Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Carla_Danger]

When are religious beliefs involving magic and supernaturalism defined as "Logical"?

Hi Hollie: here is some natural logic I have found taught in religions and even by atheists:
1. by forgiving ourselves and others, we detach from emotions that otherwise bias our judgment in negative ways.
When we open ourselves to positive solutions, we are more apt to attract and receive that kind of help to solve problems.

This has been called the law of attraction, the abundance mentality,
the power of positive thinking, and is the basis behind spiritual healing
and even recovery from addiction and abuse like AA and ending codependency and enabling

letting go so we don't hold on to the very negative memories and emotions
causing us suffering and stress that impedes our minds from seeing clearly and openly to solve problems

2. law of cause and effect, karma, equal justice, reciprocity

if you live by retributive justice, you get that in return
if you live by restorative justice, you invite that in return

ifyou want others to treat you with respect
it helps to treat them with respect

if you reject others they tend to reject you

what comes around goes around
you reap what you sow

The Golden Rule of Reciprocity is a universal natural law
taught in all religions and even secular laws of equal justice and equal protection of the laws:

Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions

This is consistent with plain common sense about human nature.
we tend to reciprocate, we respond to social cues from environment,
we mimic people we trust and respect and reject people we don't.

How is this illogical just because it is taught in religion?

That's funny, atheism isn't listed on your religious tolerance page.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

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.

That's totally incorrect, because religion is the belief and worship of a superhuman power. What you're saying is that religion is simply a belief, which is ridiculous. You're making up your own definition.

Religion is not a belief.... it is an action.

That's a new one. Is jumping a religion?

Ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

No. Nor is jumping the same thing as swimming. So I suppose you think swimming is not an action either.

You can sit quietly in a room and believe all you like, but that is not religion. Religion requires people coming together, interacting, identifying themselves with the group and establishing doctrine. Those are all actions. Religion is an action.

You claim to be free of this belief in God. If God is not a factor, then religion is entirely a human endeavor. Why do you have such difficulty seeing it that way?

 

[emilynghiem]

No. We can't. I am talking about the nature of religion itself, which is a human action. Belief is only an attribute of religion, it is not religion itself. It is not even a particularly important attribute.

I agree with you that the belief is part of the religion, but not the religion itself.

can we talk about sharing or connecting beliefs between people in a relationship.
and that connection, expression or relationship is included in the religion.

can we talk about the collective level of beliefs, and how people like asaratis
are referring to this level when using the term religion as a collective belief shared by a common identity among people

and yes, can we also talk about the physical practice or rituals of religion

PF I understand you are focusing on how someone practices beliefs in action

what about the other levels also
* not just individual belief which I agree is not the religion itself
but the collective shared belief and mindset which asaratis is referring as a religious identity
* I tend to focus on religions as languages for expressing laws and principles
between likeminded people so it is a tool for communicating and enforcing shared principles
* you are saying it is the physical action that makes it a religion
and it is not enough just to have a belief, I understand that

I agree the belief is not enough on its own, but it is the core part behind the rest

* one's belief about what is true or not
* one's expression of that belief
* one's perception or interpretation in relationship with other people

aren't all three levels going on as how beliefs are expressed or exercised as tangible religions?

 

[emilynghiem]

Neither is Constitutionalism or feminism or humanism which all push for equality.

I approach atheism not as someone's beliefs but way of communicating like a language.
If you are nontheist then we use nontheistic terms to discuss principles or points.
so within nontheism, it does not matter as much if you are Buddhist, secular humanity,
atheist or agnostic or how you define your beliefs. I am more focused on the language
people use. it looks like PF is more concerned with the physical practice and asaratis
sees the belief as what defines the religion.

where atheists fall on the list is if you believe in
* what comes aroudn goes around
* you treat others with equal respect you want to be treated with
* you get what you give and reap what you sow
these are natural laws of human behavior
so as long as atheists fall under secular gentiles who
follow natural laws, that includes atheists indirectly

wicca states it as do as you will but harm none
also seen this stated as your freedom ends where mine begins
in short we are under the same laws as equal humans and should respect for others what we want respected for us
just natural wisdom

When are religious beliefs involving magic and supernaturalism defined as "Logical"?

