Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[asaratis]

So, to you God is not supernatural?

Did I say that? Why, no, I did not. I said that, given the above, if God exists, and He was created by man, He would be natural. If you need someone to parse that for you I suggest you ask an English teacher at your elementary school, I am not here to explain simple grammar to idiots.

Partially correct. Indeed you didn't say that God is not supernatural. You said He would be man-made, if He exists. Man cannot create a supernatural thing. Therefore by your own statement, God is not supernatural (if He exists). I am not here to explain logic to you. Take some lessons.

 

[newpolitics]

Atheism is not a religion. That is definitional fact.

Yet, according to the Supreme Court, and US tax law, atheism actually is a religion.

200 years ago, according to the surpreme court, slavery was moral.

Since when does the Supreme court write dictionaries? Do they decide on every other word you use? No. They are not Miriam-Webster, and this constitues an appeal to improper authority, since their reasons for defining atheism "as a religion" are not purely of a semantic (or logical) consideration. So, who cares what the Supreme thinks about the definition this single word? Not to mention their reasons for considering atheism a religion are political and economic, and an appeal to the consequences of calling it so (the political ease of throwing this segment of the population into a concise group for consensus purposes, rather than creating a whole new desriptor that no one else belongs to except atheists- which would cost money) rather than be a purely apt description of the word.

What a hilarious cop-out to even try to appeal to the Supreme Court for the definition of the word that has no operational power within the context of LEGAL preceding in any possible court case. The weakness of your attempt belies your motives behind trying to define a segment of the population you disagree with: the need to make them seem as arbitrary as you. And pointing to ONE part of a dictionary definition that states "strong atheism" (the belief that there is no god) is simply cherry picking, when the definition before it defines atheism as "the disbelief in a god," which is simply, a lack of belief, and a lack of belief can not possibly constitute a religion.

Worse for you, and as someone has very aptly pointed out already, THEISM itself can not even be called a religion, as it denotes too little information for the word to be categorized in this way. If this is true, then on the flip side, atheism logically can not be called a religion either.

From so many angles, you lose this battle: semantically, legally, counterfactually...

 

[asaratis]

Atheism is not a religion. That is definitional fact.

Yet, according to the Supreme Court, and US tax law, atheism actually is a religion.

200 years ago, according to the surpreme court, slavery was moral.

Since when does the Supreme court write dictionaries? Do they decide on every other word you use? No. They are not Miriam-Webster, and this constitues an appeal to improper authority, since their reasons for defining atheism "as a religion" are not purely of a semantic (or logical) consideration. So, who cares what the Supreme thinks about the definition this single word? Not to mention their reasons for considering atheism a religion are political and economic, and an appeal to the consequences of calling it so (the political ease of throwing this segment of the population into a concise group for consensus purposes, rather than creating a whole new desriptor that no one else belongs to except atheists- which would cost money) rather than be a purely apt description of the word.

What a hilarious cop-out to even try to appeal to the Supreme Court for the definition of the word that has no operational power within the context of LEGAL preceding in any possible court case. The weakness of your attempt belies your motives behind trying to define a segment of the population you disagree with: the need to make them seem as arbitrary as you. And pointing to ONE part of a dictionary definition that states "strong atheism" (the belief that there is no god) is simply cherry picking, when the definition before it defines atheism as "the disbelief in a god," which is simply, a lack of belief, and a lack of belief can not possibly constitute a religion.

Worse for you, and as someone has very aptly pointed out already, THEISM itself can not even be called a religion, as it denotes too little information for the word to be categorized in this way. If this is true, then on the flip side, atheism logically can not be called a religion either.

From so many angles, you lose this battle: semantically, legally, counterfactually...

I doubt the atheists here will read this in its entirety...or if they do, will dismiss it based upon its source.

Is Atheism a religion - creation.com
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”1
Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying that there is any overarching deity such as the Creator-God of the Bible. Atheism in the western sense excludes Buddhism, and adherents claim that it is not a religion. One Atheist said:

“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”2
However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang-ups people have about ‘religion’. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.

Atheism3 will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.

................

Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.

Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a ‘hairstyle’. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.

The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.

Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government.​

 

[Hollie]

Atheism is not a religion. That is definitional fact.

Yet, according to the Supreme Court, and US tax law, atheism actually is a religion.

200 years ago, according to the surpreme court, slavery was moral.

Since when does the Supreme court write dictionaries? Do they decide on every other word you use? No. They are not Miriam-Webster, and this constitues an appeal to improper authority, since their reasons for defining atheism "as a religion" are not purely of a semantic (or logical) consideration. So, who cares what the Supreme thinks about the definition this single word? Not to mention their reasons for considering atheism a religion are political and economic, and an appeal to the consequences of calling it so (the political ease of throwing this segment of the population into a concise group for consensus purposes, rather than creating a whole new desriptor that no one else belongs to except atheists- which would cost money) rather than be a purely apt description of the word.

