Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[asaratis]

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

IMHO, a religion is defined by a basic philosophy of life centered around beliefs, especially those concerning deities, but not limited to beliefs in deities.

Here is a link to my preferred, well respected dictionary. It is set to theist. Note that if you click on the Compare word atheist, then on its Compare word agnostic, you will have all three of these related definitions in a New York minute. I will print them below so you don't even have to use the site.

theist definition meaning - what is theist in the British English Dictionary Thesaurus - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

theist
noun [C] /ˈθiː.ɪst/

› someone who believes in the existence of a god or gods
Compare
atheist
(Definition of theist from the Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press)



atheist
noun [C] uk /ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/ us

› someone who believes that God does not exist
Compare
agnostic noun
atheism
noun uk /-ɪ.zəm/ us
atheist
adjective uk (also atheistic, /ˌeɪ.θiˈɪs.tɪk/ ) us
(Definition of atheist from the Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press)







agnostic
noun [C] uk /æɡˈnɒs.tɪk/ us /-ˈnɑː.stɪk/

› someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, if a god exists: Although he was raised a Catholic, he was an agnostic for most of his adult life.
Compare
atheist





It may confuse matters to talk in terms of -ism forms of these words, but here they are.


theism
noun uk /ˈθiː.ɪ.zəm/ us

› belief in the existence of a god or gods
Compare
atheism (atheist)
deism



Clicking on Compare atheism reverts to the definition of atheist. A search for atheism yields:

atheism
noun /ˈeɪ·θiˌɪz·əm/ us

› the belief that God does not exist
(Definition of atheism from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)
What is the pronunciation of atheism?


A search for agnosticism reverts back to agnostic.

A search for nontheism yields:

We do not have an entry for nontheism. Have a look at how it is spelled. Did you type it correctly? We have these words with similar spellings or pronunciations:

• 
  
  
  • monotheism
  • pantheism
  • polytheism
  • atheism
  • theism
  • pantheist
  • nonetheless
  • synthesise
  • monotheistic
  • nonces

...so I think your use of the word is confusing. How does Emily define nontheism? Shall we make it a new word? I think we should not.

 

[emilynghiem]

...so I think your use of the word is confusing. How does Emily define nontheism? Shall we make it a new word? I think we should not.

I guess the difference is I focus on the LANGUAGE as nontheistic
while others focus on labeling the PERSON.

it's a difference if we are focusing on the level of the person:
their beliefs as a personal identity
their language for expressing it
their physical practice

So I focus on the language level.

I don't think it is the definition so much as the application or focus.

Does that help?
So you can still use THEIST to mean the same thing.
but I am focusng on THEIST LANGUAGE
and you may focus on the PERSON as being THEIST as their identity by their belief.

labeling the language is different from labeling the person

 

[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.

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

That is a different question and difficult to answer in the waking time I have left tonight. I am about to count sheep.

BTW, the campaign to have evolution declared an atheist religious view is intended to have the teaching of it precluded from government schools. Since evolution is a science and not an unsubstantiated belief, it does not qualify as promotion of religion to teach it. Evolution should be taught...and pi should not be rounded off to 3.0!

The teaching that God does not exist SHOULD be precluded as it is a belief of the religion of Atheism. Likewise, the teaching that God does exist or that the earth is only 6000 years old should be precluded as they are religious beliefs of other religions.

I am a Christian that believes in evolution....and does not believe in literal translation of the Bible....but all that's for another thread.

As for the practicality of Atheism being defined as a religion:

• gives it the same protections that other religions have under the 1st Amendment
• gives it the tax relief available to other religions
• gives it a vehicle to establish more churches and expand its membership (I suspect that there are many Atheists that desire the social interactions and fellowship of like minded homo sapiens.)

I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

 

[asaratis]

...so I think your use of the word is confusing. How does Emily define nontheism? Shall we make it a new word? I think we should not.

I guess the difference is I focus on the LANGUAGE as nontheistic
while others focus on labeling the PERSON.

it's a difference if we are focusing on the level of the person:
their beliefs as a personal identity
their language for expressing it
their physical practice

So I focus on the language level.

I don't think it is the definition so much as the application or focus.

Does that help?
So you can still use THEIST to mean the same thing.
but I am focusng on THEIST LANGUAGE
and you may focus on the PERSON as being THEIST as their identity by their belief.

labeling the language is different from labeling the person

A theist is one who believes in a deity.
Language can be theistic but cannot be a theist.

More properly, if you insist on separating the two, call it THEISTIC LANGUAGE. (i.e. the language of a theist)

 

[emilynghiem]

A theist is one who believes in a deity.
Language can be theistic but cannot be a theist.