Hi Hollie: here is some natural logic I have found taught in religions and even by atheists:
1. by forgiving ourselves and others, we detach from emotions that otherwise bias our judgment in negative ways.
When we open ourselves to positive solutions, we are more apt to attract and receive that kind of help to solve problems.

This has been called the law of attraction, the abundance mentality,
the power of positive thinking, and is the basis behind spiritual healing
and even recovery from addiction and abuse like AA and ending codependency and enabling

letting go so we don't hold on to the very negative memories and emotions
causing us suffering and stress that impedes our minds from seeing clearly and openly to solve problems

2. law of cause and effect, karma, equal justice, reciprocity

if you live by retributive justice, you get that in return
if you live by restorative justice, you invite that in return

ifyou want others to treat you with respect
it helps to treat them with respect

if you reject others they tend to reject you

what comes around goes around
you reap what you sow

The Golden Rule of Reciprocity is a universal natural law
taught in all religions and even secular laws of equal justice and equal protection of the laws:

Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions

This is consistent with plain common sense about human nature.
we tend to reciprocate, we respond to social cues from environment,
we mimic people we trust and respect and reject people we don't.

How is this illogical just because it is taught in religion?

That's funny, atheism isn't listed on your religious tolerance page.

 

[PratchettFan]

No. We can't. I am talking about the nature of religion itself, which is a human action. Belief is only an attribute of religion, it is not religion itself. It is not even a particularly important attribute.

I agree with you that the belief is part of the religion, but not the religion itself.

can we talk about sharing or connecting beliefs between people in a relationship.
and that connection, expression or relationship is included in the religion.

can we talk about the collective level of beliefs, and how people like asaratis
are referring to this level when using the term religion as a collective belief shared by a common identity among people

and yes, can we also talk about the physical practice or rituals of religion

PF I understand you are focusing on how someone practices beliefs in action

what about the other levels also
* not just individual belief which I agree is not the religion itself
but the collective shared belief and mindset which asaratis is referring as a religious identity
* I tend to focus on religions as languages for expressing laws and principles
between likeminded people so it is a tool for communicating and enforcing shared principles
* you are saying it is the physical action that makes it a religion
and it is not enough just to have a belief, I understand that

I agree the belief is not enough on its own, but it is the core part behind the rest

* one's belief about what is true or not
* one's expression of that belief
* one's perception or interpretation in relationship with other people

aren't all three levels going on as how beliefs are expressed or exercised as tangible religions?

I personally think religion is both more and less complicated than that. I think it is a survival trait our species evolved in order to maintain social integrity. Since it is an entirely group activity, it really doesn't matter whether an individual believes or finds any sort of fulfillment with it. Just as it doesn't matter to a society as a whole if a single person dies of hunger. Religion and government are essentially meeting the same need, but from different perspectives. This is why all human societies have had religion as a central aspect of the society. It doesn't matter what the belief is, all religions are the same once you strip them down to their essentials.

 

[emilynghiem]

I personally think religion is both more and less complicated than that. I think it is a survival trait our species evolved in order to maintain social integrity. Since it is an entirely group activity, it really doesn't matter whether an individual believes or finds any sort of fulfillment with it. Just as it doesn't matter to a society as a whole if a single person dies of hunger. Religion and government are essentially meeting the same need, but from different perspectives. This is why all human societies have had religion as a central aspect of the society. It doesn't matter what the belief is, all religions are the same once you strip them down to their essentials.

Hi PF yes I mostly agree with you.
I think the part where my faith may go one step further
is having faith that what we experience individually is like a microcosm of the whole.
there is a spiritual connection between the individual and collective level.
we co influence each other.

