democrat PARTY.
Yes, this party has published principles, which include and Expressly State
the BELIEF that "health care is a right". So I see and say this is a Political Religion.

The Liberalism in the media is not a formal religion and cannot be traced to any one group.

The Democrat Party principles are written and can be shown to contain
the terms WE BELIEVE that health care is a right.

Now let's also consider the independent liberals running around
who are neither controlling the Liberal bias in the media, nor are formal
members or leaders of the Democrat Party.

Can we have ALL THREE going on?
This loose unnamed "liberalism" in the media going on whatever you call it or blame it on.

The FORMAL Democrat party that is prochoice yet pushes health care through govt as a mandate.
Whatever.

And the informal liberal thinkers not affiliated directly with either one.

Can you see why some people will say that all that is combined as one political religious movement?
And others will say, hell no, I am NOT connected with the Democrats, I'm an independent
and don't AGREE with what the liberal politicians are doing!

So we have Greens, atheists, independents, anarchists and socialists
who are NOT party of the Democrat elite defining this "liberal media" and "agenda"
BLAMES on "ALL LIBERALS" under "Liberalism."

Isn't the same thing true with atheists?
Some are part of organizations that do publicly lobby to push some agenda.
So what.
That does not mean all atheists believe or do that!

So there are different levels and we don't have to waste
time arguing that these are all part of "one big movement"
based on only certain people or groups, when in fact
there are many "liberals" not associated or in agreement
with the "liberalism" seen in the media or pushed by the formally organized Democrat party.

You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!

I wonder if she knows that there are some atheist who happen to be Republican?

 

[emilynghiem]

Not to worry QW. There are already "atheist churches" and atheist "nonprofit organizations" doing tax-exempt outreach just like any other religious charity would. There is a college campus group that serves nonchristian or atheist students similar to Christian ministries. If people want that choice, they already have it, and some groups already exercise it. That isn't the issue.

What I think the issue is
is failing to make a distinction between two different approaches to atheism:
1. One is actively BELIEVING there is no god or gods (with or without proof)
2. The other is NOT BELIEVING there is, which is either equal to or at least closer to agnosticism

The problem is a lot of people are really agnostic
(and WILL admit that God can neither be proven nor disproven because we don't know absolutely,
anything could turn out to be false, or could change and is not absolute)

And the REAL issue is not that anyway.

It is the LANGUAGE we use where we THINK in those terms.

Even if someone like my friend Ray believes in all the same things that God and Jesus represent,
he doesn't THINK or DESCRIBE these concepts in religious terms of a personified God and Jesus.

So it is his LANGUAGE and PERCEPTION that is secular or NONTHEISTIC.

Many people are NONTHEISTIC, and within that group,
there are people who work along with the same people and principles as in Christianity or religion
but just don't use the same terms.

And there are people who REJECT not just the language but the CONCEPTS of forgiveness
and restorative justice that Christianity and religions are teaching.

I think we can learn to AGREE about the SECULAR/NONTHEISTIC language part.

As for people's beliefs underneath that NONTHEISTIC culture or language,
there are those whose beliefs are consistent with Christianity and other religions, and just need translation
back and forth into secular terms,
and there are those who REJECT the spiritual concepts that forgiveness and good will can overcome
the cycles of retribution, judgment and punishment keeping humanity stuck in conditions of suffering.

My friend Ray happens to be one of those "secular gentiles" or atheists/nontheists
who are nontheistic/atheistic in language, thinking, perception and culture; but no, he does not reject the concepts in Christianity even though he doesn't relate to the language used to teach it religiously.

In order to distinguish which people are which, it helps to reconcile the concepts
first. And then it becomes more clear that the NONTHEISTIC language and worldview
is just how these same universal concepts are EXPRESSED.

So that is another issue causing confusion.
The NONTHEISTIC language is one level,
and the concepts or beliefs (regardless of religion or lack thereof) is a separate level.

No, actually it is you, because it is what it is. There is no dogma in atheism. No, atheist cannot turn atheism into a religion, because it's not one.

Yet they have, despite your unwillingness to admit it.