More properly, if you insist on separating the two, call it THEISTIC LANGUAGE. (i.e. the language of a theist)

Great, so I agree to focus on whether someone's LANGUAGE is Theistic or Nontheistic.
I am not going to impose my definitions on their beliefs, because that's up to them to
tell me what they believe or don't believe in using their own language and terms.

Like Carla said she doesn't believe in karma.
Let's get specific about what we mean or don't mean.
If karma doesn't mean anything to her, what about natural laws of cause and effect?

Thanks for your help with all this, asartis!
"Good night sweet prince: And flights
of angels sing thee to thy rest."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Why would I agree with that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

It being a belief does not make it a religion. I have faith in lots of things, including a faith that the house I am living in will not fall down around my ears. The simple existence of faith does not make a religion. Like I said earlier, it is how people deal with thier beliefs that make a religion.

 

[Hollie]

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?

That is a different question and difficult to answer in the waking time I have left tonight. I am about to count sheep.

BTW, the campaign to have evolution declared an atheist religious view is intended to have the teaching of it precluded from government schools. Since evolution is a science and not an unsubstantiated belief, it does not qualify as promotion of religion to teach it. Evolution should be taught...and pi should not be rounded off to 3.0!

The teaching that God does not exist SHOULD be precluded as it is a belief of the religion of Atheism. Likewise, the teaching that God does exist or that the earth is only 6000 years old should be precluded as they are religious beliefs of other religions.

I am a Christian that believes in evolution....and does not believe in literal translation of the Bible....but all that's for another thread.

As for the practicality of Atheism being defined as a religion:

• gives it the same protections that other religions have under the 1st Amendment
• gives it the tax relief available to other religions
• gives it a vehicle to establish more churches and expand its membership (I suspect that there are many Atheists that desire the social interactions and fellowship of like minded homo sapiens.)

I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

Your religious fundamentalist views makes it difficult for you to reach rational conclusions.

There's no reason to associate atheism with religion as the two are different. Atheism is not a belief or a religion as it has none of the components typically associated with religions; dogma, belief in supernatural entities, rituals, traditions, customs, etc.

Other than to press your fundie agenda, why are still promoting falsehoods?

 

[dblack]

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?

Why would I agree with that?

Usually theses struggles to control the definition of different words, in the public sphere at least, are related to how they will impact different policies. "What is a right?", "Is it a tax, or a mandate?" etc... I'm just curious why it's important to you that atheism be thought of as a religion.

The most immediate practical implication I've seen is related to those who feel like the separation of church and state amounts to foisting atheism on people via government. They seem to be addressing this concern by insisting that atheism is a 'religion' and that efforts to keep religion out of government are, in reality, promoting the religion of atheism.

 

[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?

That is a different question and difficult to answer in the waking time I have left tonight. I am about to count sheep.

BTW, the campaign to have evolution declared an atheist religious view is intended to have the teaching of it precluded from government schools. Since evolution is a science and not an unsubstantiated belief, it does not qualify as promotion of religion to teach it. Evolution should be taught...and pi should not be rounded off to 3.0!

The teaching that God does not exist SHOULD be precluded as it is a belief of the religion of Atheism. Likewise, the teaching that God does exist or that the earth is only 6000 years old should be precluded as they are religious beliefs of other religions.

I am a Christian that believes in evolution....and does not believe in literal translation of the Bible....but all that's for another thread.

As for the practicality of Atheism being defined as a religion:

• gives it the same protections that other religions have under the 1st Amendment
• gives it the tax relief available to other religions
• gives it a vehicle to establish more churches and expand its membership (I suspect that there are many Atheists that desire the social interactions and fellowship of like minded homo sapiens.)

I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

I see. So, in reality you're looking out for atheists. Your main concern is to extend to them the special perks and rights religions enjoy.

There's a whiff of something there.... hmmm... can't quite place it....

 

[Hollie]

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?

That is a different question and difficult to answer in the waking time I have left tonight. I am about to count sheep.

BTW, the campaign to have evolution declared an atheist religious view is intended to have the teaching of it precluded from government schools. Since evolution is a science and not an unsubstantiated belief, it does not qualify as promotion of religion to teach it. Evolution should be taught...and pi should not be rounded off to 3.0!

The teaching that God does not exist SHOULD be precluded as it is a belief of the religion of Atheism. Likewise, the teaching that God does exist or that the earth is only 6000 years old should be precluded as they are religious beliefs of other religions.

I am a Christian that believes in evolution....and does not believe in literal translation of the Bible....but all that's for another thread.

As for the practicality of Atheism being defined as a religion:

• gives it the same protections that other religions have under the 1st Amendment
• gives it the tax relief available to other religions
• gives it a vehicle to establish more churches and expand its membership (I suspect that there are many Atheists that desire the social interactions and fellowship of like minded homo sapiens.)

