Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Pogo]

...<snip>...

It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in anything.
I believe it will not rain today. That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".

Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present". On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on. When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."

It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist". Saves time.

You are again confusing agnosticism with atheism.

Atheists share the belief that that are no gods. That is a belief that is held by Atheists. It is not a "belief that is not present".

Actually, when we say someone's an Atheist, all we're saying is, "the person believes there is no god".

We do not share the belief that there are no Gods. You are incorrect. I have no evidence that there is a God, so I live my life under the assumption that there isn't.

You think God probably does not exist. You have said this yourself on more than one occasion. That is a belief. Calling it not a belief does not change what it is. Pogo posted a picture of a banana which is a very apt example of that.

You mean -- that wasn't an apple?

I don't understand, it said it was an "apple" like you're saying atheism is a "religion".

Now why would somebody want to pass a banana off as an "apple"? Is there a chimp around?

 

[Pogo]

We've gone over this since page two...

Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

I'm a number 6.

Which supports the claim that Atheism is not a lack of belief. Unless you have evidence to support your thinking God is very improbable, then that is a belief - not a lack of belief. And number 7 is entirely belief. So either that definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.

What is the problem with number 4?

It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in anything.
I believe it will not rain today. That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".

Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present". On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on. When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."

It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist". Saves time.

Then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.

Maybe you're not really an agnostic. It's just a weasel-word for people afraid of confrontation. The vast majority of agnostics hasn't thought very hard, nor done any research. That doesn't seem to be the case with you.

Interesting. So you are saying my position is faulty because I'm not ignorant enough?

It really is simple. You hold a position you have no evidence to support. How is that not a belief?

I don't get how you're inferring that. What I read is that she does not hold a particular position because there's no evidence to do so.

See also

• Unicorns
• Easter Bunny
• Great Pumpkin
  
• Leprechauns, Ghoulies, Ghosties, Longleggety Beasites
  
• etc etc etc

--- none of which anyone claims are "religions".

 

[PratchettFan]

...<snip>...

It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in anything.
I believe it will not rain today. That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".

Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present". On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on. When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."

It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist". Saves time.

You are again confusing agnosticism with atheism.

Atheists share the belief that that are no gods. That is a belief that is held by Atheists. It is not a "belief that is not present".

Actually, when we say someone's an Atheist, all we're saying is, "the person believes there is no god".

We do not share the belief that there are no Gods. You are incorrect. I have no evidence that there is a God, so I live my life under the assumption that there isn't.

You think God probably does not exist. You have said this yourself on more than one occasion. That is a belief. Calling it not a belief does not change what it is. Pogo posted a picture of a banana which is a very apt example of that.

Now, explain how I can build a Church on that foundation. You cannot define a religion with "probably not." Now lets go out and try to sell it.

knock, knock...

Who's there?

Probably no one

Who?

Why can't you define it like that?

 

[Carla_Danger]

We've gone over this since page two...

Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

I'm a number 6.

Which supports the claim that Atheism is not a lack of belief. Unless you have evidence to support your thinking God is very improbable, then that is a belief - not a lack of belief. And number 7 is entirely belief. So either that definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.

What is the problem with number 4?

It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in anything.
I believe it will not rain today. That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".

Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present". On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on. When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."

It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist". Saves time.

Then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.

Maybe you're not really an agnostic. It's just a weasel-word for people afraid of confrontation. The vast majority of agnostics hasn't thought very hard, nor done any research. That doesn't seem to be the case with you.

Interesting. So you are saying my position is faulty because I'm not ignorant enough?

It really is simple. You hold a position you have no evidence to support. How is that not a belief?

You should take that as a compliment. It's also interesting that you get a little touchy when someones tries to define your agnosticism.

Now I have a question for you. Do you believe that there's any one person living, who has all the answers?
That is a yes or no question.

 

[PratchettFan]

...<snip>...

It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in anything.
I believe it will not rain today. That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".

Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present". On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on. When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."

It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist". Saves time.

You are again confusing agnosticism with atheism.

Atheists share the belief that that are no gods. That is a belief that is held by Atheists. It is not a "belief that is not present".

Actually, when we say someone's an Atheist, all we're saying is, "the person believes there is no god".

We do not share the belief that there are no Gods. You are incorrect. I have no evidence that there is a God, so I live my life under the assumption that there isn't.

You think God probably does not exist. You have said this yourself on more than one occasion. That is a belief. Calling it not a belief does not change what it is. Pogo posted a picture of a banana which is a very apt example of that.

You mean -- that wasn't an apple?

I don't understand, it said it was an "apple" like you're saying atheism is a "religion".

