Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[asaratis]

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....

No. These benefits have already been extended to Atheism. Atheism is already a religion.

 

[asaratis]

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.

cult
noun [C] /kʌlt/ us

› a system of religious belief, esp. one not recognized as an established religion, or the people who worship according to such a system of belief: People considered him a brilliant cult leader and con man.

› A cult is also something that is very popular with some people, or a particular set of beliefs or behavior: a cult movie the cult of celebrity
(Definition of cult from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)

 

[dblack]

This campaign to redefine atheism as a religion is, in my view, an Orwellian attack on separation of church and state. Anyone who cares about preventing theocracy should fight it tooth and nail, regardless of your personal religious convictions.

 

[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.

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

Some mathematical theories haven't been proved. That doesn't preclude the teaching of math.

 

[asaratis]

This campaign to redefine atheism as a religion is, in my view, an Orwellian attack on separation of church and state. Anyone who cares about preventing theocracy should fight it tooth and nail, regardless of your personal religious convictions.

There is no such campaign. It has already been done. Atheists just refuse to accept it. Atheism is a religion. Don't worry! There's no pain involved!

 

[dblack]

This campaign to redefine atheism as a religion is, in my view, an Orwellian attack on separation of church and state. Anyone who cares about preventing theocracy should fight it tooth and nail, regardless of your personal religious convictions.

There is no such campaign. It has already been done. Atheists just refuse to accept it. Atheism is a religion. Don't worry! There's no pain involved!

If this effort succeeds, there will be. Theocracy is not good government. We worked hard to get government out of our religious affairs, and vice versa. We need to defend it.

 

[PratchettFan]

This campaign to redefine atheism as a religion is, in my view, an Orwellian attack on separation of church and state. Anyone who cares about preventing theocracy should fight it tooth and nail, regardless of your personal religious convictions.

There is no such campaign. It has already been done. Atheists just refuse to accept it. Atheism is a religion. Don't worry! There's no pain involved!

If this effort succeeds, there will be. Theocracy is not good government. We worked hard to get government out of our religious affairs, and vice versa. We need to defend it.

I'm not clear on how a definition creates a Theocracy.

 

[asaratis]

This campaign to redefine atheism as a religion is, in my view, an Orwellian attack on separation of church and state. Anyone who cares about preventing theocracy should fight it tooth and nail, regardless of your personal religious convictions.

There is no such campaign. It has already been done. Atheists just refuse to accept it. Atheism is a religion. Don't worry! There's no pain involved!

If this effort succeeds, there will be. Theocracy is not good government. We worked hard to get government out of our religious affairs, and vice versa. We need to defend it.

How does this constitute a theocracy?

 

[asaratis]

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...

Catholic Church
Episcopal Church
Church of England
United Methodist Church

The Church of England is considering the possibility of apologizing posthumously to Darwin, for its earlier condemnation of his theory

What Christian denominations acknowledge evolution


All of these religions (and likely more) accept evolution. It is the believers in literal interpretation of the Bible that insist the earth is only 6000 years old and that God made everything in 6 days.

 

[dblack]

This campaign to redefine atheism as a religion is, in my view, an Orwellian attack on separation of church and state. Anyone who cares about preventing theocracy should fight it tooth and nail, regardless of your personal religious convictions.

There is no such campaign. It has already been done. Atheists just refuse to accept it. Atheism is a religion. Don't worry! There's no pain involved!

If this effort succeeds, there will be. Theocracy is not good government. We worked hard to get government out of our religious affairs, and vice versa. We need to defend it.

How does this constitute a theocracy?

It lays the groundwork for it by undermining separation of church and state. By expanding the accepted definition of religion to include both faith and non-faith (both believing in a god and not believing a god) all matters of judgment can be deemed to be matters of "religion" - either based on faith in a god, or not.

 

[asaratis]

This campaign to redefine atheism as a religion is, in my view, an Orwellian attack on separation of church and state. Anyone who cares about preventing theocracy should fight it tooth and nail, regardless of your personal religious convictions.

There is no such campaign. It has already been done. Atheists just refuse to accept it. Atheism is a religion. Don't worry! There's no pain involved!

If this effort succeeds, there will be. Theocracy is not good government. We worked hard to get government out of our religious affairs, and vice versa. We need to defend it.

How does this constitute a theocracy?

