Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[emilynghiem]

That was a definition not a list of attributes. I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded. It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition.

The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge." Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?

All beliefs are personal conclusions. All beliefs are introspective. Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.

As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth. The truth being their own beliefs. Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus. Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.

1. I would say that Atheism is so broad, that SOME of the ways people practice or teach it DO fall under religion.
And SOME of the ways don't. If it did formerly organize, where enough major members respected as authorities DID decide to incorporate, then it could well become a formally recognized religion. Same with Constitutionalism.

2. RE: "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge."
That term only works if that is the only thing you are interested in discussing or in calling a religion.

3. as for "All beliefs are personal conclusions. All beliefs are introspective. Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way."

since some people's beliefs DO fall under a recognized religion and some do not,
the whole point is to talk about beliefs, not religions.

If each of us just talks and listens based on what each of us believes and understands,
we can communicate and reach agreement or solutions
REGARDLESS of our beliefs, religions, what we do or do not label who or what this or that.

Let's stick to the points, principles and concepts within our beliefs,
and it doesn't matter so much how we might be labeled on the outside by others.

What are we talking about on the inside, and how can we connect DIRECTLY on that level
so we can get somewhere? No need to argue how to categorize labels on the outside.

We get the inside material content straight, then whatever we call these things (or each other) will follow from there.

 

[emilynghiem]

If Pogo had a better side he would admit he is wrong when he was presented with irrefutable proof of his errors. The fact that he chooses to run away instead is why I treat him with contempt.

And frankly, I don't take his adversarial nature personally because I actually have a better side. I have even warned people who I always argue with when they do things really stupid, like post personal confrontation by accident. That get me a lot more respect from them then pretending that I am not who I am.

I have better success with people by focusing on what we agree is RIGHT.
If we find those points, the areas of conflict get corrected in the process.

Your way may work for you, but if it brings out the worst side of Pogo, obviously it may be backfiring in that context.
If Pogo isn't getting or responding to how you tried to simplify it. we may have to start from another angle that
will get us somewhere.

The neat thing about this process, even if you do strike out and hit a dead end.
Something someone says in protest can open the door to discussing from a different starting point,
and bring up the issue in another way. The process continues until the conflicts are brought out and resolved.
So if one way doesn't work, it will come again in another form. Eventually we connect the dots and figure out the path
to build up points of agreement and understanding and work from there.

Truth has a way of carving itself out of the chaos.
What we have in common is our consciences all seek satisfaction in establishing truth,
and resolving any conflict or error we find faulty. So by binary logic of 0 or 1, yes or no,
true or false, agree or disagree, by trial and error, we can map out where we align with each other.

 

[emilynghiem]

Okay, I think I see the problem here. Maybe once you learn the definition of religion, you'll see the flaws in your argument.

Hi Carla_Danger
I also see the similar problem in not agreeing what is meant by religion, which varies per person or context,
and what is meant by atheism which also varies.

Can we start by just talking and listening to each other by what we do believe or understand
and not whether this fits a label or not? Otherwise we are arguing about the labels.

If the main issue is what are your beliefs, what are mine, and how do these align.
That can happen without agreeing if mine or yours "counts as" atheism or religion or whatever label.
We don't have to agree on that to listen to each other's ideas and principles.

Some of the helpful uses of religion are to organize people by association so we can communicate in mass groups.

If we are going to discuss what we mean by terms,
why not come right out and discuss what is MEANT by "God" or "Jesus"
not for the purpose of ARGUING about it, but for ORGANIZING by groups.

So if people who believe in God as Wisdom know to hang out with the Buddhists,
and people who believe in Jesus as Equal Justice or Social Justice or Peace and Justice
hang out with those groups, then we can all align with likeminded neighbors
and not argue why one group teaches Jesus as Salvation and another as Justice.

We can have all going on, and just delegate to each group the
members who relate to that approach and can be most effective there.

 

[PratchettFan]

That was a definition not a list of attributes. I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded. It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition.

The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge." Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?

All beliefs are personal conclusions. All beliefs are introspective. Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.

As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth. The truth being their own beliefs. Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus. Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.

1. I would say that Atheism is so broad, that SOME of the ways people practice or teach it DO fall under religion.
And SOME of the ways don't. If it did formerly organize, where enough major members respected as authorities DID decide to incorporate, then it could well become a formally recognized religion. Same with Constitutionalism.

2. RE: "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge."
That term only works if that is the only thing you are interested in discussing or in calling a religion.

3. as for "All beliefs are personal conclusions. All beliefs are introspective. Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way."

since some people's beliefs DO fall under a recognized religion and some do not,
the whole point is to talk about beliefs, not religions.

If each of us just talks and listens based on what each of us believes and understands,
we can communicate and reach agreement or solutions
REGARDLESS of our beliefs, religions, what we do or do not label who or what this or that.

Let's stick to the points, principles and concepts within our beliefs,
and it doesn't matter so much how we might be labeled on the outside by others.

What are we talking about on the inside, and how can we connect DIRECTLY on that level
so we can get somewhere? No need to argue how to categorize labels on the outside.

We get the inside material content straight, then whatever we call these things (or each other) will follow from there.

I understand what you are saying. I am just attempting to find some common ground on what it is we are discussing. It is difficult to even understand the other's point of view if we don't know what we mean by the words we use.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sorry Emily, that simply doesn't work. Under that broad a definition an interest in anything at all could be described as "religion".

"I'm going to the grocery store; are you interested in coming along? Bring your prayer mat".

What you have there appears to be a colloquialism, a deliberately overstated misuse for comic effect. When a fan says they "worship" a rock musician (movie actor, sports player, whoever) they don't mean it literally. It's simply expressing a strong degree of passion integrated into the verb instead of standing alone as an adjective; it's imagery.

Doesn't apply here even in the colloquial sense; atheism is a simple logical conclusion, as such rational and not subject to passion.