I see most religions or laws in both religion and politics
as a means of expressing that relationship between the individual and collective level
of either society, humanity, truth, etc.

so it does make a difference in how we act toward others
if we feel this connection or we do not

if I include you as my equal because what we experience in our relation
affects humanity's growth indireclty, I act differently towrds you
than someone who sees you as outside or adversarial

does that make sense

how each of us acts individually
collectively adds up to equal all humanity

so to me one aspect of faith is sensing and embracing that connection

the Bahai teach oneness of humanity
the Buddhists teach no separation between self and whole
and to let go attachment to individual selfish desire and work for the spiritual ideal for the whole
Christianity is to put love of neighbor and love of God on the same unconditional level and
just let go of our own material flesh and let this higher love flow through us and direct our lives

so this is the level that transforms individuals inside
and then the whole world as a result as the influence catches on

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, then you're using a very narrow definition of atheist that really only encompasses one type of atheistic belief. Atheist is synonymous with non-theist. That's what the 'a' prefix means.

And you're using a popular misrepresentation of agnosticism. But in point of fact, it's possible for an agnostic to be either a theist, or an atheist.

If we were just disagreeing on definitions, it would be a pretty boring conversation, but I think both sides recognize there's more to it than that. The subtext here is the fact that our government treats religious beliefs and non-theist beliefs (science and philosophy) differently in matters of education and government sponsorship. So, those with a vested interest have strong incentive to manipulate the definitions used by government in determining which beliefs are considered 'religious' and which aren't.

Not at all, I am using it the way it is intended to be used. As evidence I present the following definitions.

Theism: the belief in god or gods.

Agnostiocism: Oops, not a word because it is not a belief.

Atheism: the belief that there are no gods.

If atheism simply meant not believing in god we wouldn't have another word to mean "I don't really know about god one way or another."

If you want to claim you do not have a belief you have to accept the fact that the word that you should use to describe that lack of belief is agnostic because it is the only word available to you that you cannot attach -ism to. By the way, that actually proves that you cannot be an agnostic theist, because if you are a theist you have a belief.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's a good point. In fact, I'd classify myself as someone who believes in the existence of gods (though I might not accept every power attributed to a given god), yet I'm not religious. I don't follow any god.

Bravo.

Just as an aside, most of the popular powers attributed to the God of Abraham do not come from the Bible, they come from Greek philosophy.

 

[PratchettFan]

I personally think religion is both more and less complicated than that. I think it is a survival trait our species evolved in order to maintain social integrity. Since it is an entirely group activity, it really doesn't matter whether an individual believes or finds any sort of fulfillment with it. Just as it doesn't matter to a society as a whole if a single person dies of hunger. Religion and government are essentially meeting the same need, but from different perspectives. This is why all human societies have had religion as a central aspect of the society. It doesn't matter what the belief is, all religions are the same once you strip them down to their essentials.

Hi PF yes I mostly agree with you.
I think the part where my faith may go one step further
is having faith that what we experience individually is like a microcosm of the whole.
there is a spiritual connection between the individual and collective level.
we co influence each other.

I see most religions or laws in both religion and politics
as a means of expressing that relationship between the individual and collective level
of either society, humanity, truth, etc.

so it does make a difference in how we act toward others
if we feel this connection or we do not

if I include you as my equal because what we experience in our relation
affects humanity's growth indireclty, I act differently towrds you
than someone who sees you as outside or adversarial

does that make sense

how each of us acts individually
collectively adds up to equal all humanity

so to me one aspect of faith is sensing and embracing that connection

the Bahai teach oneness of humanity
the Buddhists teach no separation between self and whole
and to let go attachment to individual selfish desire and work for the spiritual ideal for the whole
Christianity is to put love of neighbor and love of God on the same unconditional level and
just let go of our own material flesh and let this higher love flow through us and direct our lives

so this is the level that transforms individuals inside
and then the whole world as a result as the influence catches on

I don't think there are influences and, if there are, they certainly don't catch on. I think human beings have been treated other in the same way since the very beginning and they only thing we have done over our history is get more efficient at it. Religions don't influence people, people create religions. Christianity may speak about love, but Christians are not particularly loving. Buddhists are no less selfish than anyone else. I can't speak for Bahai, but I doubt they are any different. Government and religion developed because without group identity the first thing we do is kill each other and then the lion eats the survivor.