It lays the groundwork for it by undermining separation of church and state. By expanding the accepted definition of religion to include both faith and non-faith (both believing in a god and not believing a god) all matters of judgment can be deemed to be matters of "religion" - either based on faith in a god, or not.

Firstly, Atheism is not a non-faith concept. A belief that God does not exist is held on faith.
Secondly, the definition of Atheism as a religion does not affect separation of church and state. It does not change the Constitution or amendments thereto.

 

[dblack]

This campaign to redefine atheism as a religion is, in my view, an Orwellian attack on separation of church and state. Anyone who cares about preventing theocracy should fight it tooth and nail, regardless of your personal religious convictions.

There is no such campaign. It has already been done. Atheists just refuse to accept it. Atheism is a religion. Don't worry! There's no pain involved!

If this effort succeeds, there will be. Theocracy is not good government. We worked hard to get government out of our religious affairs, and vice versa. We need to defend it.

How does this constitute a theocracy?

It lays the groundwork for it by undermining separation of church and state. By expanding the accepted definition of religion to include both faith and non-faith (both believing in a god and not believing a god) all matters of judgment can be deemed to be matters of "religion" - either based on faith in a god, or not.

Firstly, Atheism is not a non-faith concept. A belief that God does not exist is held on faith.
Secondly, the definition of Atheism as a religion does not affect separation of church and state. It does not change the Constitution or amendments thereto.

It nullifies the meaning of religion to encompass all views. Any moral system not pre-supposing a god will be labeled 'atheistic' and religious advocates will insist their views have equal standing. You can pretend this isn't the point (and maybe for you it isn't. maybe you're just here trolling for attention) but it is a consistent theme from the religious right.

 

[PratchettFan]

There is no such campaign. It has already been done. Atheists just refuse to accept it. Atheism is a religion. Don't worry! There's no pain involved!

If this effort succeeds, there will be. Theocracy is not good government. We worked hard to get government out of our religious affairs, and vice versa. We need to defend it.

How does this constitute a theocracy?

It lays the groundwork for it by undermining separation of church and state. By expanding the accepted definition of religion to include both faith and non-faith (both believing in a god and not believing a god) all matters of judgment can be deemed to be matters of "religion" - either based on faith in a god, or not.

Firstly, Atheism is not a non-faith concept. A belief that God does not exist is held on faith.
Secondly, the definition of Atheism as a religion does not affect separation of church and state. It does not change the Constitution or amendments thereto.

It nullifies the meaning of religion to encompass all views. Any moral system not pre-supposing a god will be labeled 'atheistic' and religious advocates will insist their views have equal standing. You can pretend this isn't the point (and maybe for you it isn't. maybe you're just here trolling for attention) but it is a consistent theme from the religious right.

Their views do have equal standing. Are you suggesting views of religious advocates should not have equal standing?

 

[asaratis]

There is no such campaign. It has already been done. Atheists just refuse to accept it. Atheism is a religion. Don't worry! There's no pain involved!

If this effort succeeds, there will be. Theocracy is not good government. We worked hard to get government out of our religious affairs, and vice versa. We need to defend it.

How does this constitute a theocracy?

It lays the groundwork for it by undermining separation of church and state. By expanding the accepted definition of religion to include both faith and non-faith (both believing in a god and not believing a god) all matters of judgment can be deemed to be matters of "religion" - either based on faith in a god, or not.

Firstly, Atheism is not a non-faith concept. A belief that God does not exist is held on faith.
Secondly, the definition of Atheism as a religion does not affect separation of church and state. It does not change the Constitution or amendments thereto.

It nullifies the meaning of religion to encompass all views. Any moral system not pre-supposing a god will be labeled 'atheistic' and religious advocates will insist their views have equal standing. You can pretend this isn't the point (and maybe for you it isn't. maybe you're just here trolling for attention) but it is a consistent theme from the religious right.

No it doesn't. As I see it, all religious should have views have equal standing. The views of other religions do not harm me. Besides, several if not many Christian Churches believe (quite properly) that evolution is a fact of life. Even within churches that denounce it, there are members that do not...including me.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Hi Hollie: I went round and round with Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses trying to address the issue of why Christians considered JW a cult, but not other denominations.

I had found a link to an in-depth sociological explanation of the difference between being a cult and being cultic.
With JW this was a very hard distinction to make. Most reports on JW will outright call it a cult, so I had to look even deeper.