Yes and no. You would have to take that thing and MAKE a "religion" or "religious ritual" out of it, where you really DO have that conviction in it.

Someone similarly complained that "addiction" was starting to be used too lightly.
A real addiction is one thing, but a colloquial expression for an overdone hobby or interest as an "addiction" is another.

I agree with you, that you don't want to use terms such as religion or addiction so broadly they lose their meaning!
That is not the point.
But it IS true that ANYTHING COULD become a religious focus or COULD become an addiction.

it is POSSIBLE.
But NO you are right, and I agree,
you don't want to call simple things addictions or religions when it isn't really to that point.

And that is NOT what I'm talking about. I'm talking about if people really do make a religion of something they believe personally. I do not mean the colloquial sense of using the term lightly.
======================================================

What gives you the idea I'm not religious? Curious. I've barely ever even been in this forum.

In my past conversations with you, you seem pretty adept at talking out the specific issues.
I think we had some longer exchanges about healthy foods or legalization issues or something.
I got the impression you were very specific and secular minded in how you analyze things critically.

So somewhere in there, and in your arguments here, I get the impression you pinpoint
specific issues one-on-one case-by-case, and don't make broad generalizing statements
and just defend that emotionally on face value.

When I do start preaching about Constitutional equal justice and protections of the laws,
my friends will tell me I sound like I am proselytizing propaganda, even though that's how my words come out naturally.
I don't MEAN to get religious, but what's the difference if I sound just like that?

I KNOW you do not go around "preaching" like that.
So in comparison with me, I do not see you as religious.

I admit I come across as very rightwing or Conservative [fill in the blank] to people
when actually I am a prochoice progressive liberal Democrat. I just happen to be
a Constitutionalist first. So depending on the context, I can preach back to people
using their own laws and language, whether the Bible or Bill of Rights, with as much conviction.

The only grouping I really see myself as a member of is the Constitutionalist group.
I believe I am Christian by faith, and have formally joined UU and Lutheran churches,
but whatever group I identify with is larger than those labels.

I can speak in nontheist secular terms equally as Christian or Buddhist terms.
So if I am "trilingual" in Buddhist, Christian and Constitutional terms,
what requires me to be labeled as those if I treat them as systems of laws or languages?

Why can't we be well versed in these systems and communicate freely using whatever works?

It is funny to me that the same way some people get "preachy or religious" when it comes to Christianity,
I don't in that area; but I can go to extremes preaching "Constitutionalism" to denounce government abuses.
Since I come from a more liberal secular background, I come out sounding more inclusive and prochoice
than most Constitutionalists from rightwing Christian perspectives. But since the language I use
is associated with rightwing, that's where people think I must be or should be Tea Party/Republican or Libertarian.

The last thing they expect a Constitutionalist to be is a liberal prochoice Democrat.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Those free from faith do not 'practice' a 'religion' as perceived by theists; indeed, it's a false comparison fallacy.


Moreover, there is nothing to be 'advanced,' just as the Earth orbiting the Sun doesn't need to be 'advanced.' One either accepts the fact that there is no 'god' as perceived by theists or he rejects it; one acknowledges a fact because it is a fact, not because one is enticed to do so by doctrinal incentives or promises made by religious dogma.

I know people who believe very passionately in God who do not practice a religion as defined by atheists in this thread. Does that mean they don't have faith or does it just mean atheists are full of shit when they attempt to define religion?

It probably just means that we have not talked specifically about their religion.


.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thanks PF
Aside from all the arguing in circles over terminology
can we agree then there is not agreement on the
different types, levels, or meanings of EITHER "atheism" OR "religion"

So we are better off talking one-on-one about what each of us believes or calls things,
and UNDERSTAND that to QW, he may ONLY see atheists as "believing there is no God period"
while I may be open to nontheists "calling themselves atheists" but coming across as agnostic
(and since we can't agree, then we just focus on "nontheism" as how we approach or discuss things).
Similarly with religion, that some people even within "well-established" religions don't consider their beliefs to be that.
So if this is true for other people of other beliefs, of course, the same thing can happen with atheists or atheism.

Fine, we know we don't agree on those things.

Now, what can we talk about that we COULD find ways to agree on?

Back to my question and proof I posed to Hollie:
Could we agree to make a list of the most common meanings for
God and/or Jesus, and the secular terms they reconcile with.

And show that it is more effective to agree on the MEANINGS
and not haggle over the terms or beliefs associated with those.

If we can show that that works to bring about agreed understanding
how to communicate between theists and nontheists, then we
can suggest this approach to more people and groups to resolve these issues.
Even without changing anyone's viewpoints.
All we are doing is setting up an agreed system for ALIGNING
what we mean by terms, even between religious believers and nontheist secular thinkers,
and still communicate and work together successfully without unresolved conflicts.

 

[Hollie]

I can impose nothing on you. Only you can do that. So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care? Why apply a name to it? Why do you need a definition? Why do you bother talking about it at all?

To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns. Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed? Zero time. The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.

No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief. You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion. There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence. Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.

Utter absurdity. Oh never mind, you just did.
Having a freaking preference or opinion on something does not a religion make. You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke. You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department. That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".

It doesn't make Christianity religion either. So you tell me, what does make it religion? What are the attributes we need to look for?

For this leave us go back to post 395 (directed originally to Emily) -- roll tape:

religion [ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (Dictionary.com)

-- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit. That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either. All that is is having an opinion.

I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu. That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teachings, not the teacher. That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism. However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.

(As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).

So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge. Buddhism does that, so it's a religion. Taoism does that so it too is a religion. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, Zoroastrianism, they all do that and are therefore "religions".

Not smoking does not do that; Constitutionalism does not do that; atheism does not do that. None of them therefore are "religions". I get the impression some here believe that proselytizing for any cause whatsoever constitutes a "religion" but it doesn't. It constitutes advocacy. Nothing more.


--- which last point still doesn't apply to atheism since it's a personal conclusion.

