Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[emilynghiem]

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.

Disagree. The First Amendment states both that neither should government establish (impose) religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. There is also the Fourteenth Amendment on equal protection from discrimination by creed.

The best way to explain how to have both at the same time is self-government.
That people exercise by free will and do not rely on govt to either impose or ban, or regulate it either way!

We must choose to regulate ourselves.
If we CHOOSE and AGREE to laws through govt, that is not govt imposing on people
but representing contracts we make by agreement before passing into law.

So in order to regulate religion from dangerous practices, such as killing people by belief as you offered as an example, we simply teach or may require that all citizens and incorporated groups follow the same laws of equal protections
and due process that the govt follows, if they want to invoke those same rights.

You cannot break civil or criminal laws, and then use these same laws to claim religious freedom; that cannot be "taken out of context" with the rest of the laws.

So we just need to establish this agreement by consent, and it's not govt imposing on our religion, it's us agreeing that religious freedom is still within the rest of the laws for everyone that we agree to follow as citizens.

So no fair invoking First Amendment rights to free this or that while violating the same of others.
(so if someone does not believe in being killed, then you cannot kill them just because you believe in it)

Religious issues would be settled by consensus so that nobody's consent or beliefs are violated,
but all are equally protected by law. This would allow a self-check without relying on govt to mandate for us.

Also this would clean up the criminal justice system, if people who want defense and due process
cannot obstruct it for others by withholding information. if you want free speech and the right to petition to
mediate your own defense and negotiate a fair settlement, sentence, penalty or restitution, you would
have to work with authorities and respect the right to petition of the victims of your crimes, abuse or debts/damages
caused, so that all people's due process, right to petition to redress grievances, and beliefs on justice are represented.

Not everyone believes in this level of Restorative Justice.
But for those who do, it should be a valid choice since it is a belief, and that should be protected by law.

The only thing missing is people need to pay for their own beliefs
and not expect others to pay who believe in Retributive Justice.

So the people for or against the death penalty or who believe in rehab and restitution to victims
should be arguing, as I have been, to separate the funding and exercise religious freedom
to pay for Restorative Justice alternatives.

That is one example of ways that we can have religious freedom within govt,
by exercising voluntarily and not imposing responsibility or costs on anyone else.

I believe gay marriage should be separated from govt also,
to prevent either side or beliefs from imposing on the other.

If conflicts are removed from state jurisdiction, and left to the people to decide by consensus or separate, you can have
both religious freedom and freedom from religion which is what our laws are supposed to protect anyway.

 

[emilynghiem]

RE: Definitions of CULT

Definitions of the term cult Apologetics research resources

Here Hollie^
I could no longer find the two pages on Jehovah's Witnesses that explained the difference between
having cultic qualities and being an actual cult.

But I did find one shorter explanation of the difference between
* theological cults
* sociological cults

The way I have found to reach an agreement on Christianity where it is not a cult, not an outside religion, etc.
is to align with people's preexisting views of Truth and Justice. so it is fulfilling the principles they already believe in, and not converting anyone or anything to something they don't already follow as natural to them.

This is what I mean that anyone, even atheists like my friend Ray, can be neighbors in Christ
and follow the same universal path of Restorative Justice that leads to agreed Truth to bring Peace.

So I stick to the ways of sharing the principles in Christianity, Buddhism and Constitutionalism
that I find so universal, they can be aligned with anyone's preexisting beliefs without changing or converting anyone to something they are not. It is mainly "changing our perception" by aligning our terms to include each other's views so we mean the same things when we use words that make sense to both people. (The other terms that don't make equal sense are not necessary, so that's why I'm so big on trying to figure out what people DO call the concepts they believe in and use those terms instead.)[/QUOTE]

 

[emilynghiem]

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

* Only if that claim is true. Afterwards the proof is shared with others so it is established as public.

Fermat's theorem was finally proven, and still had to be confirmed with other mathematicians.

For those who don't follow the proof, it remains not proven yet, but taken on faith.

* Spiritual healing has been proven as natural and consistent with science and medicine
but only to those who have conducted and understand the research was sound.