I decided I agreed with the deeper assessment in detail that defined JW as cultic or cultlike. It had the qualities of being a cult but did not meet the requirements in full.

Other church denominations will vary.

The main difference is being "required to join THEIR group and only follow THEIR leadership as the ONLY WAY"
while denominations that are not cultish would say as long as you follow the laws
you can be independent or part of any group, with or without a leader.

To be fair to both political, religious and also nonprofit or business corporations that could abuse power,
I decided the best way is to apply the same standards of due process/individual rights as with govt.
So if a collective group acts as judge jury and executioner without due process, right to defense,
checks and balances by separation of powers, and doesn't let people represent themselves to redress grievances,
then it is abusive. It does not matter if it is political or religious or corporate entity for whatever purpose:
the issue is if people are abusing collective authority to oppress the same Bill of Rights of individuals.

With Jehovah's Witness, they have a set in house process for redressing grievances
where the Elders have more authority than the individuals and the group can pressure members
to be shunned and are pressured to limit their information to just the group's own published sources.

So there is not equal freedom of speech, press, right of association (they are not to attend any other church groups
but can only attend their own meetings and home studies), equal right to petition the Elders, etc.

They are not allowed to study or practice "spiritual healing" which they are taught is demonism,
so there is a limit on free exercise of religion.

If JW is not a full blown cult, but is considered cultlike or cultic, then the other denominations of Christianity which are more open to free association and information, and not limited to which teachers they follow, are certainly not cults.

The same things that cause religious abuse are what our Bill of Rights were written to prevent
that cause political abuse of collective authority.

I find the Democrat Party gets just as cultish, that if you do not vote and follow the party line,
you can find yourself ostracized from the group as Joseph Liebermann was.

Like the JW if policy is going to be reformed, it has to be done from within following the chain
of command and having the agreement of the higher ups who control the party as a collective identity.

So when I compare the dangers of religious or political abuse,
I find the political groups, the corporations giving money to fund campaigns,
the legal system with judges and lawyers with their own conflicting interests,
and the media which receives millions if not billions in campaign spending,
to be the bigger threat because this influences MANDATORY laws that ALL people are required to follow.

The religious groups commit abuses that affect their members, and yes, the reported
sexual abuses of the JW, LDS and Catholic church does violate criminal laws and affect the greater public safety.

But those religions are options to follow.

The political groups that use cultish tactics make MANDATORY decisions in Courts and Congress
that are NOT optional but come with fines and punishments if people do not obey these rulings.

So that to me is more dangerous.

I find it DISINGENUOUS if people only go after Religious abuses
but don't EQUALLY go after Political abuses of authority that are just as cultish,
but more dangerous since abuses are harder to check and these are mandatory authorities for the public to follow.

I have looked very deeply into this whole issue of whether religions are cults.

No, they are not all cults, as long as you are free to join or not join any group or follow any teaching or teacher.

The JW are the most clear example of how a group can be cultlike and still not be a full-blown cult.
They are very very close, and have a lot of the cult traits.

So if you can understand the difference in why JW are not a complete cult,
then you can see why other groups are and aren't in comparison with JW.

That was the toughest example I looked into, because to anyone else it looks like a cult!

Very interesting and important issue,
thanks for bringing this up.

If we all looked into what causes and prevents abuse of collective power,
we would all be like Constitutionalists demanding checks and balances.

And no, you don't have to join any one group or follow any one leader
to follow natural laws under the Constitution. I believe you can follow
any belief or none at all by free exercise of religion as free will,
and as long as you respect the same rights, freedoms and protections
of others under these laws, then we can all be equal under law.
So you can be of any affiliation or be independent and we could
redress any grievances so any problems or abuses can be corrected or prevented.

I use those standards to check any other group, whether political religious or corporate,
against abuses that violate individual rights and freedoms, not just religious groups!!!

 

[dblack]

If this effort succeeds, there will be. Theocracy is not good government. We worked hard to get government out of our religious affairs, and vice versa. We need to defend it.

How does this constitute a theocracy?

It lays the groundwork for it by undermining separation of church and state. By expanding the accepted definition of religion to include both faith and non-faith (both believing in a god and not believing a god) all matters of judgment can be deemed to be matters of "religion" - either based on faith in a god, or not.

Firstly, Atheism is not a non-faith concept. A belief that God does not exist is held on faith.
Secondly, the definition of Atheism as a religion does not affect separation of church and state. It does not change the Constitution or amendments thereto.