Now why would somebody want to pass a banana off as an "apple"? Is there a chimp around?

No. It wasn't. Calling it an apple did not make it an apple. That is what I have been saying to you. Calling a belief a non-belief does not make it a non-belief. Perhaps it would have been more direct if rather than saying "I'm an apple" it just said "I'm not a banana". Either way it's the same. If the definition does not fit reality, it is the definition that's wrong. If the definition is held out as correct despite reality, then it is dogma.

 

[PratchettFan]

Which supports the claim that Atheism is not a lack of belief. Unless you have evidence to support your thinking God is very improbable, then that is a belief - not a lack of belief. And number 7 is entirely belief. So either that definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.

What is the problem with number 4?

It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in anything.
I believe it will not rain today. That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".

Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present". On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on. When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."

It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist". Saves time.

Then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.

Maybe you're not really an agnostic. It's just a weasel-word for people afraid of confrontation. The vast majority of agnostics hasn't thought very hard, nor done any research. That doesn't seem to be the case with you.

Interesting. So you are saying my position is faulty because I'm not ignorant enough?

It really is simple. You hold a position you have no evidence to support. How is that not a belief?

You should take that as a compliment. It's also interesting that you get a little touchy when someones tries to define your agnosticism.

Now I have a question for you. Do you believe that there's any one person living, who has all the answers?
That is a yes or no question.

I was amused, not irritated. No one has ever complained about me being too well informed before.

No. No one has all the answers. In this arena I would go further though. No one has any answers. There is not a shred of valid evidence upon which to establish any conclusion of any kind - save that there is no evidence. In Dawkins scale, the only difference between number 6 and number two is which side of the scale you're on.

 

[Carla_Danger]

In my opinion, to fit the Dawkins description of an agnostic, would be the same as a person not knowing if purple monsters live at the bottom of the ocean, because they've never really given it much thought, one way or another.

 

[PratchettFan]

Which supports the claim that Atheism is not a lack of belief. Unless you have evidence to support your thinking God is very improbable, then that is a belief - not a lack of belief. And number 7 is entirely belief. So either that definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.

What is the problem with number 4?

It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in anything.
I believe it will not rain today. That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".

Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present". On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on. When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."

It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist". Saves time.

Then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.

Maybe you're not really an agnostic. It's just a weasel-word for people afraid of confrontation. The vast majority of agnostics hasn't thought very hard, nor done any research. That doesn't seem to be the case with you.

Interesting. So you are saying my position is faulty because I'm not ignorant enough?

It really is simple. You hold a position you have no evidence to support. How is that not a belief?

I don't get how you're inferring that. What I read is that she does not hold a particular position because there's no evidence to do so.

See also

• Unicorns
• Easter Bunny
• Great Pumpkin
  
• Leprechauns, Ghoulies, Ghosties, Longleggety Beasites
  
• etc etc etc

--- none of which anyone claims are "religions".

She says she thinks there probably is not a God. How is that not a particular position? What evidence has she or anyone presented to support that?

 

[PratchettFan]

In my opinion, to fit the Dawkins description of an agnostic, would be the same as a person not knowing if purple monsters live at the bottom of the ocean, because they've never really given it much thought, one way or another.

I don't see why. I have given it considerable thought and I have concluded the evidence does not support either side of the issue. In the total absence of evidence, no belief is superior to another. IOW, your blind guess is as good as my blind guess.

 

[Pogo]

It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in anything.
I believe it will not rain today. That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".

Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present". On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on. When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."

It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist". Saves time.

Then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.

Maybe you're not really an agnostic. It's just a weasel-word for people afraid of confrontation. The vast majority of agnostics hasn't thought very hard, nor done any research. That doesn't seem to be the case with you.

Interesting. So you are saying my position is faulty because I'm not ignorant enough?

It really is simple. You hold a position you have no evidence to support. How is that not a belief?

I don't get how you're inferring that. What I read is that she does not hold a particular position because there's no evidence to do so.

See also

• Unicorns
• Easter Bunny
• Great Pumpkin
  
• Leprechauns, Ghoulies, Ghosties, Longleggety Beasites
  
• etc etc etc

--- none of which anyone claims are "religions".

She says she thinks there probably is not a God. How is that not a particular position? What evidence has she or anyone presented to support that?

The key word is "probably". Probably is not an absolute.

 

[Pogo]

...<snip>...

It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in anything.
I believe it will not rain today. That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".

Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present". On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on. When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."

It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist". Saves time.

You are again confusing agnosticism with atheism.

Atheists share the belief that that are no gods. That is a belief that is held by Atheists. It is not a "belief that is not present".