Belief is involved because we are a species of believers. This is another survival trait. We believe the tiger is on the other side of the rock so we prepare for it. That way we don't get surprised. We don't like gaps because things with teeth and claws tend to be in the gaps. So we make things up. A lot of great art exists because of that.

 

[emilynghiem]

Not at all, I am using it the way it is intended to be used. As evidence I present the following definitions.

Theism: the belief in god or gods.

Agnostiocism: Oops, not a word because it is not a belief.

Atheism: the belief that there are no gods.

If atheism simply meant not believing in god we wouldn't have another word to mean "I don't really know about god one way or another."

If you want to claim you do not have a belief you have to accept the fact that the word that you should use to describe that lack of belief is agnostic because it is the only word available to you that you cannot attach -ism to. By the way, that actually proves that you cannot be an agnostic theist, because if you are a theist you have a belief.

Hi Quantum Windbag:
I'll try to use this to show the difference.

With THEISM, yes, my beliefs fall under THEISM yet I do not relate to this as a religion
or feel it represents my views.

I prefer to go through the list of all THEIST systems and say that
Constitutional beliefs that natural laws come from God are closest to my views
and relate to CONSTITUTIONALISM but not THEISM as my religion.

I can only guess that ATHEISTS on here may be doing similar.

Just because Theist or Nontheist/Atheist DESCRIBES the general category of our ways of seeing and saying things
does not mean that THEISM or ATHEISM is our religion.

in fact, my language is more Nontheist or secular gentile like an atheist who doesn't follow any God or religion.

I have the faith the same as a theist or christian
but I express it like a nontheist secular gentile or constitutionalist using natural laws.

so from that perspective
THEIST and Atheist or Nontheist
are more like descriptions and not religions unto themselves

I can understand this

I don't relate to being called a Theist just because my beliefs include theist beliefs and
i can use theist language

I can equally include nontheist language and beliefs
and prefer to focus on Constitutional and natural laws that are secular in focus and language

does this help at all

thanks QW

 

[dblack]

Well, then you're using a very narrow definition of atheist that really only encompasses one type of atheistic belief. Atheist is synonymous with non-theist. That's what the 'a' prefix means.

And you're using a popular misrepresentation of agnosticism. But in point of fact, it's possible for an agnostic to be either a theist, or an atheist.

If we were just disagreeing on definitions, it would be a pretty boring conversation, but I think both sides recognize there's more to it than that. The subtext here is the fact that our government treats religious beliefs and non-theist beliefs (science and philosophy) differently in matters of education and government sponsorship. So, those with a vested interest have strong incentive to manipulate the definitions used by government in determining which beliefs are considered 'religious' and which aren't.

Not at all, I am using it the way it is intended to be used. As evidence I present the following definitions.

Theism: the belief in god or gods.

Agnostiocism: Oops, not a word because it is not a belief.

Atheism: the belief that there are no gods.

If atheism simply meant not believing in god we wouldn't have another word to mean "I don't really know about god one way or another."

If you want to claim you do not have a belief you have to accept the fact that the word that you should use to describe that lack of belief is agnostic because it is the only word available to you that you cannot attach -ism to. By the way, that actually proves that you cannot be an agnostic theist, because if you are a theist you have a belief.

Yeah. We're dealing with different definitions. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with the campaign to have evolution treated as an atheistic religious belief in regard to school curricula?

 

[asaratis]

Great! this helps and thank you for the clarification.
Now can we take it a step further,
that just because some people fit in these two groups
doesn't mean either of these applies to a third group
that is neither religious about it nor sees themselves as religious
in the definition or terms you provide. they don't relate to either one.

Is that okay also?