It nullifies the meaning of religion to encompass all views. Any moral system not pre-supposing a god will be labeled 'atheistic' and religious advocates will insist their views have equal standing. You can pretend this isn't the point (and maybe for you it isn't. maybe you're just here trolling for attention) but it is a consistent theme from the religious right.

Their views do have equal standing. Are you suggesting views of religious advocates should not have equal standing?

I'm saying that will be their argument, but I don't think it's valid. It isn't valid because it isn't a question of equal standing, it's a question of what kinds of values government is authorized to promote and prohibit. The irony here, from my perspective, is that I don't think government has any business promoting anyone's moral values. It exists to protect our freedom to express our own moral values. If it were truly limited to that function, the debate of what is a religion and what is not would be moot - at least in the political arena.

 

[emilynghiem]

P.S. Hollie as for Christianity being a cult:
No, you do not have to join a group, follow a leader, or even read the Bible to practice Christianity.
You can be a secular gentile and follow the natural laws and still arrive at the same universal truths
in the spirit of Christ Jesus as long as you are consistent with universal truth and justice, by not
deliberately teaching false things out of ill will and not doing unjust acts out of retribution which cause harm or suffering to others. Anyone who makes a commitment to living by the Spirit of Restorative Justice becomes neighbors in Christ, regardless of affiliation or none at all. So I have found Muslims, Jews even Atheists who are neighbors in Christ but are not members of any Christian group. I believe this is called Universal Salvation where all tribes are included.

As long as you follow the laws of Justice by heart or by nature/conscience, you can still follow the whole of the law by Restorative Justice which is consistent with the message and meaning of Christ in the Bible.

There ARE cults out there that teach you have to join THEIR group or follow THEIR leadership as the only
authority teaching it correctly. Some Catholics like Mel Gibson believe you have to be a member of THAT church
to be saved. While other Catholics or other Christians do not believe this is through one formal church and certainly
not that one.

Carlton Pearson teaches universal salvation as including all people, not just Christian, that God is not a Christian but universal.

But the majority of Christians do not require you to join one group or another, or follow one authority/leader or another.

The groups that I find which are truly universal accept and understand that all people
may follow a different path, and that is still the right one for that person to arrive at their understanding of truth.

I find that you can be of any affiliation or none at all, even atheist,
and still practice Christianity, Buddhism or Constitutionalism as universal.

The only practice I found that clashes with Christianity are
the occult, voodoo, spiritism, witchcraft spells (not the same as wicca which can be in keeping with natural laws),
sorcery, and anything that depends on manipulating dark energy for power or control
instead of relying on natural positive life energy as the consistent practices of wicca and pagan faiths
that do not conflict with Christianity. Some of that negative energy does conflict and cannot be contacted.

All the others are compatible as long as any issues are resolved by consensus to preserve peaceful good faith relations.

The only issues that cannot be resolved involve the dark energy and forces of the occult which clash with
the positive life giving energy and healing process in Christianity.
The healing cannot even take place until these dark influences are removed first,
because they cause the energy flow to disrupt and risk damaging relations or even death.
for example if people have a drug addiction and are still exposed to this occult practice,
instead of recovering they can die of their addictions by overdose or suicide which I have
seen families suffer through. The ones who successfully separate from any occult influences
have the stronger success rate and ability to recover, and the ones who hold on to those
influences tend to relapse and have a much harder struggle to overcome the self-destructive addiction.

As long as you do not play with those negative forces, and wish ill or retribution on people,
anything else including atheist beliefs in keeping with natural laws are compatible with
Christianity as the path of the secular gentiles. The Constitutionalists and Buddhists
are also part of the natural laws path that is equally valid as following the sacred laws of the Bible.

So both paths are fulfilled in the spirit of Restorative Justice which is the universal meaning
of Christ Jesus that brings salvation from suffering, peace and healing to all humanity.

So faith in the Christian spirit is independent of which group you join or don't,
which affiliation or leaders or teachings you follow or don't, as long as we
are united under law in that spirit of Justice with Mercy for all people, that is the meaning and message of Christ Jesus.

 

[PratchettFan]

How does this constitute a theocracy?

It lays the groundwork for it by undermining separation of church and state. By expanding the accepted definition of religion to include both faith and non-faith (both believing in a god and not believing a god) all matters of judgment can be deemed to be matters of "religion" - either based on faith in a god, or not.