What a hilarious cop-out to even try to appeal to the Supreme Court for the definition of the word that has no operational power within the context of LEGAL preceding in any possible court case. The weakness of your attempt belies your motives behind trying to define a segment of the population you disagree with: the need to make them seem as arbitrary as you. And pointing to ONE part of a dictionary definition that states "strong atheism" (the belief that there is no god) is simply cherry picking, when the definition before it defines atheism as "the disbelief in a god," which is simply, a lack of belief, and a lack of belief can not possibly constitute a religion.

Worse for you, and as someone has very aptly pointed out already, THEISM itself can not even be called a religion, as it denotes too little information for the word to be categorized in this way. If this is true, then on the flip side, atheism logically can not be called a religion either.

From so many angles, you lose this battle: semantically, legally, counterfactually...

I doubt the atheists here will read this in its entirety...or if they do, will dismiss it based upon its source.

Is Atheism a religion - creation.com
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”1
Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying that there is any overarching deity such as the Creator-God of the Bible. Atheism in the western sense excludes Buddhism, and adherents claim that it is not a religion. One Atheist said:

“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”2
However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang-ups people have about ‘religion’. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.

Atheism3 will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.

................

Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.

Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a ‘hairstyle’. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.

The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.

Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government.​

You're cutting and pasting from one of the most notorious, agenda driven Christian ministries. These loons announce their bias and have no interest in truth or objectivity.

What a laughable joke.

 

[newpolitics]

Atheism is not a religion. That is definitional fact.

Yet, according to the Supreme Court, and US tax law, atheism actually is a religion.

200 years ago, according to the surpreme court, slavery was moral.

Since when does the Supreme court write dictionaries? Do they decide on every other word you use? No. They are not Miriam-Webster, and this constitues an appeal to improper authority, since their reasons for defining atheism "as a religion" are not purely of a semantic (or logical) consideration. So, who cares what the Supreme thinks about the definition this single word? Not to mention their reasons for considering atheism a religion are political and economic, and an appeal to the consequences of calling it so (the political ease of throwing this segment of the population into a concise group for consensus purposes, rather than creating a whole new desriptor that no one else belongs to except atheists- which would cost money) rather than be a purely apt description of the word.

What a hilarious cop-out to even try to appeal to the Supreme Court for the definition of the word that has no operational power within the context of LEGAL preceding in any possible court case. The weakness of your attempt belies your motives behind trying to define a segment of the population you disagree with: the need to make them seem as arbitrary as you. And pointing to ONE part of a dictionary definition that states "strong atheism" (the belief that there is no god) is simply cherry picking, when the definition before it defines atheism as "the disbelief in a god," which is simply, a lack of belief, and a lack of belief can not possibly constitute a religion.

Worse for you, and as someone has very aptly pointed out already, THEISM itself can not even be called a religion, as it denotes too little information for the word to be categorized in this way. If this is true, then on the flip side, atheism logically can not be called a religion either.

From so many angles, you lose this battle: semantically, legally, counterfactually...

I doubt the atheists here will read this in its entirety...or if they do, will dismiss it based upon its source.

Is Atheism a religion - creation.com
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”1
Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying that there is any overarching deity such as the Creator-God of the Bible. Atheism in the western sense excludes Buddhism, and adherents claim that it is not a religion. One Atheist said:

“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”2
However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang-ups people have about ‘religion’. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.

Atheism3 will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.

................

Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.

Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a ‘hairstyle’. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.

The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.

Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government.​

Theism is not a religion. Therefore, Atheism is not a religion. End of story. To say it is, is special pleading. I am not original, even on this thread, in making this point, but it is the most important and poignant point in defeating your vapid assertion about atheism as a religion.

 

[asaratis]

Atheism is not a religion. That is definitional fact.

Yet, according to the Supreme Court, and US tax law, atheism actually is a religion.

200 years ago, according to the surpreme court, slavery was moral.

Since when does the Supreme court write dictionaries? Do they decide on every other word you use? No. They are not Miriam-Webster, and this constitues an appeal to improper authority, since their reasons for defining atheism "as a religion" are not purely of a semantic (or logical) consideration. So, who cares what the Supreme thinks about the definition this single word? Not to mention their reasons for considering atheism a religion are political and economic, and an appeal to the consequences of calling it so (the political ease of throwing this segment of the population into a concise group for consensus purposes, rather than creating a whole new desriptor that no one else belongs to except atheists- which would cost money) rather than be a purely apt description of the word.