Perhaps the missing ingredient in all this is the admission that beliefs are not necessarily always extroverted. There's no reason they need to be to qualify as either belief or religion. Atheism is by definition introspective. Trying to pretend it "proselytizing" is like trying to pretend a desert is "against" the idea of water.

That was a definition not a list of attributes. I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded. It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition.

That's absurd. There is no such "set of beliefs". Any given atheist may have wildly different beliefs about religions, general moral guidelines, politics or anything else. They have nothing in common on the basis of atheism except not believing in the Easter Bunny theistic approach to religion.

I challenge you to prove your point by listing this "set of beliefs" -- or any part of it.

The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge." Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?

All beliefs are personal conclusions. All beliefs are introspective. Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.

If there's a point in that section. I don't see it.

As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth. The truth being their own beliefs. Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus. Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.

Agree with the last sentence. Haven't seen the rest. Also haven't seen where anyone declining theisim professes to "know the truth". Seems to me religion by definition tries to address the Unknowable. And it stays that way, for if something is knowable, we call that "science".

Ok, a set of beliefs: And keep in mind that these need not be taken as absolutes but with varying degrees of ardor. I would refer you back to Dawkins list for that.

1- There are no gods
2- The various god based religions are false
3- The universe has no controlling force behind it
4- The universe is not an artifact

Will those work for a start?

No, they wont.

Conclusion - all gods are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition. At no time in human history have any of the gods made themselves known in any extant way.

Conclusion - religious traditions are built upon earlier traditions and many religions tend to define their gods as simply grander, more powerful versions of the gods that ruled the preceding religions. And why not? Why would a more recent religion establish itself as subordinate to a prior religion? Thus, the incorporation and inclusion of earlier traditions in mankinds formulation of newer religions.

Conclusion - nothing in the natural world indicates or even suggests supernatural forces. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.

I’ll submit that by employing evidence and reason, we can readily discriminate between which of our competing theories (mine being natural laws; yours being supernatural intervention), deserves the greater credibility. We actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that your god (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observere who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.

Conclusion - The universe is immensely old. That is in direct contradiction to biblical tales and fables and contradicts other religious tales.

In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?

 

[PratchettFan]

Thanks PF
Aside from all the arguing in circles over terminology
can we agree then there is not agreement on the
different types, levels, or meanings of EITHER "atheism" OR "religion"

So we are better off talking one-on-one about what each of us believes or calls things,
and UNDERSTAND that to QW, he may ONLY see atheists as "believing there is no God period"
while I may be open to nontheists "calling themselves atheists" but coming across as agnostic
(and since we can't agree, then we just focus on "nontheism" as how we approach or discuss things).
Similarly with religion, that some people even within "well-established" religions don't consider their beliefs to be that.
So if this is true for other people of other beliefs, of course, the same thing can happen with atheists or atheism.

Fine, we know we don't agree on those things.

Now, what can we talk about that we COULD find ways to agree on?

Back to my question and proof I posed to Hollie:
Could we agree to make a list of the most common meanings for
God and/or Jesus, and the secular terms they reconcile with.

And show that it is more effective to agree on the MEANINGS
and not haggle over the terms or beliefs associated with those.

If we can show that that works to bring about agreed understanding
how to communicate between theists and nontheists, then we
can suggest this approach to more people and groups to resolve these issues.
Even without changing anyone's viewpoints.
All we are doing is setting up an agreed system for ALIGNING
what we mean by terms, even between religious believers and nontheist secular thinkers,
and still communicate and work together successfully without unresolved conflicts.

I am open to the approach. It should be interesting.

But there is another issue here and I think it is probably more profound. While having an agreed vocabulary, or at least and understood one, is valuable, it really doesn't matter if vocabulary becomes the standard. I think one of the biggest issue here is really all about what is belief. I do not agree it is simply a word. It is an action. And if one is engaged in the action then one has belief. Establishing a vocabulary which ignores action is pointless.

 

[Hollie]

I have already disproven your gods. Prove I haven't.

Have you still not seen the futility of your nonsensical "prove it isn't" fallacy you use to prop-up your gods?

Hi Hollie: WOW! If you have proven God does not exist, you should win a Nobel!
Even Godel could only prove that (if there is a God) "only God can know truth";
"The rest of us have beliefs based on our perception of facts and accepted prior knowledge"

[RE]: Professor Kurt Godel's incompleteness and undecidability theorems. With these two theorems, Godel proved that only God(s) can know truth(s). The rest of us have beliefs based on our perception of facts and accepted prior knowledge (e.g. Scripture, the Bible, Koran, Torah).

The only things we can be relatively sure of are that we must keep our science and religion separate - the world is not flat and the sun does not revolve around the Earth - contrary to medieval truth. Religion is based on faith; science is based on best applied observations and math.

Since our perception, those facts we perceived, or the prior knowledge we accept
COULD still be faulty, then we can always be wrong or this "truth" can change.
So we can "never know" because of this possibility of error or change.

Hollie: As I stated before, the most I believe we can prove is by agreement:
1. agreeing on the meanings of God, and which meanings align to be compatible, complementary or reconcileable
2. agreeing to FORGIVE differences, even conflicts, in order to work around those and not get in the way of
COMMUNICATING the meanings and ideas we DO agree on, even if we don't see or word them in the same terms
3. proving that the degree of FORGIVENESS is what determines ability to reconcile and agree on truth,
NOT the belief system of each person which can remain in complete conflict

I believe we can prove that through experience, and documenting the results of forgiving and not forgiving conflicts or relationships, and showing the statistical patterns:
* forgiveness will correlate with reconciling differences across religious and political beliefs or groups even conflicting ones
* unforgiveness will correlate with rejection and inability to resolve conflicts, even between members of the same groups

The real issue dividing people is whether we can forgive or not.
The other differences and conflicts that may never change are not the problem because
those can be worked around to find solutions to the same degree people are willing to forgive
and deal with those differences instead of divide and judge each other for them.

