15 Nov 12
Originally posted by bbarrTo be honest its got a bit too deep for me and I don't really know what you are saying. But just to be clear, are you saying that most people, theist or otherwise, base some of their beliefs/world views on the fact that they do not believe in the existence of Santa Claus? Or do they just presume the non-existence of Santa Claus? What about people who have never even heard of Santa Claus?
If you take parsimony or elegance to rule out God-based explanations from the start, then you essentially have a priori epistemic commitments that both presume atheism and inferentially support your purportedly neutral scientific methodologies.
Originally posted by twhiteheadLet me repeat the wikipedia definition of religion:
No, it doesn't follow in the slightest. In fact, 'religious' and 'religion' have subtly different meanings, but that is not the problem here.
To give an analogy, its like saying 'since the US education system is not a school, none of its members are scholars'.
Most theists are members of a religion, and many are religious.
Religion is a collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.
There is nothing about a belief in gods of God that limits religion to only those believing in God or gods. For example, creationism is a doctrine considered as a belief system and world view and evolution should also be considered a doctrine of a belief system and world view, because people use these doctrines of belief to relate to spirituality as well as moral values. We see those claiming to be atheists relating their beliefs and world views on this Spirituality Forum constantly.
Belief in God and creation are doctines of Christianity that give meaning to life and explain the origin of life and the Universe. There is no dispute that the belief in the existence of God and creation is religious. Some even include the scientific discovery of intelligent design in nature as a religious belief.
However, atheists refuse to admit the truth that their belief systems and world views also belong within this definition of religion. Some simply define atheism as a lack of belief in God or gods. However, this is an incomplete definition that does does not distinguish between agnostics and atheists. The atheists actually believe there is no God or gods. This belief causes them to have a world view, without God or gods, in which they try to account for life and the universe by man's knowledge of science by devising theories of beliefs that they use as doctines of their religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
There are many atheism organizations that atheist can join so it should be clear to any rational person that atheism belongs in the category of a religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Atheism_organizations
P.S. I belief Dasa would agree with me that Atheism is a false religion. However, he may refer to the doctrine as false science.
15 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsUsing your own razor sharp logic chess is a religion.
There are many atheism organizations that atheist can join so it should be
clear to any rational person that atheism belongs in the category of a religion.
There are many chess organizations that chess players can join so it should be
clear to any rational person that chess belongs in the category of a religion.
QED
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by wolfgang59Religion is a collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.
Using your own razor sharp logic chess is a religion.
There are many chess organizations that chess players can join so it should be
clear to any rational person that chess belongs in the category of a religion.
QED
How does chess fit into the above definition of a religion?
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by RJHindsIt doesnt. I am just pointing out how ridiculous your argument is!
How does chess fit into the above definition of a religion?
I have substituted "chess" for "atheism" in your own words.
Either both are logical or neither.
Originally posted by RJHinds
There are many atheism organizations that atheist can join so it should be
clear to any rational person that atheism belongs in the category of a religion.
There are many chess organizations that chess players can join so it should be
clear to any rational person that chess belongs in the category of a religion.
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by wolfgang59True. However, you seem to ignore everything I wrote before that. The first part of that sentence was in response to twhiteheads statement:
It doesnt. I am just pointing out how ridiculous your argument is!
I have substituted "chess" for "atheism" in your own words.
Either both are logical or neither.
[i]Originally posted by RJHinds
There are many atheism organizations that atheist can join so it should be
clear to any rational person that atheism belongs in the category of a ...[text shortened]... t should be
clear to any rational person that chess belongs in the category of a religion.
"Most theists are members of a religion, and many are religious."
That is, many atheists are also members of their own religious organizations. So, considering all of this, it should be clear to a reasonable person that atheism is also a religion.
17 Nov 12
Originally posted by googlefudge"I never claimed that you made up the definitions you posted.
Sigh...
1. I didn't make up the diff I simply posted it and I did it from more than one
source. If you wish to talk about secularism feel free I've been discussing
Atheism.
I never claimed that you made up the definitions you posted.
I did say that you distorted it/misinterpreted them, but I never claimed that you made them up.
...[text shortened]... e a cause,...[/i]"
You do not recall correctly.[/b]
I did say that you distorted it/misinterpreted them, but I never claimed that you made them up.
However you ARE making the claim that any set of beliefs (or strongly held beliefs) are a religion.
This IS something that YOU are making up.
Nobody not a whackjob fundy religionist agrees with you on this."
I've simply quoted the meaning of the word, it does not state that a deity is
required, it only talks about strongly held beliefs. You think I'm wrong when
it comes to Atheist having strongly held beliefs? Is that where you think I'm in
error when I apply Athiest as a group of people, you do not feel that Athiest do
not have causes, that they don't have principles, or activity pursued their beliefs
with a conscientious devotion when they come up against those that disagree with
them? Exactly how am I in error when I apply what I see in Athiest to the way that
the word religion is defined?
Kelly
17 Nov 12
Originally posted by googlefudge"And actually YOU brought up secularism when you said... "
Sigh...
1. I didn't make up the diff I simply posted it and I did it from more than one
source. If you wish to talk about secularism feel free I've been discussing
Atheism.
I never claimed that you made up the definitions you posted.
I did say that you distorted it/misinterpreted them, but I never claimed that you made them up.