Until this is proven formally on a public basis, it remains faith based in the eyes of the public.

* for evolution and creation, to prove this process really applied to the beginning of life to where we are now
requires faith. We cannot fully reproduce that whole process from beginning to now to show it happened that way.

So we can prove the process in replicated examples, but to apply it to the whole will always require a bit of leap in faith.

Personally, I think we have a better chance of proving spiritual healing, because that is replicable case by case.
It does not require faith that "all humanity can be healed globally this way" to prove that *Individual cases*
report "before and after" success in removing causes of various diseases where the person returns to normal health.

 

[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.

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?.......

(Aside: That should be ...has been proved...just sayin'.....a thing that has been proved is a proven thing.)

No. If there is no evidence that it should be considered inaccurate, it should be presented as an unproven theory if it is to be taught in math class. Applying this same metric to creationism precludes its being taught in government schools because there is ample evidence showing that it is false.

 

[sealybobo]

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)

The only difference between a cult and religion is membership size.

P.S. I belong to the same religion your dog belongs to. Like it doesn't matter to a rat, bird, fish or maggot if there is a god, I feel like I am just another animal. Just because we happen to be the smartest animal doesn't change the fact that we are still just animals. So like a cow doesn't think of god, neither do we. What religion does your cow belong to? That's my religion.

 

[PratchettFan]

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?.......

(Aside: That should be ...has been proved...just sayin'.....a thing that has been proved is a proven thing.)

No. If there is no evidence that it should be considered inaccurate, it should be presented as an unproven theory if it is to be taught in math class. Applying this same metric to creationism precludes its being taught in government schools because there is ample evidence showing that it is false.

I disagree there is ample evidence showing it to be false. There is no evidence showing it to be false. At the same time, there is no evidence showing it to be true. The problem with creationism is that it never gets further than a hypothesis.

 

[Marianne]

It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

I have issue with your definition. Superhuman is a poor choice of words as may cultures believe that their gods are not human at all. I go with Supreme being as being closer to the truth.

Religion is in general a belief system that one worships. If we look at atheists they have a belief in nothing AKA a belief system. If you think about it atheists say gods don't exist therefore religious people according to atheists have a belief in nothing just like them.

atheist
[ey-thee-ist] Spell Syllables

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

noun
1.
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Atheist Define Atheist at Dictionary.com

 

[emilynghiem]

No. If there is no evidence that it should be considered inaccurate, it should be presented as an unproven theory if it is to be taught in math class. Applying this same metric to creationism precludes its being taught in government schools because there is ample evidence showing that it is false.

I don't see how either God or Creationism can be proven true or false.
These both exceed the limits of what humans can contain in our finite realms much less replicate.

Because they cannot be proven, that is enough to understand they are faith based.

If these are to be taught in school, the community paying for the school should agree
and there is no issue.

If people disagree, then maybe all schools should be locally paid for and managed
so people have Religious Freedom to teach as they agree amongst themselves.

To ban it outright, but REQUIRE taxpayers to pay for it, is just as religiously discriminatory.
So let each community pay for and manage its own school policies.

And keep totalitarian govt out of telling people what they can or cannot teach in schools
by giving them a choice of funding and managing the schools directly to avoid these conflicts!

 

[asaratis]

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)

The only difference between a cult and religion is membership size.

P.S. I belong to the same religion your dog belongs to. Like it doesn't matter to a rat, bird, fish or maggot if there is a god, I feel like I am just another animal. Just because we happen to be the smartest animal doesn't change the fact that we are still just animals. So like a cow doesn't think of god, neither do we. What religion does your cow belong to? That's my religion.

You missed the part where it said: (bold letters)

cult
noun [C] /kʌlt/ us

› a system of religious belief, esp. one not recognized as an established religion,

 

[asaratis]

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?.......

(Aside: That should be ...has been proved...just sayin'.....a thing that has been proved is a proven thing.)

No. If there is no evidence that it should be considered inaccurate, it should be presented as an unproven theory if it is to be taught in math class. Applying this same metric to creationism precludes its being taught in government schools because there is ample evidence showing that it is false.