This I believe can be proven.
And I am willing to prove it, by proving it!

Your proof there is not a God cannot be proven.
(The most you can do is prove it cannot be proven, but relies on faith,
which is not the same as disproving God. You can also explain that if God represents infinitive or collective truth/knowledge/laws of all the universe, then man would have to be God in order to understand and prove all those things. So by our nature we can never prove the existence of something so beyond us, we cannot even perceive it all, much less communicate a proof of it.)

If you want to make a running bet, I will bet you 10 million
that we can sooner prove forgiveness/unforgiveness is the correlating factor
in reaching agreement on the meanings of God, Jesus etc.

vs. trying to prove God or Jesus are not real which I bet you will not happen.

I can sooner prove the meaning of Jesus "can be reconciled" with the meaning of Justice,
which does not rely on either Jesus or Justice really existing to prove they are reconcilable as concepts.

We can prove reconciliation is possible and it follows a pattern of steps or stages.
But to prove the system reiterates to lead to a full consensus would require to finish that process to fully prove consensus can be reached. i believe we can at least prove the
pattern can be followed, and replicates itself.

Same with establishing AGREEMENT on God by reconciling with meanings such as
life love truth wisdom good will creation universe nature
universal laws natural laws, etc.

Hollie if you want to prove God does not exist,
you would have to prove these do not exist, too, and/or prove that God is not any of these.

All those words in boldface are aspects of what people mean by God
so all that has to be proven to be only perceived in our minds and "made up by man"

Good luck!

You commit the common fallacy of presuming that I have some obligation to disprove your gods. I have no such requirement. With the presumption that the Egyptian gods are the true gods, you must accept the fact that you are worshipping false gods and are practicing a heretical belief system, at least until you disprove the fact of the Egyptian gods as true and extant. I'll await your disproof.

What I derive from your posts and those of the other... more excitable believers of "the" Bibles as "the" story of "man's" relationship with "Gods." Each of these concepts presupposes a unique reification.

"The Bibles" ... There are many interpretations of Bibles, many verses subject to interpretation and many other holy scriptures and still more general spiritual texts besides.

"The Story" (creation)... There are as many stories, historically, as there are consciousnesses to experience them. By what reasoning can a claim be made for the universality of any of them? The biblical creation tale is a train-wreck of falsehoods, contradictions and absurdities.

"Man" ... The evidence seems overwhelming that man does indeed share a common natural descent with all other forms of life on earth. At what point of our biotic history can we chop down the tree and say, "This creature has a soul?"

"Gods" ... The essential uniqueness of the Abrahamic God lies in the claims of its uniqueness made by its adherents. Yet the largest branch of Abrahamic spirituality claims their unique god is actually three-in-one. The second largest branch claims 9 billion names for the same divinity leaving the third leg of the tripod to mutter "Oi vey" under their collective breaths. "It's a bust". You broke it.

If there is one thing sure, it is that closer examination of anything will always lead to "differentiatiable" (new word?) aspects. Gods have a tendency to breed when placed in philosophical intercourse with men. So why is anyone under any obligation to accept your false gods as opposed to the true gods?

 

[PratchettFan]

I can impose nothing on you. Only you can do that. So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care? Why apply a name to it? Why do you need a definition? Why do you bother talking about it at all?

To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns. Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed? Zero time. The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.

No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief. You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion. There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence. Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.

Utter absurdity. Oh never mind, you just did.
Having a freaking preference or opinion on something does not a religion make. You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke. You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department. That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".

It doesn't make Christianity religion either. So you tell me, what does make it religion? What are the attributes we need to look for?

For this leave us go back to post 395 (directed originally to Emily) -- roll tape:

religion [ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (Dictionary.com)

-- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit. That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either. All that is is having an opinion.

I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu. That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teachings, not the teacher. That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism. However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.

(As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).

So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge. Buddhism does that, so it's a religion. Taoism does that so it too is a religion. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, Zoroastrianism, they all do that and are therefore "religions".

Not smoking does not do that; Constitutionalism does not do that; atheism does not do that. None of them therefore are "religions". I get the impression some here believe that proselytizing for any cause whatsoever constitutes a "religion" but it doesn't. It constitutes advocacy. Nothing more.


--- which last point still doesn't apply to atheism since it's a personal conclusion.

Perhaps the missing ingredient in all this is the admission that beliefs are not necessarily always extroverted. There's no reason they need to be to qualify as either belief or religion. Atheism is by definition introspective. Trying to pretend it "proselytizing" is like trying to pretend a desert is "against" the idea of water.

That was a definition not a list of attributes. I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded. It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition.

That's absurd. There is no such "set of beliefs". Any given atheist may have wildly different beliefs about religions, general moral guidelines, politics or anything else. They have nothing in common on the basis of atheism except not believing in the Easter Bunny theistic approach to religion.

I challenge you to prove your point by listing this "set of beliefs" -- or any part of it.

The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge." Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?

All beliefs are personal conclusions. All beliefs are introspective. Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.

If there's a point in that section. I don't see it.

As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth. The truth being their own beliefs. Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus. Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.

Agree with the last sentence. Haven't seen the rest. Also haven't seen where anyone declining theisim professes to "know the truth". Seems to me religion by definition tries to address the Unknowable. And it stays that way, for if something is knowable, we call that "science".

Ok, a set of beliefs: And keep in mind that these need not be taken as absolutes but with varying degrees of ardor. I would refer you back to Dawkins list for that.

1- There are no gods
2- The various god based religions are false
3- The universe has no controlling force behind it
4- The universe is not an artifact

Will those work for a start?

No, they wont.

Conclusion - all gods are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition. At no time in human history have any of the gods made themselves known in any extant way.