What a hilarious cop-out to even try to appeal to the Supreme Court for the definition of the word that has no operational power within the context of LEGAL preceding in any possible court case. The weakness of your attempt belies your motives behind trying to define a segment of the population you disagree with: the need to make them seem as arbitrary as you. And pointing to ONE part of a dictionary definition that states "strong atheism" (the belief that there is no god) is simply cherry picking, when the definition before it defines atheism as "the disbelief in a god," which is simply, a lack of belief, and a lack of belief can not possibly constitute a religion.

Worse for you, and as someone has very aptly pointed out already, THEISM itself can not even be called a religion, as it denotes too little information for the word to be categorized in this way. If this is true, then on the flip side, atheism logically can not be called a religion either.

From so many angles, you lose this battle: semantically, legally, counterfactually...

I doubt the atheists here will read this in its entirety...or if they do, will dismiss it based upon its source.

Is Atheism a religion - creation.com
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”1
Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying that there is any overarching deity such as the Creator-God of the Bible. Atheism in the western sense excludes Buddhism, and adherents claim that it is not a religion. One Atheist said:

“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”2
However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang-ups people have about ‘religion’. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.

Atheism3 will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.

................

Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.

Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a ‘hairstyle’. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.

The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.

Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government.​

You're cutting and pasting from one of the most notorious, agenda driven Christian ministries. These loons announce their bias and have no interest in truth or objectivity.

What a laughable joke.

I rest my case!

Funny (even laughable) that dismiss this because of the source.

I doubt the atheists here will read this in its entirety...or if they do, will dismiss it based upon its source.

Here's a question for you...and others that deny Atheism is a religion: Why does it bother you that Atheism is considered by many to be a religion? Nobody is calling any individual atheist a religious person. Nobody is forced to practice a religion.

 

[Hollie]

Atheism is not a religion. That is definitional fact.

Yet, according to the Supreme Court, and US tax law, atheism actually is a religion.

200 years ago, according to the surpreme court, slavery was moral.

Since when does the Supreme court write dictionaries? Do they decide on every other word you use? No. They are not Miriam-Webster, and this constitues an appeal to improper authority, since their reasons for defining atheism "as a religion" are not purely of a semantic (or logical) consideration. So, who cares what the Supreme thinks about the definition this single word? Not to mention their reasons for considering atheism a religion are political and economic, and an appeal to the consequences of calling it so (the political ease of throwing this segment of the population into a concise group for consensus purposes, rather than creating a whole new desriptor that no one else belongs to except atheists- which would cost money) rather than be a purely apt description of the word.

What a hilarious cop-out to even try to appeal to the Supreme Court for the definition of the word that has no operational power within the context of LEGAL preceding in any possible court case. The weakness of your attempt belies your motives behind trying to define a segment of the population you disagree with: the need to make them seem as arbitrary as you. And pointing to ONE part of a dictionary definition that states "strong atheism" (the belief that there is no god) is simply cherry picking, when the definition before it defines atheism as "the disbelief in a god," which is simply, a lack of belief, and a lack of belief can not possibly constitute a religion.

Worse for you, and as someone has very aptly pointed out already, THEISM itself can not even be called a religion, as it denotes too little information for the word to be categorized in this way. If this is true, then on the flip side, atheism logically can not be called a religion either.

From so many angles, you lose this battle: semantically, legally, counterfactually...

I doubt the atheists here will read this in its entirety...or if they do, will dismiss it based upon its source.

Is Atheism a religion - creation.com
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”1
Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying that there is any overarching deity such as the Creator-God of the Bible. Atheism in the western sense excludes Buddhism, and adherents claim that it is not a religion. One Atheist said:

“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”2
However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang-ups people have about ‘religion’. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.

Atheism3 will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.

................

Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.

Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a ‘hairstyle’. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.

The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.

Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government.​

You're cutting and pasting from one of the most notorious, agenda driven Christian ministries. These loons announce their bias and have no interest in truth or objectivity.

What a laughable joke.

I rest my case!

Funny (even laughable) that dismiss this because of the source.

I doubt the atheists here will read this in its entirety...or if they do, will dismiss it based upon its source.

Here's a question for you...and others that deny Atheism is a religion: Why does it bother you that Atheism is considered by many to be a religion? Nobody is calling any individual atheist a religious person. Nobody is forced to practice a religion.

When your source has an overt bias and relies on subjective opinion then yes, I reject your source. Has it gone unnoticed to you that those screeching about lack of belief in your gods as being a religion are fundie christians?

Why this need of yours to assign religious belief to a rational and objective conclusion that your gods don't exist?

 

[PostmodernProph]

so you're argument is that "natural" simply means "organic"?........if a dog's turd on your lawn contains chemical preservatives from the food its been fed, does that make it unnatural?......