I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

UNIVERSAL DEFINITION

IDENTIFYING A CULT

CULT - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top. The group will claim to be the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their members. This definition covers cults within all majopr world religions, along with those cults which have no OBVIOUS religious base such as commercial, educational and psychological cults. Others may define these a little differently, but this is the simplest to work from. THE 'ORTHODOX BIBLE-BASED CULT'

A group is called a cult because of their behaviour - not their doctrines. Doctrine is an issue in the area of Apologetics and Heresy. Most religious cults do teach what the Christian church would declare to be heresy but some do not. Some cults teach the basics of the Christian faith but have behavioural patterns that are abusive, controlling and cultic.

This occurs in both Non-Charismatic and Charismatic churches. These groups teach the central doctrines of the Christian faith and then add the extra authority of leadership or someone's particular writings. They centre around the interpretations of the leadership and submissive and unquestioning acceptance of these is essential to be a member of good standing. This acceptance includes what we consider non-essential doctrines e.i. not salvation issues (such as the Person and Work of Christ.) The key is that they will be using mind control or undue influence on their members.

An excellent book on this subject is "Churches that Abuse" by Dr Ronald Enroth.

Using these guidelines of definition, Bible-based, Psychological, Educational and Commercial aberrations can easily be identified.

 

[JoeB131]

If Atheism is a Religion.

then.

"Off" is a TV Channel.

Not Collecting Stamps is a hobby.

 

[PratchettFan]

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?

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.[/QUOTE]

Why can't I define you? You feel free to define others.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

Why would I agree with that?

Usually theses struggles to control the definition of different words, in the public sphere at least, are related to how they will impact different policies. "What is a right?", "Is it a tax, or a mandate?" etc... I'm just curious why it's important to you that atheism be thought of as a religion.

The most immediate practical implication I've seen is related to those who feel like the separation of church and state amounts to foisting atheism on people via government. They seem to be addressing this concern by insisting that atheism is a 'religion' and that efforts to keep religion out of government are, in reality, promoting the religion of atheism.

That would only be true if government were in the business of promoting genuine religions and then by no longer promoting them it would be fostering this imaginary "religion of atheism" instead.

The Founding Fathers were explicit when it came to separating government and religion from one another. The onus lies on those who make the absurd claims that "evolution" is part of the "atheist religion" to prove in a court room that it fits all of the definitions of a religion. Since they cannot they are left with nothing but blustering outrage.

Evolution is based upon verifiable scientific facts and religion is based upon unverifiable beliefs in imaginary deities.

One "impact" of reclassifying atheism as a religion would be to discredit existing religions since they cannot provide a factual basis for their beliefs whereas atheism can provide facts for evolution. Under that scenario atheists would be in a position to have all other religions denied government benefits since they no longer fit this revised definition of a religion that includes "atheism".

Beware of what you wish for...

 

[Mr Natural]

No required reading.

No goofy rules.

No mandatory meetings.

No magical beings.

If atheism is a religion, it's a pretty damn good one!

 

[Esmeralda]

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?

That is a different question and difficult to answer in the waking time I have left tonight. I am about to count sheep.

BTW, the campaign to have evolution declared an atheist religious view is intended to have the teaching of it precluded from government schools. Since evolution is a science and not an unsubstantiated belief, it does not qualify as promotion of religion to teach it. Evolution should be taught...and pi should not be rounded off to 3.0!

The teaching that God does not exist SHOULD be precluded as it is a belief of the religion of Atheism. Likewise, the teaching that God does exist or that the earth is only 6000 years old should be precluded as they are religious beliefs of other religions.

I am a Christian that believes in evolution....and does not believe in literal translation of the Bible....but all that's for another thread.

As for the practicality of Atheism being defined as a religion:

• gives it the same protections that other religions have under the 1st Amendment
• gives it the tax relief available to other religions
• gives it a vehicle to establish more churches and expand its membership (I suspect that there are many Atheists that desire the social interactions and fellowship of like minded homo sapiens.)

I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

I see. So, in reality you're looking out for atheists. Your main concern is to extend to them the special perks and rights religions enjoy.

There's a whiff of something there.... hmmm... can't quite place it....

Is it BS?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions

Bruce is not a valid source......

 

[PostmodernProph]

If you bind your bibles together with duct tape, they're a more formidable weapon than mere gargantuan text as a way to force your superstitious beliefs on others.

are you still angry about that time I beat you with the jawbone of an ass until you said "I love Jesus"?.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

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.

some things about evolution have been proven.......others have less support in fact than many philosophies.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

If Atheism is a Religion.

then.

"Off" is a TV Channel.

Not Collecting Stamps is a hobby.

in your case, not thinking is an argument.....