Conclusion - religious traditions are built upon earlier traditions and many religions tend to define their gods as simply grander, more powerful versions of the gods that ruled the preceding religions. And why not? Why would a more recent religion establish itself as subordinate to a prior religion? Thus, the incorporation and inclusion of earlier traditions in mankinds formulation of newer religions.

Conclusion - nothing in the natural world indicates or even suggests supernatural forces. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.

I’ll submit that by employing evidence and reason, we can readily discriminate between which of our competing theories (mine being natural laws; yours being supernatural intervention), deserves the greater credibility. We actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that your god (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observere who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.

Conclusion - The universe is immensely old. That is in direct contradiction to biblical tales and fables and contradicts other religious tales.

In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?

Understand from the beginning that I am not a Christian. I do not consider the Bible a science book. At best it has some historical significance. If you wish to argue Christianity, you will need to find someone else.

But I am willing to take your belief sets. I don't know if Pogo will or not.

1- all god are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition.
This is a pretty direct statement that gods are not real. They do not exist but are entirely imaginary. I really don't see how your statement could be taken any other way. So, please present your evidence to support this conclusion. And if you are going to use the argument that they have not made themselves known, you are going to have to explain your position that if they existed they would make themselves known. Otherwise, it is irrelevant.

2- Religious institutions are built on earlier traditions.
I'll grant you that and would consider this a valid statement based upon objective evidence. I am not clear on how that matters. If you could clarify that for me I would appreciate it.

3- Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force.
I am not aware of anything which does. OTOH, I am not aware of anything which suggests it doesn't. The current theory (at least I think it is) is a singularity expanded to create the universe. I am aware of nothing which indicates the origination of the singularity or the cause of the expansion. Nor any current theory as to why the natural forces you speak of exist at all. I stipulate they are there, but why they are there is a matter of speculation. So, do you have any objective evidence that supernatural (I really dislike that word) forces were not involved?

Keep in mind that what I am attempting to do here is determine the nature of your conclusions, not whether or not they are true. You have as much chance of getting it right as I do.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Hollie: I think you are taking the approach of saying that religions that personify the forces of Life or God in a personified symbol or being "contradict" science and history by overriding it with myths; I agree that is wrongful, but I do not see that religions have to do this, and find many more believers who WORK WITH SCIENCE and MEDICINE and do not reject these.

So you are starting with a strawman argument, leaving out people who reconcile Nature and laws of science
with the construct of personifying God. These are not "mutually exclusive"

Are you okay with people who equate "God with Nature" without any contradiction?

Do you need "proof" such people exist?
I agree that God can be equated with Nature, natural scientific and universal laws,
and reconcile all the truth that is in science and history with the meanings in the Bible.

I have no problem with that, and believe it SHOULD be consistent and no conflicts taught otherwise!

Other Christians I can recommend to you as proof this is naturally reconcileable:
1. The Lutheran Pastor at the church I went to who explained that substituting "LIFE" for "GOD"
was perfectly consistent in order to communicate with atheists and others who do not see the world in terms of GOD.
His name is Senior Pastor Robert Moore
2. Agnes Sanford (deceased) Author of "The Healing Light"
explains God as Nature, and is one of the most well renowned teachers of how to facilitate natural healing (as the body/mind are already designed for) through prayer to receive more of that life energy and remove any fault disrupting the circuit
3. The founders such as Jefferson who cited Natural Laws when writing the statements and documents
that went into establishing the Constitution. Again invoking power of God from NATURE to document laws that apply to human NATURE to serve as a universal structure for reforming govt democratically as part of humanity's destiny and growth.

Other Christians I talked with said they ran across similar with Buddhists and Eastern cultures,
that instead of teaching God as a separate source, they understood that some people
see God as Creation Earth or Nature/Universe itself. Some of my Wicca and Pagan friends understand God means this.

So there are plenty of people who have proven to me, Hollie,
that God can be reconciled with general/impersonal beliefs
about universal, scientific and natural laws.

Are you going to tell me that these people don't exist.
Or that all their interpretations of God as referring to Nature and laws of science are wrong?

And ONLY YOUR interpretation that God has to mean something MYTHICAL is correct?

Why can't we agree that the CONFLICTING teachings of God are WRONG if they teach false things
that contradict scientific empirical data, laws and facts; but it there is nothing wrong with teaching
God's laws where they RECONCILE with science, history and facts demonstrated by experience.

Are you okay with making that distinction?
or do you insist on sticking with your straw man argument that God has to mean something false?

NOTE: If you insist on clinging to your preset conditions, you are leaving me out as well as
my atheists friends who have reconciled with Christians by agreeing to broader terms.

So whatever "group" you intend to prove this to is already limited and NOT universal to all humanity.
In science, that is not considered a proof if you have to limit your audience to just those who
agree to define God as only the mythical false things you pose.

Conclusion - all gods are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition. At no time in human history have any of the gods made themselves known in any extant way.

Conclusion - religious traditions are built upon earlier traditions and many religions tend to define their gods as simply grander, more powerful versions of the gods that ruled the preceding religions. And why not? Why would a more recent religion establish itself as subordinate to a prior religion? Thus, the incorporation and inclusion of earlier traditions in mankinds formulation of newer religions.

Conclusion - nothing in the natural world indicates or even suggests supernatural forces. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.

I’ll submit that by employing evidence and reason, we can readily discriminate between which of our competing theories (mine being natural laws; yours being supernatural intervention), deserves the greater credibility. We actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that your god (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observere who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.

Conclusion - The universe is immensely old. That is in direct contradiction to biblical tales and fables and contradicts other religious tales.

In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?