I disagree there is ample evidence showing it to be false. There is no evidence showing it to be false. At the same time, there is no evidence showing it to be true. The problem with creationism is that it never gets further than a hypothesis.

What is known about evolution proves that is the universe was not created in 6 days and that the earth is far more than 6000 years old.

 

[asaratis]

No. If there is no evidence that it should be considered inaccurate, it should be presented as an unproven theory if it is to be taught in math class. Applying this same metric to creationism precludes its being taught in government schools because there is ample evidence showing that it is false.

I don't see how either God or Creationism can be proven true or false.
These both exceed the limits of what humans can contain in our finite realms much less replicate.

Because they cannot be proven, that is enough to understand they are faith based.

If these are to be taught in school, the community paying for the school should agree
and there is no issue.

If people disagree, then maybe all schools should be locally paid for and managed
so people have Religious Freedom to teach as they agree amongst themselves.

To ban it outright, but REQUIRE taxpayers to pay for it, is just as religiously discriminatory.
So let each community pay for and manage its own school policies.

And keep totalitarian govt out of telling people what they can or cannot teach in schools
by giving them a choice of funding and managing the schools directly to avoid these conflicts!

Communities are free to establish private schools and teach whatever they will...short of overthrowing the government.

 

[PratchettFan]

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?.......

(Aside: That should be ...has been proved...just sayin'.....a thing that has been proved is a proven thing.)

No. If there is no evidence that it should be considered inaccurate, it should be presented as an unproven theory if it is to be taught in math class. Applying this same metric to creationism precludes its being taught in government schools because there is ample evidence showing that it is false.

I disagree there is ample evidence showing it to be false. There is no evidence showing it to be false. At the same time, there is no evidence showing it to be true. The problem with creationism is that it never gets further than a hypothesis.

What is known about evolution proves that is the universe was not created in 6 days and that the earth is far more than 6000 years old.

Creationism only means that the universe is an artifact. One can probably prove that a given pair of shoes was not made by friendly elves in the night, but that doesn't mean they weren't made.

 

[emilynghiem]

The only difference between a cult and religion is membership size.

P.S. I belong to the same religion your dog belongs to. Like it doesn't matter to a rat, bird, fish or maggot if there is a god, I feel like I am just another animal. Just because we happen to be the smartest animal doesn't change the fact that we are still just animals. So like a cow doesn't think of god, neither do we. What religion does your cow belong to? That's my religion.

Hi sealybobo:
Size DOES make a difference in the impact or significance that such a group has to others.

Definitions of the term cult Apologetics research resources

if we look at the difference between "sociological cults" and "theological cults" above,
maybe we need to make a similar distinction here between what
is serving "sociologically" as a religion and what is technically involving a "theological" belief or not.

I think PF is only looking at religion in terms of "sociological" action or practice outward.
But Asaratis is focused on the INTERNAL "belief" that a religion is built around.

(As for cows, some religions believe that all living things are spiritual beings
connected by the same laws of the universe. And just because they are not
as sentient or able to express or act on their wills to the extent humans do,
doesn't mean they aren't following the same laws of nature. I have one
friend who believes animals are held accountable for their karma equally
as humans, but I disagree. Too much of what animals experience is
decided by human karma. So most of that is on humans. Animals
are on a different realm of life and connection to the spiritual whole,
but do not make decisions like humans so cannot be held to the same
degree of accountability. My friend who believes otherwise believes
animals also learn and have to follow rules of order, but I don't think it's their choice.)

 

[asaratis]

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?.......

(Aside: That should be ...has been proved...just sayin'.....a thing that has been proved is a proven thing.)

No. If there is no evidence that it should be considered inaccurate, it should be presented as an unproven theory if it is to be taught in math class. Applying this same metric to creationism precludes its being taught in government schools because there is ample evidence showing that it is false.

I disagree there is ample evidence showing it to be false. There is no evidence showing it to be false. At the same time, there is no evidence showing it to be true. The problem with creationism is that it never gets further than a hypothesis.