No, my argument is that everything that exists is natural, even if it is made by man, because man is part of nature.

if that is the case we have no need of the word "natural", we could simply say "everything"......

 

[PratchettFan]

so you're argument is that "natural" simply means "organic"?........if a dog's turd on your lawn contains chemical preservatives from the food its been fed, does that make it unnatural?......

No, my argument is that everything that exists is natural, even if it is made by man, because man is part of nature.

if that is the case we have no need of the word "natural", we could simply say "everything"......

That works for me.

 

[asaratis]

Yet, according to the Supreme Court, and US tax law, atheism actually is a religion.

200 years ago, according to the surpreme court, slavery was moral.

Since when does the Supreme court write dictionaries? Do they decide on every other word you use? No. They are not Miriam-Webster, and this constitues an appeal to improper authority, since their reasons for defining atheism "as a religion" are not purely of a semantic (or logical) consideration. So, who cares what the Supreme thinks about the definition this single word? Not to mention their reasons for considering atheism a religion are political and economic, and an appeal to the consequences of calling it so (the political ease of throwing this segment of the population into a concise group for consensus purposes, rather than creating a whole new desriptor that no one else belongs to except atheists- which would cost money) rather than be a purely apt description of the word.

What a hilarious cop-out to even try to appeal to the Supreme Court for the definition of the word that has no operational power within the context of LEGAL preceding in any possible court case. The weakness of your attempt belies your motives behind trying to define a segment of the population you disagree with: the need to make them seem as arbitrary as you. And pointing to ONE part of a dictionary definition that states "strong atheism" (the belief that there is no god) is simply cherry picking, when the definition before it defines atheism as "the disbelief in a god," which is simply, a lack of belief, and a lack of belief can not possibly constitute a religion.

Worse for you, and as someone has very aptly pointed out already, THEISM itself can not even be called a religion, as it denotes too little information for the word to be categorized in this way. If this is true, then on the flip side, atheism logically can not be called a religion either.

From so many angles, you lose this battle: semantically, legally, counterfactually...

I doubt the atheists here will read this in its entirety...or if they do, will dismiss it based upon its source.

Is Atheism a religion - creation.com
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”1
Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying that there is any overarching deity such as the Creator-God of the Bible. Atheism in the western sense excludes Buddhism, and adherents claim that it is not a religion. One Atheist said:

“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”2
However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang-ups people have about ‘religion’. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.

Atheism3 will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.

................

Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.

Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a ‘hairstyle’. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.

The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.

Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government.​

You're cutting and pasting from one of the most notorious, agenda driven Christian ministries. These loons announce their bias and have no interest in truth or objectivity.

What a laughable joke.

I rest my case!

Funny (even laughable) that dismiss this because of the source.

I doubt the atheists here will read this in its entirety...or if they do, will dismiss it based upon its source.

Here's a question for you...and others that deny Atheism is a religion: Why does it bother you that Atheism is considered by many to be a religion? Nobody is calling any individual atheist a religious person. Nobody is forced to practice a religion.

When your source has an overt bias and relies on subjective opinion then yes, I reject your source. Has it gone unnoticed to you that those screeching about lack of belief in your gods as being a religion are fundie christians?

Why this need of yours to assign religious belief to a rational and objective conclusion that your gods don't exist?

I have no need. Atheism has been assigned the tag of "a religion" by others. I am simply agreeing with them based on the rational and objective conclusion that follows from what they say. I have only one God.

I am not a fundie Christian.

You rejecting the source does not make what it says incorrect.

I have an overt bias in this regard also...based on accepted definitions of words in the English language and the concept of logical deduction.

One thing you seem to miss is that Atheism is a belief that there is no God (gods). It is not simply the absence of belief in God. That belief (that there is no God) is held on faith because you absolutely cannot prove it to be true. A collection of people sharing the same faith concerning deities can quite properly be called a religion. All you can claim is that you worship NOTHING.

Again, I ask....Why does it bother you that Atheism is considered by many to be a religion?

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Hollie:
1. Christian beliefs can be summarized in general terms such as:
a. having faith in the human Conscience to seek Justice and Truth
b. having faith in Charity to bring healing and help for the greater benefit of all humanity
c. having faith that embodying and embracing the laws, the people can govern ourselves
d. faith in Restorative Justice to break the cycle of Retributive Justice

Hollie, even if you do not believe any of these things are great enough
to overcome the evil, abuses or problems in the world,
can you at least see that having faith in Justice, so that people commit to
acting more justly, especially when corrected by fellow peers under that same
commitment and authority of law, is BENEFICIAL because it at least guides people
toward being more truthful, just and humane/merciful towards one another?