Maybe the best treatment on Earth of the question as to whether or not atheism is a religion came from music god Frank Zappa, founder of the Church of American Secular Humanism (CASH). Secular humanism is defined as reason rejecting dogma and supernaturalism, which is a fancy way of saying it’s atheists who believe in people and not God. I am down with reason, and although I think I have psychic powers that allow my friends' dead parents to take over my emotions, I respect those who don’t believe in the supernatural. It is a lot easier to believe in fewer things than to accept a host of others on faith alone, and humanists are intellectual minimalists. They are the Design Within Reach to Christianity's Shabby Chic, and no one was more ready to clean house than Frank Zappa.
Maybe the best treatment on Earth of the question as to whether or not atheism is a religion came from music god Frank Zappa, founder of the Church of American Secular Humanism (CASH). Secular humanism is defined as reason rejecting dogma and supernaturalism, which is a fancy way of saying it’s atheists who believe in people and not God. I am down with reason, and although I think I have psychic powers that allow my friends' dead parents to take over my emotions, I respect those who don’t believe in the supernatural. It is a lot easier to believe in fewer things than to accept a host of others on faith alone, and humanists are intellectual minimalists. They are the Design Within Reach to Christianity's Shabby Chic, and no one was more ready to clean house than Frank Zappa.

Atheism Is a Religion - Reason.com

Before the usual idiots come in and say this is just a tax dodge I want to point out that Scientology is the biggest tax dodge ever created, and no one I have seen denies that it is also a religion.

 

[emilynghiem]

You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!

Yes No and Yes

The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
"that group" to be acting in concert with each other.

So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
the same way people say about "liberalism".

Now, you can also divide into
WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
and point to the GOP. This has been causing issues because, for example,
the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
did not represent all the members.

Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.

So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.

Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
Some ARE making it their religion
Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!

So yes, yes, and no.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!

Yes No and Yes

The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
"that group" to be acting in concert with each other.

So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
the same way people say about "liberalism".

Now, you can also divide into
WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
and point to the GOP. This has been causing issues because, for example,
the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
did not represent all the members.

Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.

So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.

Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
Some ARE making it their religion
Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!

So yes, yes, and no.

Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".

She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.

Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".

Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Derideo_Te and Carla:
And likewise, for the other two cases
1. for those who DO make it their religion,
you and I cannot define it for them as NOT being one
2. for those who see the "collective level" (mixing any of these together)
and BELIEVE that is a religion,
you and I cannot tell them not to call it that either!

So the independent folks can fall under one type of case,
and that does not negate the other two still going on, whether we agree or not.

If that's how people see it, why not just work with how they see it.

The same way I would work with you the way you see things.
And just understand we are not going to see other people the same way.

At least we can work with each other!

You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!

Yes No and Yes

The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
"that group" to be acting in concert with each other.

So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
the same way people say about "liberalism".

Now, you can also divide into
WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
and point to the GOP. This has been causing issues because, for example,
the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
did not represent all the members.

Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.

So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.

Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
Some ARE making it their religion
Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!

So yes, yes, and no.

Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".

She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.

Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".

Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Hi Derideo_Te and Carla:
And likewise, for the other two cases
1. for those who DO make it their religion,
you and I cannot define it for them as NOT being one
2. for those who see the "collective level" (mixing any of these together)
and BELIEVE that is a religion,
you and I cannot tell them not to call it that either!

So the independent folks can fall under one type of case,
and that does not negate the other two still going on, whether we agree or not.

If that's how people see it, why not just work with how they see it.

The same way I would work with you the way you see things.
And just understand we are not going to see other people the same way.

At least we can work with each other!

You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!

Yes No and Yes

The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
"that group" to be acting in concert with each other.

So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
the same way people say about "liberalism".

Now, you can also divide into
WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
and point to the GOP. This has been causing issues because, for example,
the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
did not represent all the members.

Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.

So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.

Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
Some ARE making it their religion
Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!

So yes, yes, and no.

Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".

She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.

Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".

Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.

Those other 2 cases don't exist according to the definition of the term atheist.

If they have beliefs in the existence of a deity then they don't fit the definition of being an atheist

 

[asaratis]

You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!

Yes No and Yes

The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
"that group" to be acting in concert with each other.

So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
the same way people say about "liberalism".

Now, you can also divide into
WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
and point to the GOP. This has been causing issues because, for example,
the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
did not represent all the members.

Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.

So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.

Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
Some ARE making it their religion
Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!

So yes, yes, and no.

Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".

She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.

Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".

Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.

No.
Atheists believe that there are no deities.

Lack of belief either way makes one agnostic.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!

Yes No and Yes

The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
"that group" to be acting in concert with each other.

So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
the same way people say about "liberalism".

Now, you can also divide into
WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
and point to the GOP. This has been causing issues because, for example,
the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
did not represent all the members.

Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.

So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.

Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
Some ARE making it their religion
Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!