Firstly, Atheism is not a non-faith concept. A belief that God does not exist is held on faith.
Secondly, the definition of Atheism as a religion does not affect separation of church and state. It does not change the Constitution or amendments thereto.

It nullifies the meaning of religion to encompass all views. Any moral system not pre-supposing a god will be labeled 'atheistic' and religious advocates will insist their views have equal standing. You can pretend this isn't the point (and maybe for you it isn't. maybe you're just here trolling for attention) but it is a consistent theme from the religious right.

Their views do have equal standing. Are you suggesting views of religious advocates should not have equal standing?

I'm saying that will be their argument, but I don't think it's valid. It isn't valid because it isn't a question of equal standing, it's a question of what kinds of values government is authorized to promote and prohibit. The irony here, from my perspective, is that I don't think government has any business promoting anyone's moral values. It exists to protect our freedom to express our own moral values. If it were truly limited to that function, the debate of what is a religion and what is not would be moot - at least in the political arena.

I'm not considering this issue in a political arena, only in a sociological one. However, as a side track, I do think your view on government's role is overly narrow. My own moral value may well be that I can take whatever I like and shoot you in the back of the head if you object. I think a valid argument can be made to restrict government's influence over our lives, but it does more than protect your freedom to express your values.

The question of religion in the public arena is overblown, imo. The essence of freedom of speech and religion is that it not be infringed. Under those conditions it is inevitable that one is going to be exposed to both speech and religion to which we do not ascribe and may vehemently oppose. It is inevitable that social standards are going to apply based upon the beliefs of the majority. You cannot have freedom of religion and freedom from religion at the same time.

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

No and yes. There are already Atheist churches pushing their own movement and very popular at that.
Any nonprofit group can declare tax exempt and receive the same benefits. There are many other religious
groups that chose to incorporate as nonprofit.

I believe Asaratis is sincere in this belief and outreach,
but that the outcome of this discussion may be for greater benefits than this.

In general, I have been pushing for years to recognize all beliefs equally,
not just incorporated or recognized religions, in order to offer "equal protection"
of religious freedom to all people and protection from discrimination by creed.

If only people who are members of a recognized group get protected, that is not equal under law.

ALL groups and ALL people of ALL beliefs should be protected.

The distinguish factor is to make sure that one's exercise of beliefs do not violate laws or rights of others.

So I find it becomes critical to address religiously held beliefs that cross over into politics and govt
because this is going to infringe on people of equal but opposite beliefs.

To protect the beliefs of all such parties equally requires either
consensus on how laws are written/enforced
or separating those out of govt and not trying to impose laws that exclude the other beliefs.

That is where I believe this conversation and country are heading.
To come to an agreed understanding why consensus is legally necessary
in such cases as gay marriage or health care where people's inherent BELIEFS are at stake.

It is unconstitutional for laws to favor one set of beliefs over the other.
But that is what is happening because we don't recognize political religions
or beliefs, and treat them as laws that people have the right to impose by majority rule,
even if they violate the same beliefs of others.

This is inconsistent, but it is happening as we speak!

So Asaratis seems sincere and even makes corrections, showing no adversity to that.

I don't think atheism is as much the issue, as there are many atheists successfully
operating their own churches, nonprofits and making and winning legal cases.

I think where the inequality is happening is with political beliefs.

Only the major parties are allowed to push their beliefs on the public through govt.
The other groups are too small in numbers to get their leaders or platforms
mandated which is not even proper anyway if you consider them creeds
that cannot be forced on people through govt.

So like the marriage laws that cross the line between church and state,
as long as we agreed and went along with that, this was allowed to go on.

But once the gay marriage came up, suddenly it becomes obvious
that marriage is mixing church with state and there is no longer agreement
to mandate one policy through the state; thus the need to separate it privately.

The same may happen with political parties if we formally recognize
some of the platforms as political beliefs or religions and treat them as such.

That is more pressing and affects more people than
arguing if atheism is a religion or not.

What about Democrat principles about prochoice or beliefs about prolife.
what about beliefs on govt health care or free market health care?

That affects more people so that's where I would like to focus next.
After we are done going in circles about atheism which is not causing
as much conflict or harm as imposing political beliefs on taxpayers under penalty of law!

 

[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.......

Some mathematical theories haven't been proved. That doesn't preclude the teaching of math.

should math claim that which has not been proven, has been proven?.......