That is the most we can work with, because we can't prove that Justice exists
or can be achieved by encouraging everyone to receive and commit to Justice.

Most people fight Justice fearing it means to judge and punish us in ways we don't agree to.
However, the path of Restorative Justice, as used in South Africa to heal and rebuild communities
after genocidal wars and violent attacks, is based on people accepting each other unconditionally with love and truth,
and not judging or punishing based on the past, but agreeing to move forward to rebuild relations on peace and respect.

Are you okay with this explanation that faith in Christ Jesus to save humanity
means faith in Restorative Justice to end wars and bring world peace one relationship, one community at a time?

And YES there is proof this process works. Look at the healing and peace it brought to communities, even
warring villages in Africa. This saved them from further destruction and ruin.

Look at Spiritual Healing, taught, practiced and researched medically by
Dr. Francis MacNutt, Dr. Phillip Goldfedder, Dr. Larry Dorsey, Dr. Scott Peck who observed the healing of
two Schizophrenic patients so severely obstructed by demonic obsessions they couldn't even receive treatment
until the exorcism/deliverance was applied first to restore their ability to follow reason and medical instructions at all.

The scientists and doctors who have studied this find it is NATURAL.

The Natural healing energy, forces and process are built into the mind and body.

The problem blocking and obstructing Natural healing is unforgiveness that builds up stress and denial
and throws the mind and body off balance, blocking the natural flow of energy that would normally restore us by self-healing
and the recovery process after injury or disruption in our minds, bodies, relations, lives or activities.

The key to removing blockage to Restore natural healing is forgiveness and letting go
of the negative obstructions and energy so that we let in the positive life energy to flow through which the healing relies on.

ALL the methods of recovery show that this process is facilitated by forgiveness and positive thinking;
and the studies by MacNutt, Dorsey, and Peck show that Negative forces, including occult and witchcraft type
spiritism or sorcery, can disrupt the natural positive flow of energy and cause disease, destruction and death.

My friends who have played with this negative energy could not get out of their problems, drug habits, self-destruction,
or abusive relationships until AFTER they went through the spiritual healing and deliverance process to REMOVE
those negative obstructions they were carrying in their minds, so they could open up and boost their healing and recovery instead. They were similar to Dr. Peck's patients, but were in lighter stages so they could be helped faster. His patients
were so severely affected, that one died from the diseased conditioned she had accumulated over years of abusing herself
and refusing to get medical help because of her demonic mindset that rejected any attempts to help her.

Hollie, this is completely proveable as effective, even if it is found to be natural and not supernatural.
Who cares if the demon voices in people's heads are real or not? the point is to get rid of them so the person
can return to normal, as both patients did that Dr. Peck observed before and after applying exorcism techniques
to remove the demonic obsessions and voices from these people's heads making them act out of control.

As long as the cure works, and helps patients to recover, does it matter if it is natural or supernatural,
psychological or spiritual? if it works, it works. And science and medicine can show this correlates:
* forgiveness and prayer for removal of the negative energies tied to unforgiven memories of the past
"correlates" with facilitated healing and health, even the "miracle" cures of cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases
* unforgiveness and holding onto to resentment, rejection, negative memories feelings thoughts and energy,
playing with negative forces of occult, voodoo, witchcraft, sorcery, spiritism, demonism, etc.
"correlates" with cycles of addiction, abuse, disease, disrupted or even criminal or violent relationships, etc.
that the person refuses help to change or correct but continues self-destructive behavior and project blame outward

This can be proven, Hollie.
It does not require any unusual or blind faith in anything supernatural.
Medical science can show these patterns are consistent statistically.

There is nothing to fear except fear of change, the great impact it would have on
society to prove that forgiveness and spiritual healing can cure 80% of mental and physical illness,
including criminal illness caused by the spiritual conditions that can be treated this way. Not all
cases of cancer or criminal illness can be cured; but the ones that can have greater chances if diagnosed early.

So that is what Dr. Peck urged fellow colleagues in the psychiatric and related medical fields to do:
further research and development to formally prove that there was a scientific method to the
deliverance and healing process that worked to return patients back to normal who were otherwise
diagnosed with incureable degrees of schizophrenia. he saw that they went through changes
consistent with the patterns or stages that have been documented in deliverance/exorcism methods used for centuries,
and consistent with the scientific method of applying the hypothetical remedy, observing if the symptoms go away or are reduced following the normal stages as predicted with signs of progress that can be quantified, and if the process
is completed that means it worked; and if the patient still does not show progress, that means some deeper level of healing needs to be addressed to remove the obstruction. Very similar to if cancer does not disappear or go into remission, then further treatment is needed. It is quantifiable and can be measured and monitored by science.