Incidentally I do see Hollie as being religious anti-theist right now.
I was hoping that could change. that is not from her atheist view directly.
there are many atheists who are not anti-theist.
so this part of her that gets religious about opposing theists
does come across as religious and pushing an agenda to counteract such theism.
(the reason I don't blame this all on Hollie is that to resolve it usually takes
mutual change connected with other people; so it is a mutual responsibility
to correct this and cannot always be done by one person out of the larger context).

this anti-theism is independent of "atheism per se" but gets into political conflict, reactions,
and behavior on the curve of recovery from past incidents that attached these negative associations.

thanks for your corrections.
this helps a lot!
can we take it one more step and recognize a third group as well
that do not see themselves as affiliated with the other two groupings?

I agree all are going on, and do not negate each other
there are always some people who are independent
and this happens with any group, why not with Atheists also.

Does the jeebus approve of your behavior?

Really, how desperate have you become that your posts are drenched in gargantuan text? You're like a petulant child who has dropped to the floor and is kicking and stomping his feet because he's not getting the attention he thinks he deserves.

No one is suggesting that you can't believe in spirit realms and versions of supernatural entities. It's just that your false claims and distorted worldview which derive from your underlying ideology of hate cause you to make unsupportable claims.

???? Hollie may I ask where are you getting this perception?
The strongest reactions I have seen are from QW and they
are far from a child kicking and stomping.

I can see you doing indirect namecalling by throwing in references to enabling worship of a murderous god.

where is Asaratis saying something like this.
the worst he said is you were too obtuse to argue with.

I called it you projecting your views of abusive religions and Christianity
onto me and him when we are separate from that.

Hollie how can you ask Asaratis to distinguish you and other atheist thinkers
from some collective movement or identity in his mind,
if you keep associating us with some collective notion of religion or Christianity?

why not set an example of how to separate use from that collective image in your mind?
if you are going to ask Asaratis not to lump you together with other Atheists under one convenient religious label?

Can you please show Asaratis an example of how it's done?
how to separate you as the individual from the collective perception or group?

Can you please try to do that with us? Thanks Hollie
I don't think you are too obtuse, I think you are rightfully
indignant abotu religious abuses that nobody seems to be addressing;
however from my experience it takes this approach to correct those problems
with religious abuse CAUSED by lumping people together and trying to
judge or punish them collectively. the first step is to address each other one on one
and quit addressing each other as if we represent some larger group not present outside of ourselves.

Emily,
I do hate to point out a flaw in your post. You are such a polite poster. However, I do not lump all Atheists together. I do not lump all (insert a defined group of similar people) together. I firmly believe in the bell shaped curve. It applies to all large samples of seemingly identical beings.

Draw a big circle and imagine that if contains all Atheists. Draw a smaller circle within that circle and imagine that it contains religious Atheists only. It does not matter to me which Atheists claim not to be within the smaller circle. They are still within the large circle.

The fact that Atheism itself is a religion, does not mean that all Atheists are religious.

You might also draw an even smaller circle within the small circle and imagine it contains all religious Atheists that are members of an Atheist church. Within that third circle, you might draw a miniscule circle to contain all of the religious Atheist church members that actually attend church services.

The above can be applied to any religion. Not all Baptists are religious. Not all Jews are religious. Not all Catholics are religious. Not all Christians are "fundies". Not all Christians deny evolution.

None of the above changes the fact that Atheism is a religion.

Religion is not a belief.... it is an action.

Hi PF can't we acknowledge 3 different levels
1. belief on a purely abstract level
2. belief that is communicated in writing or spoken expression
where agreement or disagreement is manifested i nRELATIONS between
either people or with institutions
3. acting practicing or exercising those beliefs, or what you say is the action

I agree that technically govt should not be policing beliefs on a private level,
but when it comes to, say, exercising sacrifice of animals or people, or
having sex with children or multiple wives as part of one's beliefs,
those actions may conflict with criminal or civil laws and becomes an issue of the state.

However, what if I believe in consensus on policies in order to have equal protection and representation.
Isn't the current system of favoring only major political parties limiting the choice of
beliefs to just those ideologies, and precluding any room to exercise consensus?