What is known about evolution proves that is the universe was not created in 6 days and that the earth is far more than 6000 years old.

Creationism only means that the universe is an artifact. One can probably prove that a given pair of shoes was not made by friendly elves in the night, but that doesn't mean they weren't made.

Perhaps you should show your definition of artifact. I've thought for decades that an artifact was something made by man.

 

[emilynghiem]

Communities are free to establish private schools and teach whatever they will...short of overthrowing the government.

In practice and in theory are two different things.

In Houston, because the City is not held to Constitutional checks and balances but acts as a private entity (using public resources and power to make public policies under mandatory taxation and requirement to follow)
the City has been closing and even tearing down schools that the communities wanted to save.

So it is getting to the point I have personally called for organizing to secede into separate self-governing districts.
And make that part of the educational process so people can learn what it takes to be equal under law.

So it may take separating from govt, but in a civil manner, like a civil divorce.
No violence or revolution necessary. Just changing business contracts
where people have the right to buy out the businesses, schools, propoerty, houses and land
in their district to work toward incorporating as their own township.

My argument is that the laws call for equal protection and representation.
And that this is not possible in a situation where the city has more power without equal check by the people.
So either change the city charter where it has all the same features as the Bill of Rights and
requirement of govt to follow these laws (instead of bypassing them until "sued in court,"
as the City of Houston has been sued recently two or three times over different policies
passed that violated Constitutional or state laws).

I believe we may have to push for what the 13 colonies did to become independent states
under a central govt, but without the war and bloodshed. Just the citizens and legal help
to establish some kind of Constitutional system that checks against further abuse of power to override the
taxpaying citizens.

The current set up is not enough to stop the abuses, because the City is acting as its own private
authority without Constitutional check, yet its policies are mandatory to follow and to pay taxes into.

 

[sealybobo]

It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

I have issue with your definition. Superhuman is a poor choice of words as may cultures believe that their gods are not human at all. I go with Supreme being as being closer to the truth.

Religion is in general a belief system that one worships. If we look at atheists they have a belief in nothing AKA a belief system. If you think about it atheists say gods don't exist therefore religious people according to atheists have a belief in nothing just like them.

atheist
[ey-thee-ist] Spell Syllables

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

noun
1.
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Atheist Define Atheist at Dictionary.com

"To be an Atheist one would have to be omniscient, knowing all things, having a perfect knowledge of the universe, to say they absolutely know God does not exist. For one to do this they would have to have personally inspected all places in the present known universe and in all time, having explored everywhere seen and unseen."

The definition of "Atheist" in the argument above is an overly broad straw man: an atheist is one who either lacks positive belief in a god or who believes that no gods exist, not one who claims to know absolutely that no gods exist.

While a person would need perfect knowledge of the universe to be absolutely certain that no gods exist, such knowledge is not required for disbelief. And, in fact, individual theists disbelieve all kinds of claims (that various mythical beings exist, or that Earth is being regularly visited by aliens from space) without having complete knowledge even of the relevant subject areas.

The use of the word "faith" is often an attempt to mislead based on the equivocation fallacy. As the article on faith discusses, the two primary meanings of the word are: (1) confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing; and (2) belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. One may reasonably claim that certain forms of atheism are based on "faith" using the first definition. However, the way this claim is often made implies that the second definition is being used, which is usually incorrect.

OMG there is so much more here explaining to theists why they are wrong: Atheism is based on faith - Iron Chariots Wiki

 

[Carla_Danger]

It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

I have issue with your definition. Superhuman is a poor choice of words as may cultures believe that their gods are not human at all. I go with Supreme being as being closer to the truth.

Religion is in general a belief system that one worships. If we look at atheists they have a belief in nothing AKA a belief system. If you think about it atheists say gods don't exist therefore religious people according to atheists have a belief in nothing just like them.

atheist
[ey-thee-ist] Spell Syllables

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

noun
1.
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Atheist Define Atheist at Dictionary.com

I can go along with adding Supreme being to the definition of religion, but you are incorrect thinking that atheists believe, religious people believe in nothing. That's simply not true. It sounds to me, like you're having a hard time separating the two.