Actually, when we say someone's an Atheist, all we're saying is, "the person believes there is no god".

We do not share the belief that there are no Gods. You are incorrect. I have no evidence that there is a God, so I live my life under the assumption that there isn't.

You think God probably does not exist. You have said this yourself on more than one occasion. That is a belief. Calling it not a belief does not change what it is. Pogo posted a picture of a banana which is a very apt example of that.

You mean -- that wasn't an apple?

I don't understand, it said it was an "apple" like you're saying atheism is a "religion".

Now why would somebody want to pass a banana off as an "apple"? Is there a chimp around?

No. It wasn't. Calling it an apple did not make it an apple. That is what I have been saying to you. Calling a belief a non-belief does not make it a non-belief. Perhaps it would have been more direct if rather than saying "I'm an apple" it just said "I'm not a banana". Either way it's the same. If the definition does not fit reality, it is the definition that's wrong. If the definition is held out as correct despite reality, then it is dogma.

My post was entirely allegorical. You get that doncha?

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Pogo, sorry, I thought you just said that religion was about the "otherworld"
and politics was about the real world. So when i communicate with YOU it only makes
sense to focus on what YOU think is real and important and makes sense.

Otherwise, there seems little sense in talking about nothing.

Pogo, the beliefs someone has affect whatever we talk about.
So when I talk with YOU, the issue is where YOUR beliefs and mine intersect.

THAT is the focus, "independent" of WHAT subjects we discuss and share input and perceptions of.

So I am really focused on YOUR beliefs when I am talking with YOU.
So if YOU tell me that the things in religion are some other world and not relevant to this one.
WTF is the point of talking about nonexisting things?

OF COURSE I am going to follow what YOU find relevant to talk about and focus there!
Pogo, it is still about YOUR beliefs and YOUR priorities if I am getting to understand
YOUR beliefs. It only makes sense to talk about things that are relevant and critical to YOU.

You are going to perceive and paint all things, real or imagined,
using your worldview and ways of seeing and saying things.

Is that more clear? Sorry if it wasn't.

With each person it is different. If someone really sees the world and humanity's future
in terms of the Bible, of course that is the language we are going to use to discuss what's going on.

If you and I are more concerned about reforms and sustainable systems that are going to
save the planet logistically, of course, that is where we are going to focus.

The same issue of "faith in justice" "faith in humanity" "faith in things to change for the better"
are STILL going to come up in whatever context we pick. It just makes sense to focus on
a context where we have a chance to agree on taking real steps in the real world.

That's what really matters anyway. The religious exercises are an allegory or metaphor
to understand the same concepts in the secular world we need to agree on to work on real change together.

If you can go straight into reality and discuss and resolve the same issues as "symbolized" in religion,
why not go straight into the application to real world change? That's the real point anyway, we don't need to
argue about symbolism if we can discuss substance directly! Thanks Pogo! I appreciate your clarity on this.

Hi Emily

I'm still going to insist that "politics" and "religion" have nothing to do with each other and that conflating them only serves to muddy the waters as long as we grope for definitions of either.

To oversimplify to a nice sound bite: Politics addresses the machinations of the world; Religion addresses the machinations of the otherworld.
Ideally never the twain shall meet.

OKAY then I would REALLY Say we need to be discussing political beliefs then.
Since that's what applies to the real world.

What I find is key, is if people believe in Retributive Justice or Restorative Justice.

How we relate and whether we can work together is most determined by that,
and what people/groups you can or cannot forgive and work with.

Once you align on where you can relate, everything else can work out and follow from there.

People with different views of Justice will fight and impose on each other.
So that is the key question, and the key to the answer is to what degree we are willing to forgive,
and what things can we not forgive but will project blame and demand punishment instead of correction and prevention.

Emily I know you mean well and have positive intentions but if I may say, you're a bit obsessed when you try to shunt every topic back into the politics of government and healthcare.

Sorry but this simply is not a political thread but a philosophical one on the aspects of religion and religious philosophies. That's a personal and individual field of thought, not a public or government-structure one. You seem to be trying to mix apples and oranges.

 

[sealybobo]

Hi Pogo, sorry, I thought you just said that religion was about the "otherworld"
and politics was about the real world. So when i communicate with YOU it only makes
sense to focus on what YOU think is real and important and makes sense.

Otherwise, there seems little sense in talking about nothing.

Pogo, the beliefs someone has affect whatever we talk about.
So when I talk with YOU, the issue is where YOUR beliefs and mine intersect.