What if as some prochoice and prolife people argue, the other views are imposing
so much that it is precluding and infringing on their ability to exercise their own beliefs?

if people do not agree how a law is WRITTEN that they already argue is
biased prolife or prochoice, the actions the law governs have not happened yet.
we are arguing on the other two levels of interpretation and legislation.

so those are also important to rsolve conflicts here, on those other levels
that are not physical actions of exercising one's beliefs yet.

in fact, in order to prevent conflicts on the level of action,
we would need to address beliefs on the other two levels.

if the state can only police actions, it is up to the people
to resolve the other levels privately ourselves. the level of
thought belief or interpretation and the level of written
and spoken perception and language in how we express these
in relationships or institutions that do influence other people.

No. We can't. I am talking about the nature of religion itself, which is a human action. Belief is only an attribute of religion, it is not religion itself. It is not even a particularly important attribute.

IMHO.....
The religion exists whether its members (those that adhere to the basic philosophies of that religion) are active or not. It is when the members become active at their religion that they become religious. Whether they are religious (active) or not, they still fall within the religion the believe in by virtue of the basic philosophy of life and nature.

That is why Emily's proposed additional circle within the overall circle of Atheists does not work. Each and every Atheist is either religious (acting according to the basic philosophies of Atheism) or non-religious (dormant).

 

[asaratis]

Well, then you're using a very narrow definition of atheist that really only encompasses one type of atheistic belief. Atheist is synonymous with non-theist. That's what the 'a' prefix means.

And you're using a popular misrepresentation of agnosticism. But in point of fact, it's possible for an agnostic to be either a theist, or an atheist.

If we were just disagreeing on definitions, it would be a pretty boring conversation, but I think both sides recognize there's more to it than that. The subtext here is the fact that our government treats religious beliefs and non-theist beliefs (science and philosophy) differently in matters of education and government sponsorship. So, those with a vested interest have strong incentive to manipulate the definitions used by government in determining which beliefs are considered 'religious' and which aren't.

Not at all, I am using it the way it is intended to be used. As evidence I present the following definitions.

Theism: the belief in god or gods.

Agnostiocism: Oops, not a word because it is not a belief.

Atheism: the belief that there are no gods.

If atheism simply meant not believing in god we wouldn't have another word to mean "I don't really know about god one way or another."

If you want to claim you do not have a belief you have to accept the fact that the word that you should use to describe that lack of belief is agnostic because it is the only word available to you that you cannot attach -ism to. By the way, that actually proves that you cannot be an agnostic theist, because if you are a theist you have a belief.

Yeah. We're dealing with different definitions. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with the campaign to have evolution treated as an atheistic religious belief in regard to school curricula?

Not to answer for QW, but I would say no. Evolution is scientifically proven fact. It is not a religious philosophy.

 

[emilynghiem]

IMHO.....
The religion exists whether its members (those that adhere to the basic philosophies of that religion) are active or not. It is when the members become active at their religion that they become religious. Whether they are religious (active) or not, they still fall within the religion the believe in by virtue of the basic philosophy of life and nature.

That is why Emily's proposed additional circle within the overall circle of Atheists does not work. Each and every Atheist is either religious (acting according to the basic philosophies of Atheism) or non-religious (dormant).

Hi Asaratis Please see my reply to QW where I see THEISM as describing my language or views but not my religion.
Likewise can't Atheism or Nontheism describe people's views without it being a religion to them.

When I actively invoke my Constitutional beliefs, it is within that context to address that audience.
Some people never take this on as a religion, it is not dormant as if they are a nonactive member.

I think we would do better to see
* theism as a blanket description of many groups and individuals who may not identify with any religion
* nontheism including atheism as a blanket description

anyway, that's how I do it to include all people and let them divide the terms their own way
if they agree they are either theist in language/approach or nontheist, we can work the rest out without arguing

I see myself as crossing over both groups
my beliefs fall under theism but my language tends to favor nontheism and secular explanations using natural laws
I had to learn how to translate and use religious terms and I still struggle with that as like a foreign language

 

[dblack]

Well, then you're using a very narrow definition of atheist that really only encompasses one type of atheistic belief. Atheist is synonymous with non-theist. That's what the 'a' prefix means.