You don't have to believe in virgins spontaneously conceiving.
You can believe the symbolism refers to KARMA and that the point of Jesus breaking the cycle of karma
was that he was not born carrying KARMA from physical parents that he owes for like others do, owing to their parents for bringing us into the world. His debt he symbolizes paying for is for ALL HUMANITY forward and past. So by jesus sacrifice this act "symbolizes" the breaking of the cycle of karmic retribution killing humanity. Instead of repeating negative patterns inherited by past generations, we break the cycle by forgiveness and love by not returning evil for evil. We let "divine justice" be in charge of sorting out the karma, not us. So we only go with good positive actions thoughts and words, and let the negative be removed as we forgive and heal. We have faith in this higher "spiritual process" of truth setting us free.
So we end the patterns from the past and stick to the truth which corrects and prevents wrongs in the future.
If we make mistakes, we forgive and correct each other, and accelerate the learning curve. We do not judge, blame or punish but accept shared responsibility for corrections so we can rise above. This is what Jesus renewal and rebirth
represents. the coming of Restorative Justice to bring lasting peace and harmony and balance back to humanity.

so you do not need to believe in a personified God or Jesus to believe in this process.
you can be an atheist like my friend Ray Hill who believes in peace and justice and gets along great with other Christians who believe the same. All it takes is forgiveness and we can work together despite differences and conflicts.

We are not perfect in that sense. We have our flaws and biases, and none of us can understand and love all other people fully equally as everyone else. but together, we can check and balance each other, so collectively we can be perfect as in mature or whole. So that is where the story in the Bible is leading to, that path of establishing truth, justice and peace.

 

[emilynghiem]

You commit the common fallacy of presuming that I have some obligation to disprove your gods. I have no such requirement. With the presumption that the Egyptian gods are the true gods, you must accept the fact that you are worshipping false gods and are practicing a heretical belief system, at least until you disprove the fact of the Egyptian gods as true and extant. I'll await your disproof.

Hi Hollie: I am saying we cannot prove it OR disprove it, either way.
I am saying to prove instead the FACTOR that correlates with either conclusion:
A. if people of different views cannot reconcile differences, this correlates to the degree they cannot forgive certain people or groups.
B. if people of different views CAN work around those differences, this correlates to their ability to FORGIVE
C. and if people change from A to B, this also correlates with a change from unforgiveness to forgiveness of those conflicts.

What I derive from your posts and those of the other... more excitable believers of "the" Bibles as "the" story of "man's" relationship with "Gods." Each of these concepts presupposes a unique reification.

"The Bibles" ... There are many interpretations of Bibles, many verses subject to interpretation and many other holy scriptures and still more general spiritual texts besides.

"The Story" (creation)... There are as many stories, historically, as there are consciousnesses to experience them. By what reasoning can a claim be made for the universality of any of them? The biblical creation tale is a train-wreck of falsehoods, contradictions and absurdities.

"Man" ... The evidence seems overwhelming that man does indeed share a common natural descent with all other forms of life on earth. At what point of our biotic history can we chop down the tree and say, "This creature has a soul?"

"Gods" ... The essential uniqueness of the Abrahamic God lies in the claims of its uniqueness made by its adherents. Yet the largest branch of Abrahamic spirituality claims their unique god is actually three-in-one. The second largest branch claims 9 billion names for the same divinity leaving the third leg of the tripod to mutter "Oi vey" under their collective breaths. "It's a bust". You broke it.

If there is one thing sure, it is that closer examination of anything will always lead to "differentiatiable" (new word?) aspects. Gods have a tendency to breed when placed in philosophical intercourse with men. So why is anyone under any obligation to accept your false gods as opposed to the true gods?

No, of course nobody is under obligation. If faith is "forced by obligation" then it is forced, and not real faith.
so that is the problem with religions, if they are conditional and forced by fear or politics or group pressure.
It is false because of that.

Let's instead focus on what meanings we FREELY AGREE make sense and reconcile with science and history.

So this is all by free choice and if it really is universal truth, then by definition all people would relate and reconcile with it one way or another. maybe not express it the same way, but at least see it is compatible and not contradictory.

I posted an interpretation above on the Bible as the history of man, and Christ Jesus as Restorative Justice.
Let me know if you can relate to that approach. no one has to believe in a concrete personal God or Jesus
to believe there is collective truth and justice. So those are fair equivalent explanations of the meaning
in more universal terms. my mother doesn't like the limited term Truth which can be subjective, and prefers Wisdom which is not necessarily dependent on what someone claims to be the truth. Either way, whatever terms you can relate to,
that is fair game and the only way to solve this human puzzle.

We have to start with what we do relate to and call these things.
and piece it together from there if it is going to be real and true.
it cannot be forced, no fair switching stickers on the Rubik's cube to make it come out right.

We find out where everyone has ways of seeing and words for saying things,
and align where the like pieces matchup. and work out the rest like a huge puzzle.

as we get the major centers and sides in place, the other pieces fall into place accordingly.

 

[emilynghiem]

I am open to the approach. It should be interesting.

But there is another issue here and I think it is probably more profound. While having an agreed vocabulary, or at least and understood one, is valuable, it really doesn't matter if vocabulary becomes the standard. I think one of the biggest issue here is really all about what is belief. I do not agree it is simply a word. It is an action. And if one is engaged in the action then one has belief. Establishing a vocabulary which ignores action is pointless.

Very well stated. I believe in Restorative Justice. I believe that by establishing just, truthful relations between people first, much like how we are connecting here, then collectively this influences greater society to establish consistent standards. My main focus is finding where there are debts and damages caused by injustice or abuses, and finding ways of solving that problem, reinvesting resources and efforts into corrections or restitution as needed, so there is not only physical solution, and prevention in the future by using that example for education and experience, but also personal healing for the people affected. Thus both words and action.

What do you call your values that you live by as your way of words and actions being one?
What terms or concepts do you relate to that describe what matters or motivates you the most?

 

[Hollie]

I can impose nothing on you. Only you can do that. So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care? Why apply a name to it? Why do you need a definition? Why do you bother talking about it at all?

To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns. Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed? Zero time. The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.

No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief. You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion. There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence. Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.

Utter absurdity. Oh never mind, you just did.
Having a freaking preference or opinion on something does not a religion make. You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke. You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department. That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".