Does not have to be supernatural but perfectly consistent with laws of science and nature, and processes in medicine.

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.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear PratchettFan and Hollie:
RE: natural or supernatural forces
1. How do you view the forces of life or love? the forces of truth or justice which compel people in that direction by conscience?

Do you believe this is natural by human nature and "design"?

Do you believe some of the energy of Nature or Life has a "life of its own" and pushes in the direction
toward sustaining good health and life, or greater good for the collective whole?

Are these Natural or Supernatural forces in life?

2. Would you prefer the term Collective?
So anything beyond the human will to control is on a Collective level:
collective truth
collective laws
universal laws of science or nature
collective energy of all life on the planet
collective economy
collective politics

Even if we do not agree what is Natural or Supernatural/beyond our control.

Isn't it sufficient to talk about "collective levels" of society, humanity, conscience,
justice, truth, universal or natural laws,
and we are still talking about the SAME forces in life?

is Collective a better term that AVOIDS this debate where it comes from or what is driving it?

If we can agree there is a COLLECTIVE level that influences people,
then isn't the point of laws or religions to try to define, communicate and agree how to manage/regulate
the RELATIONSHIP between the individual and the Collective level?

If that is the common goal, can we derive language that describes
what works and what fails, how to correct when things fail,
and agree on that, regardless what laws are used to describe these locally to members under those rules.

Isn't that what both the laws in govt and religion attempt to do:
regulate or reach agreement between members
on how to act to keep equal justice, as a balance between peace/security and freedom/free choice,
between the individuals and the collective whole of society or humanity.

isn't that the purpose of AGREEING on laws, whether secular or civil, religious or spiritual.

 

[PratchettFan]

Dear PratchettFan and Hollie:
RE: natural or supernatural forces
1. How do you view the forces of life or love? the forces of truth or justice which compel people in that direction by conscience?

Do you believe this is natural by human nature and "design"?

Do you believe some of the energy of Nature or Life has a "life of its own" and pushes in the direction
toward sustaining good health and life, or greater good for the collective whole?

Are these Natural or Supernatural forces in life?

2. Would you prefer the term Collective?
So anything beyond the human will to control is on a Collective level:
collective truth
collective laws
universal laws of science or nature
collective energy of all life on the planet
collective economy
collective politics

Even if we do not agree what is Natural or Supernatural/beyond our control.

Isn't it sufficient to talk about "collective levels" of society, humanity, conscience,
justice, truth, universal or natural laws,
and we are still talking about the SAME forces in life?

is Collective a better term that AVOIDS this debate where it comes from or what is driving it?

If we can agree there is a COLLECTIVE level that influences people,
then isn't the point of laws or religions to try to define, communicate and agree how to manage/regulate
the RELATIONSHIP between the individual and the Collective level?

If that is the common goal, can we derive language that describes
what works and what fails, how to correct when things fail,
and agree on that, regardless what laws are used to describe these locally to members under those rules.

Isn't that what both the laws in govt and religion attempt to do:
regulate or reach agreement between members
on how to act to keep equal justice, as a balance between peace/security and freedom/free choice,
between the individuals and the collective whole of society or humanity.


isn't that the purpose of AGREEING on laws, whether secular or civil, religious or spiritual.

There is the individual and there is the group. The group is not simply a collection of individuals, it has its own existence and its behavior can be predicted. An individual acting within a group does act differently than when on its own. So you can certainly talk about a collective in reference to humans, just as you talk about it in relation to bees. But I tend to think it is more than just a collective. I am essentially a collective of cells, but I think I am more than just that. Of course, I could be wrong.

As to life and love as forces, I think we walk into a metaphorical wall there. What you mean by "life", "love" or "force" does not necessarily match what I mean. Do you consider life to be purely biological? Does a rock have a soul? I can tell you my sense of it but it all comes down to my blind guess vs your blind guess.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Partially correct. Indeed you didn't say that God is not supernatural. You said He would be man-made, if He exists. Man cannot create a supernatural thing. Therefore by your own statement, God is not supernatural (if He exists). I am not here to explain logic to you. Take some lessons.

I did not say He would be man made, I posited that He could be, and then concluded that He would be natural if this were true. That is called logic, which is why only idiots try to cite logic as proof of their intelligence.

 

[emilynghiem]

1. There is the individual and there is the group. The group is not simply a collection of individuals, it has its own existence and its behavior can be predicted. An individual acting within a group does act differently than when on its own. So you can certainly talk about a collective in reference to humans, just as you talk about it in relation to bees. But I tend to think it is more than just a collective. I am essentially a collective of cells, but I think I am more than just that. Of course, I could be wrong.