And you're using a popular misrepresentation of agnosticism. But in point of fact, it's possible for an agnostic to be either a theist, or an atheist.

If we were just disagreeing on definitions, it would be a pretty boring conversation, but I think both sides recognize there's more to it than that. The subtext here is the fact that our government treats religious beliefs and non-theist beliefs (science and philosophy) differently in matters of education and government sponsorship. So, those with a vested interest have strong incentive to manipulate the definitions used by government in determining which beliefs are considered 'religious' and which aren't.

Not at all, I am using it the way it is intended to be used. As evidence I present the following definitions.

Theism: the belief in god or gods.

Agnostiocism: Oops, not a word because it is not a belief.

Atheism: the belief that there are no gods.

If atheism simply meant not believing in god we wouldn't have another word to mean "I don't really know about god one way or another."

If you want to claim you do not have a belief you have to accept the fact that the word that you should use to describe that lack of belief is agnostic because it is the only word available to you that you cannot attach -ism to. By the way, that actually proves that you cannot be an agnostic theist, because if you are a theist you have a belief.

Yeah. We're dealing with different definitions. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with the campaign to have evolution treated as an atheistic religious belief in regard to school curricula?

Not to answer for QW, but I would say no. Evolution is scientifically proven fact. It is not a religious philosophy.

Then what, in your view, are the practical implications of saying atheism is a religion?

 

[emilynghiem]

Not to answer for QW, but I would say no. Evolution is scientifically proven fact. It is not a religious philosophy.

Hi Asaratis:
If you and I weren't there physically and witnessed the acts of evolution ourselves it is still faith based.
My bf also says both creation and evolution have been proven, but many disagree with one or both as being proved or provable.

What about spiritual healing.

many people have seen medical and physical proof of how it works naturally.
but other people haven't seen such proof, and believe on faith it is either true or false.

So right now, as long as something is not proven to people as established to them
they will treat it as a belief requiring faith.

I believe we will sooner prove spiritual healing is a natural process
quantifiable by medicine and science, before we can prove evolution to people on the same collective scale.

Until people agree what is proven, it does involve religious beliefs and should be treated with equal respect.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Neither is Constitutionalism or feminism or humanism which all push for equality.

I approach atheism not as someone's beliefs but way of communicating like a language.
If you are nontheist then we use nontheistic terms to discuss principles or points.
so within nontheism, it does not matter as much if you are Buddhist, secular humanity,
atheist or agnostic or how you define your beliefs. I am more focused on the language
people use. it looks like PF is more concerned with the physical practice and asaratis
sees the belief as what defines the religion.

where atheists fall on the list is if you believe in
* what comes aroudn goes around
* you treat others with equal respect you want to be treated with
* you get what you give and reap what you sow
these are natural laws of human behavior
so as long as atheists fall under secular gentiles who
follow natural laws, that includes atheists indirectly

wicca states it as do as you will but harm none
also seen this stated as your freedom ends where mine begins
in short we are under the same laws as equal humans and should respect for others what we want respected for us
just natural wisdom

I don't believe in karma.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

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.

That's totally incorrect, because religion is the belief and worship of a superhuman power. What you're saying is that religion is simply a belief, which is ridiculous. You're making up your own definition.

Religion is not a belief.... it is an action.

That's a new one. Is jumping a religion?

Ridiculous.

No. Nor is jumping the same thing as swimming. So I suppose you think swimming is not an action either.

You can sit quietly in a room and believe all you like, but that is not religion. Religion requires people coming together, interacting, identifying themselves with the group and establishing doctrine. Those are all actions. Religion is an action.

You claim to be free of this belief in God. If God is not a factor, then religion is entirely a human endeavor. Why do you have such difficulty seeing it that way?[/QUOTE]


You can also sit in your room, read the Christian Bible, and be entitled to call yourself a Christian.

I disagree with the definition you made up, but even if I did agree, I would not fit your description. You don't get to define me.

