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.