2. As to life and love as forces, I think we walk into a metaphorical wall there. What you mean by "life", "love" or "force" does not necessarily match what I mean. Do you consider life to be purely biological? Does a rock have a soul? I can tell you my sense of it but it all comes down to my blind guess vs your blind guess.

Yes, my point is we DON'T have to agree on, or even debate #2 if we don't,
in order to agree how to deal with #1. So why not solve all problems in terms of #1.

As long as we agree the point is to work out common principles or process to deal with "individual and collective behavior,"
and the Relationship between these, we can work out whatever we do have control or choices in. The other things
will work out in the process, or may not matter if we get the root issues and problems resolved we can do something about.

I love your precise, articulate answers that help to delineate the relevant substance from the external shell.
We need more people like you, who talk in secular objective terms for anyone to understand,
and don't waste time arguing or rejecting the parts that are subjective or unproveable.

Sticking to what we can or do agree on is enough to work through whatever needs to be discussed and resolved.
Our success and goals cannot depend on unprovable things or we'd never get anywhere if we had to agree or prove what cannot be!

Thanks PF
I think you and Hollie are great, at spelling out exactly what is or what is not the problem,
so we can sort it out and get to agreed conclusions that are important. Everything else will follow, or get out of the way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

200 years ago, according to the surpreme court, slavery was moral.

I am willing to bet you actual money that you cannot find a single SCOTUS case that said slavery is moral. The reason for that is quite simple, if you are not an idiot, they do not decide issues based on morality, they do it on the basis of law.

Since when does the Supreme court write dictionaries? Do they decide on every other word you use? No. They are not Miriam-Webster, and this constitues an appeal to improper authority, since their reasons for defining atheism "as a religion" are not purely of a semantic (or logical) consideration. So, who cares what the Supreme thinks about the definition this single word? Not to mention their reasons for considering atheism a religion are political and economic, and an appeal to the consequences of calling it so (the political ease of throwing this segment of the population into a concise group for consensus purposes, rather than creating a whole new desriptor that no one else belongs to except atheists- which would cost money) rather than be a purely apt description of the word.

Funny, I actually cited a dictionary definition of religion that could include atheism. I suggest you take some time to read through the thread before you attempt to pontificate to me about dictionaries, especially since you are wrong.

What a hilarious cop-out to even try to appeal to the Supreme Court for the definition of the word that has no operational power within the context of LEGAL preceding in any possible court case. The weakness of your attempt belies your motives behind trying to define a segment of the population you disagree with: the need to make them seem as arbitrary as you. And pointing to ONE part of a dictionary definition that states "strong atheism" (the belief that there is no god) is simply cherry picking, when the definition before it defines atheism as "the disbelief in a god," which is simply, a lack of belief, and a lack of belief can not possibly constitute a religion.

I did not appeal to anything, I only mentioned them to prove that it is actually possible to get all the legal benefits of a religion while being an atheist. Since your contention is that there is no way that atheism can possibly be considered a religion, even though there are actual churches that preach atheism, you are proven wrong.

By the way, that makes almost every word you used in this post utterly irrelevant to the point.

Worse for you, and as someone has very aptly pointed out already, THEISM itself can not even be called a religion, as it denotes too little information for the word to be categorized in this way. If this is true, then on the flip side, atheism logically can not be called a religion either.

That is not what was said, I suggest you go back and reread the post.

From so many angles, you lose this battle: semantically, legally, counterfactually...

Yet I still win because, ultimately, some atheists view their beliefs as a religion. Since the only claim I have made in this thread is that atheism can be a religion, you are left with the task of denying provable facts in order to claim that your view of the world is the only one that matters. That puts you on the same level of every other religious zealot on the planet.

Feel stupid yet?

 

[emilynghiem]

So, to you God is not supernatural?

Did I say that? Why, no, I did not. I said that, given the above, if God exists, and He was created by man, He would be natural. If you need someone to parse that for you I suggest you ask an English teacher at your elementary school, I am not here to explain simple grammar to idiots.

Partially correct. Indeed you didn't say that God is not supernatural. You said He would be man-made, if He exists. Man cannot create a supernatural thing. Therefore by your own statement, God is not supernatural (if He exists). I am not here to explain logic to you. Take some lessons.

Hi Asaratis:
Would it help to make a distinction between
the MEANING of God and the DEPICTIONS of God that are man made.

For example if God means universal truth of all life and creation, and/or the source of these laws or truths,
that is NOT something man made.

But if this Source of Life, real or imagined, is PERSONIFIED in a god figure
and told in stories passed down by man, that REPRESENTATION is manmade.

I find both are true:
Both this greater body of existence and energy is "what made man (we didn't create ourselves or the laws of science/nature)"
AND the language, laws and religions used to DESCRIBE this mass of knowledge of the universe
(and the relationships or laws connecting individual man to the collective process or world around us)
IS "man made" cultural language.