 

[emilynghiem]

That's a new one. Is jumping a religion?

Ridiculous.
No. Nor is jumping the same thing as swimming. So I suppose you think swimming is not an action either.

RE: You can sit quietly in a room and believe all you like, but that is not religion. Religion requires people coming together, interacting, identifying themselves with the group and establishing doctrine. Those are all actions. Religion is an action.

You claim to be free of this belief in God. If God is not a factor, then religion is entirely a human endeavor. Why do you have such difficulty seeing it that way?

Dear Carla: I see three different things here
1. no, jumping and swimming are not religions just because they are actions
that is not what PF was saying. PF seems to be saying the opposite:
that just because a belief is held is not enough to make it a religion, it must be expressed outwardly as an action

2. I stated already that there are three levels the belief, the expression in words, and the actions.
so it looks like some people only need to focus on the belief, some like PF say it is the action that meets the
requirement before counting it as a religion and not just an internal belief, I say it can be all three, but I focus on the language.

3. Carla when you say religion is a human endeavor I understand this means the language or actions are manmade.
However, man did not make up the concept of life which comes from nature. nor the laws of physics or science.
just because we make up the language does not mean we make up the concepts behind them.
so that is what it means for people to say these laws came from God, or from nature they are preexistent
and not coming from man.

I don't believe in karma.

Karma means laws of cause and effect.
Carla do you believe there are preexisting laws not made up by man
that basically follow rules, such as if you intend to do good toward others this tends to result in good outcomes
and if you intend ill or harm to others this tends to end in bad outcomes?

simple common sense and natural order, if you go against the consent of others they tend to react in protest.
and same if others violate your free will and don't respect what you choose or want, you tend to protect and petition
to correct the problem.

do you believe in this simple sense of justice, that people want freedom and peace or security, to seek pleasure
or satisfaction, adn tend to avoid things that cause fear, conflict, distress or anything negative.

so positive tends toward positive, and negative tends to reap negative consequences?

 

[Carla_Danger]

That's a new one. Is jumping a religion?

Ridiculous.
No. Nor is jumping the same thing as swimming. So I suppose you think swimming is not an action either.

RE: You can sit quietly in a room and believe all you like, but that is not religion. Religion requires people coming together, interacting, identifying themselves with the group and establishing doctrine. Those are all actions. Religion is an action.

You claim to be free of this belief in God. If God is not a factor, then religion is entirely a human endeavor. Why do you have such difficulty seeing it that way?

Dear Carla: I see three different things here
1. no, jumping and swimming are not religions just because they are actions
that is not what PF was saying. PF seems to be saying the opposite:
that just because a belief is held is not enough to make it a religion, it must be expressed outwardly as an action

2. I stated already that there are three levels the belief, the expression in words, and the actions.
so it looks like some people only need to focus on the belief, some like PF say it is the action that meets the
requirement before counting it as a religion and not just an internal belief, I say it can be all three, but I focus on the language.

3. Carla when you say religion is a human endeavor I understand this means the language or actions are manmade.
However, man did not make up the concept of life which comes from nature. nor the laws of physics or science.
just because we make up the language does not mean we make up the concepts behind them.
so that is what it means for people to say these laws came from God, or from nature they are preexistent
and not coming from man.

I don't believe in karma.

Karma means laws of cause and effect.
Carla do you believe there are preexisting laws not made up by man
that basically follow rules, such as if you intend to do good toward others this tends to result in good outcomes
and if you intend ill or harm to others this tends to end in bad outcomes?

simple common sense and natural order, if you go against the consent of others they tend to react in protest.
and same if others violate your free will and don't respect what you choose or want, you tend to protect and petition
to correct the problem.

do you believe in this simple sense of justice, that people want freedom and peace or security, to seek pleasure
or satisfaction, adn tend to avoid things that cause fear, conflict, distress or anything negative.

so positive tends toward positive, and negative tends to reap negative consequences?

I just said I do not believe in karma.....so no, I don't believe in Karma, nor do I agree with Pratchett's made up definition.