...[text shortened]... e a cause,...[/i]"
You do not recall correctly.[/b]
"If that were not true there would be no issues of church and state within this country"
Separation of Church and State IS an issue of secularity, Not atheism.
The call is for a secular government not an atheist government.
So no, you brought up secularism.
I talked about the debate between people when it comes to church and state,
I did not use the word secularism, that was you not me. I wasn't talking about
a call for a 'secular government', or any other king of government, I was talking
about the discusion where several people have gone to court to hinder the free
excersie of relgion or even just the mention of it in some fasion or some hint of
one.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayBut this account does not support the claim that atheism is a religion. If you're right, it only supports the claim that atheists are religious. Atheists have different sets of deeply held beliefs (some are progressive, some are conservative; some are Yankees fans, some are Red Sox fans). There is no overarching set of deeply held beliefs in common among atheists by virtue of which they're religious. Atheists, like people generally are heterogenous.
"I never claimed that you made up the definitions you posted.
I did say that you distorted it/misinterpreted them, but I never claimed that you made them up.
However you ARE making the claim that any set of beliefs (or strongly held beliefs) are a religion.
This IS something that YOU are making up.
Nobody not a whackjob fundy religionist agrees with r when I apply what I see in Athiest to the way that
the word religion is defined?
Kelly
Anyway, since any set of deeply held beliefs renders one religious (on your view), and since everybody has some deeply held beliefs or other, on your account everybody is religious. I think this result shows that your view is wrong. But here's a question: What would a person have to be like, on your view, to not qualify as religious? Can you give an example?
17 Nov 12
Originally posted by bbarrYour statement:
But this account does not support the claim that atheism is a religion. If you're right, it only supports the claim that atheists are religious. Atheists have different sets of deeply held beliefs (some are progressive, some are conservative; some are Yankees fans, some are Red Sox fans). There is no overarching set of deeply held beliefs in common among at ...[text shortened]... have to be like, on your view, to [b]not qualify as religious? Can you give an example?[/b]
"There is no overarching set of deeply held beliefs in common among atheists by virtue of which they're religious."
I don't believe your statement is accurate. How do you explain all of these atheist organizations if they have no commonly held beliefs specific to atheists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Atheism_organizations
17 Nov 12
And the non-bible believing Founding Fathers? I believe there were a number of them.
Let's see the list.
Sounds like secularism to me.
Get some q-tips. You've got work to do.
Oh I get it now. You simply don't know what secularism is. Here let me help you.
How very ironic of you to say.
You see, the vast majority of our Founding Fathers were bible-believers. A small minority of them were not bible-believers per sé, but, were Deists (Theists) nonetheless. I don't personally know of any outright Atheists in the group--which stands to reason since our founding documents clearly supported the idea of a Creator (God). The vast majority of our Founding Fathers believed that the very discovery and creation of our nation was an act of providence which by definition requires the belief in the existence of a supreme being / creator.
You may be able to google up a blog that mentions an Atheist or two in the group, but, the number (if above zero) is most assuredly so small, it should be regarded as insignificant.
The idea wasn't to get rid of God, it was to get rid of people being controlled through the use of religious edict. That's not secularism -- it is the prevention of unfair and abusive treatment and favoritism. The intent was for any prospective leader to freely admit their religious beliefs, and let the people decide whether or not they wanted that person in office. A hardcore, right wing, fundamentalist bible-thumper has every right to be completely forthcoming about his or her religious beliefs, and run for any office of his or her choosing. Where the US Constitution draws the line is, that person cannot establish any law that regulates the behavior of the citizens, using religion as its guideline.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd the non-bible believing Founding Fathers? I believe there were a number of them.
Who made that claim? Where in this thread does anybody say that the US Constitution denounces religion?
The bible-believing Founding Fathers are surely turning over in their graves.
And the non-bible believing Founding Fathers? I believe there were a number of them.
What the Founding Fathers were getting away from, among other things such y don't know what secularism is. Here let me help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism
Let's see the list.
Sounds like secularism to me.
Get some q-tips. You've got work to do.
Oh I get it now. You simply don't know what secularism is. Here let me help you.
How very ironic of you to say.
You see, the vast majority of our Founding Fathers were bible-believers. A small minority of them were not bible-believers per sé, but, were Deists (Theists) nonetheless. I don't personally know of any outright Atheists in the group--which stands to reason since our founding documents clearly supported the idea of a Creator (God). The vast majority of our Founding Fathers believed that the very discovery and creation of our nation was an act of providence which by definition requires the belief in the existence of a supreme being / creator.
You may be able to google up a blog that mentions an Atheist or two in the group, but, the number (if above zero) is most assuredly so small, it should be regarded as insignificant.
The idea wasn't to get rid of God, it was to get rid of people being controlled through the use of religious edict. That's not secularism -- it is the prevention of unfair and abusive treatment and favoritism of any religion. Secularism was neither supported nor condemned. The intent was for any prospective leader to freely admit their religious beliefs if they wanted, and to let the people decide whether or not they wanted that person in office. A hardcore, right wing, fundamentalist bible-thumper has every right to be completely forthcoming about his or her religious beliefs, and run for any office of his or her choosing. Where the US Constitution draws the line is, that person cannot establish any law that regulates the behavior of the citizens, having religion (or the removal of religion) in its structure.