It doesn't make Christianity religion either. So you tell me, what does make it religion? What are the attributes we need to look for?

For this leave us go back to post 395 (directed originally to Emily) -- roll tape:

religion [ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (Dictionary.com)

-- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit. That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either. All that is is having an opinion.

I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu. That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teachings, not the teacher. That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism. However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.

(As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).

So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge. Buddhism does that, so it's a religion. Taoism does that so it too is a religion. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, Zoroastrianism, they all do that and are therefore "religions".

Not smoking does not do that; Constitutionalism does not do that; atheism does not do that. None of them therefore are "religions". I get the impression some here believe that proselytizing for any cause whatsoever constitutes a "religion" but it doesn't. It constitutes advocacy. Nothing more.


--- which last point still doesn't apply to atheism since it's a personal conclusion.

Perhaps the missing ingredient in all this is the admission that beliefs are not necessarily always extroverted. There's no reason they need to be to qualify as either belief or religion. Atheism is by definition introspective. Trying to pretend it "proselytizing" is like trying to pretend a desert is "against" the idea of water.

That was a definition not a list of attributes. I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded. It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition.

That's absurd. There is no such "set of beliefs". Any given atheist may have wildly different beliefs about religions, general moral guidelines, politics or anything else. They have nothing in common on the basis of atheism except not believing in the Easter Bunny theistic approach to religion.

I challenge you to prove your point by listing this "set of beliefs" -- or any part of it.

The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge." Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?

All beliefs are personal conclusions. All beliefs are introspective. Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.

If there's a point in that section. I don't see it.

As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth. The truth being their own beliefs. Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus. Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.

Agree with the last sentence. Haven't seen the rest. Also haven't seen where anyone declining theisim professes to "know the truth". Seems to me religion by definition tries to address the Unknowable. And it stays that way, for if something is knowable, we call that "science".

Ok, a set of beliefs: And keep in mind that these need not be taken as absolutes but with varying degrees of ardor. I would refer you back to Dawkins list for that.

1- There are no gods
2- The various god based religions are false
3- The universe has no controlling force behind it
4- The universe is not an artifact

Will those work for a start?

No, they wont.

Conclusion - all gods are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition. At no time in human history have any of the gods made themselves known in any extant way.

Conclusion - religious traditions are built upon earlier traditions and many religions tend to define their gods as simply grander, more powerful versions of the gods that ruled the preceding religions. And why not? Why would a more recent religion establish itself as subordinate to a prior religion? Thus, the incorporation and inclusion of earlier traditions in mankinds formulation of newer religions.

Conclusion - nothing in the natural world indicates or even suggests supernatural forces. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.

I’ll submit that by employing evidence and reason, we can readily discriminate between which of our competing theories (mine being natural laws; yours being supernatural intervention), deserves the greater credibility. We actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that your god (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observere who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.

Conclusion - The universe is immensely old. That is in direct contradiction to biblical tales and fables and contradicts other religious tales.

In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?

Understand from the beginning that I am not a Christian. I do not consider the Bible a science book. At best it has some historical significance. If you wish to argue Christianity, you will need to find someone else.

But I am willing to take your belief sets. I don't know if Pogo will or not.

1- all god are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition.
This is a pretty direct statement that gods are not real. They do not exist but are entirely imaginary. I really don't see how your statement could be taken any other way. So, please present your evidence to support this conclusion. And if you are going to use the argument that they have not made themselves known, you are going to have to explain your position that if they existed they would make themselves known. Otherwise, it is irrelevant.

2- Religious institutions are built on earlier traditions.
I'll grant you that and would consider this a valid statement based upon objective evidence. I am not clear on how that matters. If you could clarify that for me I would appreciate it.

3- Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force.
I am not aware of anything which does. OTOH, I am not aware of anything which suggests it doesn't. The current theory (at least I think it is) is a singularity expanded to create the universe. I am aware of nothing which indicates the origination of the singularity or the cause of the expansion. Nor any current theory as to why the natural forces you speak of exist at all. I stipulate they are there, but why they are there is a matter of speculation. So, do you have any objective evidence that supernatural (I really dislike that word) forces were not involved?

Keep in mind that what I am attempting to do here is determine the nature of your conclusions, not whether or not they are true. You have as much chance of getting it right as I do.

Why are you having such difficulty with acknowledging your fundamentalist Christian beliefs?

It’s been pointed out repeatedly and tediously that reason and rationality lead to conclusions that leave as superficial and subordinate, your allegiance to supernaturalism and mysticism.

In your theistic worldview, what accounts for the existence of all are Supreme Beings whose minds we can never know, whose methods are wholly mysterious, whose goals are self-contradictory (an all supreme being cannot have any challenges or goals-- there is nothing beyond its ability to achieve, instantaneously, hence has no wants).

This, you religionists claim, is the "origin" of existence, and it's supposed to be a defendable position?. Well, what have you fundies "answered" in this paradigm? That an unknowable being, for unfathomable, self-contradictory reasons, using methods beyond our scope to perceive, created everything. This "answer" is not only tantamount to no answer, it is also purposely accepting no answer as the answer precluding one from ever discovering any answer.

We are in agreement on numerous levels. There is no evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods. All is assumption from the religious perspective, (the theist assumes gods, the materialist assumes logic). Given the plethora of gods thoughout human history, none of which are open to any proof, yes, it is rational and logical to conclude that gods are invented to explain phenomenon. Unless you are willing to argue that any number of assertions of gods other than the one you selected as "true" doesn't illustrate this fact very clearly. I’m still waiting for you to support your gods as true to the exclusion of the Egyptian gods, which were obviously meant to "explain existence" and have no more or less authority than that of the conclusions of your Judeo-Christian gods.

You simply cannot disprove the fact that your gods are false and the Egyptian gods are true.

Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force. That is true.
While challenges to your fundamentalist views are met with nothing more than “but… but… but…. but you can’t prove it isn’t”, I opt for reason and rationality as a conclusion primarily because as a member of the natural universe, we can most correctly assess natural realities as empirically supported. Other than assuming logic is cohesive, there is nothing more to assume in the rationalist camp. While there are so-far unanswered questions, these questions do not leap frog out of the physical and into the metaphysical at any point, and even in analogies where reality doesn't behave quite like we expected to (quantuum mechanics for instance), you religionists are just as shackled to that reality as is the rationalist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have better success with people by focusing on what we agree is RIGHT.
If we find those points, the areas of conflict get corrected in the process.

Your way may work for you, but if it brings out the worst side of Pogo, obviously it may be backfiring in that context.
If Pogo isn't getting or responding to how you tried to simplify it. we may have to start from another angle that
will get us somewhere.

The neat thing about this process, even if you do strike out and hit a dead end.
Something someone says in protest can open the door to discussing from a different starting point,
and bring up the issue in another way. The process continues until the conflicts are brought out and resolved.
So if one way doesn't work, it will come again in another form. Eventually we connect the dots and figure out the path
to build up points of agreement and understanding and work from there.

Truth has a way of carving itself out of the chaos.
What we have in common is our consciences all seek satisfaction in establishing truth,
and resolving any conflict or error we find faulty. So by binary logic of 0 or 1, yes or no,
true or false, agree or disagree, by trial and error, we can map out where we align with each other.

Pogo hasn't got anything right in this thread, so what could I possibly focus on?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It probably just means that we have not talked specifically about their religion.


.

We haven't discussed Christianity? Have you been posting with your head up your ass?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thanks PF
Aside from all the arguing in circles over terminology
can we agree then there is not agreement on the
different types, levels, or meanings of EITHER "atheism" OR "religion"

So we are better off talking one-on-one about what each of us believes or calls things,
and UNDERSTAND that to QW, he may ONLY see atheists as "believing there is no God period"

That is the dictionary definition of atheist, and some idiots in this thread are arguing they don't believe that, even though they argue exactly that position. The fact that I refuse to let them do that is indicative of my search for truth. The fact that they continue to claim they don't actually believe that is proof they are not seeking truth.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, they wont.

Conclusion - all gods are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition. At no time in human history have any of the gods made themselves known in any extant way.

Conclusion - religious traditions are built upon earlier traditions and many religions tend to define their gods as simply grander, more powerful versions of the gods that ruled the preceding religions. And why not? Why would a more recent religion establish itself as subordinate to a prior religion? Thus, the incorporation and inclusion of earlier traditions in mankinds formulation of newer religions.

Conclusion - nothing in the natural world indicates or even suggests supernatural forces. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.

I’ll submit that by employing evidence and reason, we can readily discriminate between which of our competing theories (mine being natural laws; yours being supernatural intervention), deserves the greater credibility. We actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that your god (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observere who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.

Conclusion - The universe is immensely old. That is in direct contradiction to biblical tales and fables and contradicts other religious tales.

In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?

In order for any of those things to be a conclusion you have to present some type of argument to support them. The fact that I have to point that out is indicative that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why are you having such difficulty with acknowledging your fundamentalist Christian beliefs?

Why are you having such trouble reading people's posts?

What evidence, other than the fact that Pratchet doesn't agree with you, do you have that he is a fundamentalist Christian?

It’s been pointed out repeatedly and tediously that reason and rationality lead to conclusions that leave as superficial and subordinate, your allegiance to supernaturalism and mysticism.

It has been pointed out repeatedly that simply declaring something to be true is neither reason or rationality. If you had the ability to use either you would be able to provide some examples of them.

In your theistic worldview, what accounts for the existence of all are Supreme Beings whose minds we can never know, whose methods are wholly mysterious, whose goals are self-contradictory (an all supreme being cannot have any challenges or goals-- there is nothing beyond its ability to achieve, instantaneously, hence has no wants).

What theistic worldviews has he expressed? I must have missed it in all the times he expressly said he doesn't believe in God.

This, you religionists claim, is the "origin" of existence, and it's supposed to be a defendable position?. Well, what have you fundies "answered" in this paradigm? That an unknowable being, for unfathomable, self-contradictory reasons, using methods beyond our scope to perceive, created everything. This "answer" is not only tantamount to no answer, it is also purposely accepting no answer as the answer precluding one from ever discovering any answer.

Another example of you arguing with the voices in your head.

We are in agreement on numerous levels. There is no evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods. All is assumption from the religious perspective, (the theist assumes gods, the materialist assumes logic). Given the plethora of gods thoughout human history, none of which are open to any proof, yes, it is rational and logical to conclude that gods are invented to explain phenomenon. Unless you are willing to argue that any number of assertions of gods other than the one you selected as "true" doesn't illustrate this fact very clearly. I’m still waiting for you to support your gods as true to the exclusion of the Egyptian gods, which were obviously meant to "explain existence" and have no more or less authority than that of the conclusions of your Judeo-Christian gods.

Prove my faith is based on assumptions.

Keep in mind as you do so that you will be wrong no matter what you say.

You simply cannot disprove the fact that your gods are false and the Egyptian gods are true.

What makes you think I think the Egyptian gods are not real?

Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force. That is true.

While challenges to your fundamentalist views are met with nothing more than “but… but… but…. but you can’t prove it isn’t”, I opt for reason and rationality as a conclusion primarily because as a member of the natural universe, we can most correctly assess natural realities as empirically supported. Other than assuming logic is cohesive, there is nothing more to assume in the rationalist camp. While there are so-far unanswered questions, these questions do not leap frog out of the physical and into the metaphysical at any point, and even in analogies where reality doesn't behave quite like we expected to (quantuum mechanics for instance), you religionists are just as shackled to that reality as is the rationalist.

Once again, Pratchet is not a Christian, but feel free to keep arguing with those voices in your head.