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?