So both are true, not either/or

And the point is:
How do we reconcile the laws and expressions
coming from both directions? People who see the CONTENT of the laws coming from God/Nature/Life
as pre-existent, where man has made up laws of science, math, religion, govt to try to REPRESENT these laws or truths.
And People who see the religions as "laws made up by man" and don't relate to the content attributed to "divine sources."

What parts of the CONTENT can we agree how to use consistently?

Can we use the laws of science and nature without arguing where these came from?

Can we use the laws of governance to set up democratic processes for
representing and solving conflicts WITHOUT depending on everyone believing the same way?

How do we address the common CONTENT of laws and principles we actually agree on,
without letting political or religious differences screw up the language where we impose and fight over that part?

Would it help to first separate what is the Content or Principle
we want to address or establish agreement on, from what is each person's way of expressing it that may not be universal.

What is the Universal concept (not made by man, such as Wisdom, Truth, Justice that we don't magically create ourselves)
and what is the relative language that is made up by man, is relative to each person group or culture, and can be changed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

if that is the case we have no need of the word "natural", we could simply say "everything"......

Like I said, the idea that man's works is separate from nature is a product of a time when science actually believed that man was innately superior to all other animals. If you aver read the Tarzan books you would discover that educated people actually believed that a man raised by apes would naturally grow up to dominate the apes because of his superior intellect. That is arrogance, and it should not be a part of science.

 

[PratchettFan]

1. There is the individual and there is the group. The group is not simply a collection of individuals, it has its own existence and its behavior can be predicted. An individual acting within a group does act differently than when on its own. So you can certainly talk about a collective in reference to humans, just as you talk about it in relation to bees. But I tend to think it is more than just a collective. I am essentially a collective of cells, but I think I am more than just that. Of course, I could be wrong.

2. As to life and love as forces, I think we walk into a metaphorical wall there. What you mean by "life", "love" or "force" does not necessarily match what I mean. Do you consider life to be purely biological? Does a rock have a soul? I can tell you my sense of it but it all comes down to my blind guess vs your blind guess.

Yes, my point is we DON'T have to agree on, or even debate #2 if we don't,
in order to agree how to deal with #1. So why not solve all problems in terms of #1.

As long as we agree the point is to work out common principles or process to deal with "individual and collective behavior,"
and the Relationship between these, we can work out whatever we do have control or choices in. The other things
will work out in the process, or may not matter if we get the root issues and problems resolved we can do something about.

I love your precise, articulate answers that help to delineate the relevant substance from the external shell.
We need more people like you, who talk in secular objective terms for anyone to understand,
and don't waste time arguing or rejecting the parts that are subjective or unproveable.

Sticking to what we can or do agree on is enough to work through whatever needs to be discussed and resolved.
Our success and goals cannot depend on unprovable things or we'd never get anywhere if we had to agree or prove what cannot be!

Thanks PF
I think you and Hollie are great, at spelling out exactly what is or what is not the problem,
so we can sort it out and get to agreed conclusions that are important. Everything else will follow, or get out of the way.

We can always find things to agree on. You might think the Raiders are the best team and I might think it is the Cowboys, but we can both agree the Steelers suck. However, I doubt that is going to change our relationship when the Raiders play the Cowboys. Ultimately, there is going to be conflict.

But I don't think conflict is necessarily bad, nor that it needs to be resolved. If I say A and you agree with me, what have I learned? How have I grown? But if you tell me A is just flat wrong and I'm an idiot, then (assuming I don't just walk away) I have to come up with reasons to support A. I have to think.

Aside from the entertainment value (and it is there) what I like about these boards is people disagree with me. This does not usually change my mind, but I do have to examine what I am saying in response. I'm not looking to change their mind, only to clarify my own thoughts for myself. This is why I don't see any of these discussions as a contest. I am not in competition with anyone here, only in a conversation. Sometimes a heated conversation, but still just an exchange of views. Other people's mileage may vary.

 

[emilynghiem]

so you're argument is that "natural" simply means "organic"?........if a dog's turd on your lawn contains chemical preservatives from the food its been fed, does that make it unnatural?......

No, my argument is that everything that exists is natural, even if it is made by man, because man is part of nature.

if that is the case we have no need of the word "natural", we could simply say "everything"......

Yes and no.
Yes, by universal that means everything.

But it still helps to make a distinction between
natural laws such as preexisting, like laws of science, nature, physics.

And manmade laws established by writing them down and going through a process
like religions and govts.

Natural laws are different from religious laws.
The content and principles they are based on are supposed to be universal.
But the language, context and audience is relative, local and subjective and not universal to all people or groups.