 

[emilynghiem]

What is known about evolution proves that is the universe was not created in 6 days and that the earth is far more than 6000 years old.

The prehuman remains dating millions of years ago can be cited without arguing for or against evolution.

Neither of these contradicts the interpretation of the 6,000 year timeline
in the Bible as referring to the Hebrew or Mosaic/Adamic lineage.

In the Jewish Caballah and even loose references in the Bible
there were giants or tribes of other beings already on the earth before Adam and Eve.
so this can be interpreted to mean the humanoid tribes that weren't fully
self-aware humans of the Mosaic or Adamic lineage.

I interpret the 'daughters of the earth' which the sons of 'Adam and Eve' coupled with
to mean the matriarchal or goddess tribes that preceded the patriarchal lineages.

So I do believe there is valid symbolism in Lilith that preceded Eve,
where there were earth-based/matriarchal cultures before the
patriarchal laws and lineages where women were subjugate to the
men as the heads of households, where the children were considered property
of the estate. The point in marriage laws was to ensure the men could control
their heirs within patriarchal cultures, where this was not necessary in matriarchal
cultures that were more egalitarian. Thus all the focus on marriage and against
adultery, etc.

You can believe in Creation as a Christian
and still include all this history without contradiction.

 

[PratchettFan]

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

(Aside: That should be ...has been proved...just sayin'.....a thing that has been proved is a proven thing.)

No. If there is no evidence that it should be considered inaccurate, it should be presented as an unproven theory if it is to be taught in math class. Applying this same metric to creationism precludes its being taught in government schools because there is ample evidence showing that it is false.

I disagree there is ample evidence showing it to be false. There is no evidence showing it to be false. At the same time, there is no evidence showing it to be true. The problem with creationism is that it never gets further than a hypothesis.

What is known about evolution proves that is the universe was not created in 6 days and that the earth is far more than 6000 years old.

Creationism only means that the universe is an artifact. One can probably prove that a given pair of shoes was not made by friendly elves in the night, but that doesn't mean they weren't made.

Perhaps you should show your definition of artifact. I've thought for decades that an artifact was something made by man.

In this context, I simply mean something that is made. I suppose we could narrow that down a bit so that it is made by intent. I don't know what word we would use for something which was made by a non-human. For example, if we stumble upon a derelict space ship from some alien race under the sands of Mars, what would you call it?

 

[sealybobo]

(Aside: That should be ...has been proved...just sayin'.....a thing that has been proved is a proven thing.)

No. If there is no evidence that it should be considered inaccurate, it should be presented as an unproven theory if it is to be taught in math class. Applying this same metric to creationism precludes its being taught in government schools because there is ample evidence showing that it is false.

I disagree there is ample evidence showing it to be false. There is no evidence showing it to be false. At the same time, there is no evidence showing it to be true. The problem with creationism is that it never gets further than a hypothesis.

What is known about evolution proves that is the universe was not created in 6 days and that the earth is far more than 6000 years old.

Creationism only means that the universe is an artifact. One can probably prove that a given pair of shoes was not made by friendly elves in the night, but that doesn't mean they weren't made.

Perhaps you should show your definition of artifact. I've thought for decades that an artifact was something made by man.

In this context, I simply mean something that is made. I suppose we could narrow that down a bit so that it is made by intent. I don't know what word we would use for something which was made by a non-human. For example, if we stumble upon a derelict space ship from some alien race under the sands of Mars, what would you call it?

I often imagine a huge god living on the other side of one of our black holes, who put his privates in the black hole because to one of them it feels great, and when he blew his spunk that was the big bang. And those frozen comets that have all those amino acids that orbit our sun that one day flew out of control and landed on earth and every other planet and are how life started on earth because we are not too far or close to the sun, that if this is our creator, then he cares about us as much as I care about the sperm I shot into a tissue and flushed last night. Now maybe one day god looked into the peep hole and saw what he created. Maybe he can't stop cancer or aids. Maybe he will get old and die too one day. Everything does. Maybe our creator died a long time ago.