So yes, yes, and no.

Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".

She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.

Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".

Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.

No.
Atheists believe that there are no deities.

Lack of belief either way makes one agnostic.

BZZZT Wrong!

Google

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēˌist/
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

A lack of belief is not a a belief.

 

[emilynghiem]

With Atheism the three levels would be
1. people who are independent nontheistic thinkers
who do not make a religion of their views and do not relate to that way of looking at it
2. people who are Atheists and do make a religion or the "equivalent" of one, even an organization
that pushes an agenda, and/or someone who promotes this belief actively
trying to convert other people to understand there is no such god and it is impossible, etc.
3. the general collective of all nontheistic groups or people
combined as one identity for that "secular" approach to life,
which some people here are arguing "is a religion or acting as the equivalent of one"

So if people label 2 and 3 as a religion,
I don't see that as conflicting with 1.

All three can be going on, people can see them differently, and argue
which if any of these levels constitutes a religion, and the three
levels are STILL going on, even if we use conflicting terms for them.

They are still happening. We just don't all agree how to use or how NOT to use "religion"
to describe these three levels that people see as involving atheism or nontheistic approaches, people or groups.

Hi Derideo_Te and Carla:
And likewise, for the other two cases
1. for those who DO make it their religion,
you and I cannot define it for them as NOT being one
2. for those who see the "collective level" (mixing any of these together)
and BELIEVE that is a religion,
you and I cannot tell them not to call it that either!

So the independent folks can fall under one type of case,
and that does not negate the other two still going on, whether we agree or not.

If that's how people see it, why not just work with how they see it.

The same way I would work with you the way you see things.
And just understand we are not going to see other people the same way.

At least we can work with each other!

You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!

Yes No and Yes

The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
"that group" to be acting in concert with each other.

So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
the same way people say about "liberalism".

Now, you can also divide into
WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
and point to the GOP. This has been causing issues because, for example,
the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
did not represent all the members.

Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.

So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.

Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
Some ARE making it their religion
Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!

So yes, yes, and no.

Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".

She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.

Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".

Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.

Those other 2 cases don't exist according to the definition of the term atheist.

If they have beliefs in the existence of a deity then they don't fit the definition of being an atheist

 

[PratchettFan]

[QUOTE="PratchettFan, post: 9828388, member: 37752"
Really. Which part isn't true? Did you not say you think it is probable there is no God (I am number 6)? Do you disagree with the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief?

I don't know why you're so fixated with that Dawkins list. I just happened to come across it online. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm right in between a 5 and a 6.

5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical. 6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.

And once again, not answering the questions. You said I was making shit up and I asked you to point out where. You presented the list, not me. Don't blame me for what you did. You said you were a 6 and I took you at your word. Don't blame me if you didn't mean it. I have asked you if the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief and you have never once said it isn't. In fact, you have never yet acknowledged the question.

Did you say you were a 6 on the Dawkins scale? yes or no
Do you agree the definition of Atheism is an absence of belief? yes or no

I'll bet I don't get an answer. Please prove me wrong.

You're asking for something that isn't black and white, as you'd hoped. Yes, I did say I was a 6, but now I think I'm between a 5 and 6, because this Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far. The Dawkins list is not going to fit every atheist like a glove, because all atheist are different. No, I do not agree that the definition of atheism is an absence of belief. I think it's a disbelief or doubt that there is a God/God's.[/QUOTE]

It was black and white because you claimed I had made it up. I didn't. And you were able to give me yes or no answers. Not hard at all.

It doesn't matter to me where you fall on the scale. Let's say you're a 5.5. Sealybobo looks to be a 6.9. I'm probably a 3.8. All that shows is that Atheism is not a narrow concept as Pogo claims. For that matter, neither is Theism. Atheism entails a wide variance of belief from "eh" to "not a chance". I'm at "yeah, I think there might be but I don't particularly give a damn". There is nothing wrong with the belief at all. It is just as valid as any theistic belief. Nor does that belief make it a religion.

What makes something a religion is not the belief but the construct built around the belief. If I say that I am certain there is no God, that is a statement of pure belief but that doesn't make it a religion. However, if I say I am certain there is no God and anyone who thinks there might even be a chance there is a God isn't a true Atheist, then I am turning Atheism into a religion. I am creating dogma.

 

[asaratis]

You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!

Yes No and Yes

The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
"that group" to be acting in concert with each other.

So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
the same way people say about "liberalism".

Now, you can also divide into
WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
and point to the GOP. This has been causing issues because, for example,
the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
did not represent all the members.

Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.

So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.

Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
Some ARE making it their religion
Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!

So yes, yes, and no.

Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".

She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.

Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".

Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.

No.
Atheists believe that there are no deities.

Lack of belief either way makes one agnostic.

BZZZT Wrong!

Google

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēˌist/
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

A lack of belief is not a a belief.

Bzzzzzt. Wrong! A redefining of atheism to keep from being labeled a religion is the relatively recent trick perpetuated by Atheists. Dawkins did this with his 7 level scale and your source did it also.

If Atheists simply had a lack of belief in deities, they would not argue so verociously with those that believe.

If you have a lack of belief, you are agnostic. Atheists believe that deities do not exist.

 

[emilynghiem]

No.
Atheists believe that there are no deities.

Lack of belief either way makes one agnostic.

How about this
1. Atheists BELIEVE absolutely there are no god, gods or deities.
And anyone who is open to admitting there is even a small chance
that could be otherwise is TECHNICALLY agnostic, though many
call themselves Atheist if they just don't believe this could be so
"even though technically yes they agree there is always a chance"

2. NONTHEISTS don't think or believe in terms of a personified God or deities.
It doesn't matter if these turn out to exist or not, they don't THINK in those terms.

Asaratis, if we focused on the point that
NEITHER side can either prove or disprove either way,
then EVERYONE would be Agnostic which is basically accurate.

NONE of us know and ALL of us must admit at some level NONE of us knows.

But that doesn't help us to distinguish anyone from anyone else.

What I find to be the REAL issue is how someone THINKS and Speaks.
* in religious terms
* in secular terms

So we can communicate.

In both cases, religious or nonreligious, theistic or nontheistic,
NONE of us can know anything absolutely. That cannot be the deciding point.

What matters to people, regardless what we believe can or cannot be proven or disproven,
is our manner of thinking, speaking and perceiving.

What LANGUAGE do we relate to and use?

* If we use religious/spiritual laws from the Bible, Torah, Quran, etc.
* If we use natural/secular laws from science, sociology, psychology, civil govt.

I am more concerned with what language someone uses so we can communicate.
I see no reason to judge people for that, any more than judging people
for being left handed or righthanded, red-green colorblind or completely colorblind,
being tone deaf or hearing perfect pitch.

If people are "theistic" that's how they relate to laws, the world and people.
If people are "nontheistic" they may relate in secular ways to people, society and life.

The language is one level to get straight.

If we can get over the fact people may be different and
may not be able to communicate or change to other languages,
we can talk about the concepts and principles underneath.

And that's where discussing approaches to justice
REALLY distinguishes who has "faith" and who does not.
That faith is also independent of one's religious and political affiliation.
If you can forgive all other groups and work with anyone,
you will get along with people from all other groups.

If you cannot forgive all others, but judge and exclude or reject certain ones,
when they do the same with you, it causes mutual conflict.

I find it is more important to have faith in forgiveness
and corrections than to haggle over religious terms for these things.

We can't even get to that level yet,
if we aren't over our differences about the language we use!

 

[emilynghiem]

Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

BTW on this scale
What I DO believe is that humanity is meant to reach a consensus on whatever God means.
And if it means different things to different people, ALL those meanings must be included in the final agreement
to explain each case where there are no conflicts that cannot be resolved directly or indirectly.

So I am open to any and all these levels, and just working with people wherever they are coming from.

Agreeing on truth that matters DOES NOT DEPEND on agreeing or proving whether or not God exists.
If we are truly to act unconditionally and inclusively, then we should remain open to any of these
so it doesn't become a condition to divide people and prevent us from working together as needed.

Whatever is meant by GOD I believe we will reach an agreement on it.

In the meantime, I work with each person on what they call things and that's good enough.

I think it is more important to prove the effect and process of FORGIVENESS
and Spiritual Healing. And in that process we resolve whatever issues we have about this God business as a result.

I am not so worried about proving or disproving God since that relies on faith that
whatever we agree on is sound and consistent. We need to be on the same page
with forgiveness and healing BEFORE we can make such an agreement anyway.

I am more concerned with proving the profound impact that forgiveness and spiritual healing
have on human health, relations and society, since that can change the face of politics and medicine, crime and punishment, prisons and govt worldwide. Collective healing can fulfill all the ideal goals taught in religions, without arguing over God or even agreeing on the same beliefs about it. So why not fulfill the common purpose, where any other conflicts will be resolved in the process.