I try to point this out to theists who are anti gay who say being gay is a choice. I try to explain to them that what they just said is only true for them. So in a way anyone who thinks being gay is a choice, whether they know it or not, is a bi sexual. They may choose not to sleep with the same sex, but to them not doing so is a choice. Maybe because their church, society and parents told them it was wrong but regardless, they are a bi who chooses to be straight.

Now as me if I could ever choose another man. Answer is no.

Now ask Richard Simmons if he could ever be with a woman.

The gays who get guilted into pretending to be straight, like Michelle bachman's husband, he is probably a bi who leans way to the gay. Or he is only fooling himself. It is possible he's a self loathing full on gay who's convinced if he goes gay he'll go to hell so he says in a sexless marriage with Michelle.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hey Asaratis! I think you hit on what the issue is.

A. If you define Atheism as the BELIEF there is no god(s) period. As an absolute that is either proven or is true without being proven, etc. you are RIGHT that is a belief and people who share this belief share a religion.

B. However, some people do not BELIEVE "there is no god" but just don't BELIEVE in looking at the world that way through the language and symbolism of a personified God. So this is different from BELIEVING there is NOT something.

Can we agree to call this a NONTHEISTIC approach, where it is NOT a religion.

So A is like if you speak Spanish as your primary language in which you think your thoughts,
then you are a Spanish speaker and that is your LANGUAGE.

And B is like if you do NOT speak Spanish then you are a non-Spanish speaker and it is NOT your language.
That doesn't mean "nonspanish" is your "language" because it is a general term for any language that isn't Spanish.

So I am asking could we resolve this issue by distinguishing
which people are the type under
A. where Atheism is worldviews built around actually believing without question there is not a god or gods, which takes faith that is true with or without proof, as many will say it is proven just like those who think God is proven by the Bible.
Anyone with knowledge of logic understands that God can neither be proven nor proven, but both assertions are based on faith. Those who cannot see this, really BELIEVE either God exists, period, or God does not, period, as an absolute belief.
These are VERY RARE as most people will admit upon questioning that we really don't know and could all be wrong.

B. where Nontheism is a general category for anyone who does not believe in personifying God (or Jesus) as a finite
symbol or being, but may still be okay with equivalent beliefs in Universal Laws of Life, Truth, Wisdom, Justice, Conscience, Nature, etc. that are related to these principles, but not expressed in personified form like a deity or symbolic religious figure.

This is not a religion in itself, but a branch of systems or beliefs based on natural laws instead of spiritual religious authority.

There is also C for people who are multilingual, or can speak to audiences of different religions similar to translating
between languages.

I consider myself multilingual as I can speak the same language as a theist/Christian, Constitutionalist, nontheist/atheist/secular humanist (and some Buddhist though I have a heavy "accent" and sound too Western or
Christian for traditional Buddhists the same way I sound too Buddhist or secular/new age for traditional Christians).

So I have an accent, in the way I use terms interchangeably from one system to another (such as relating "sin" with "karma," and the cycle of "retribution") but at least I can understand and speak the "language" and interpret/understand the concepts.

Asaratis, are you okay with distinguishing the difference between A and B?
Most people especially Agnostics would fall under B, as nontheists who look at the world in secular terms of
science and natural laws, and don't necessarily relate to religious language using deified symbols or personified figures.

......<snip>

I wish it was so I could go to services and get the tax write offs.

It probably upsets some of us because it is simply not true.

1. Atheism takes faith / is a religion.
   Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
   
   Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
   
   Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion.
   
   “To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.” – Geoff Mather

Atheism is not the lack of belief in a god or gods. That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.

Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist. That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism. Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.

 

[emilynghiem]

Wow sealybobo, you bring up a difficult issue I have just recently been making some breakthroughs in myself.

A. When speaking with such theists, it is DEFINITELY important to them to
1. cite the scriptures as the source they respect so you are speaking to them using their language
2. invoke the spirit of the laws as a FELLOW believer so they know you are with them and not against them.

if you don't meet both the spirit and the letter of the law they commit to follow,
they will not hear your words. They will see you as outside, an adversary trying to speak falsely to deceive
and make them stumble.

Even if I do both 1 and 2, if they do not BELIEVE I am truly speaking truth, but
come as a false teacher abusing 1 and 2 to trick them and cause division or confusion,
they will still reject what I am saying.

So even the fellow Christians trying to resolve this with fellow believers have difficulty!

B. What I find works is citing the passage that
some Eunuchs are made by God and some by man.

And explaining this doesn't mean people cannot change, it doesn't mean once you are born that
way physically that's it.

it just means Spiritually you are meant to be born a certain way, and/or meant to change if that happens.

If God's will is supreme and in control, then all this must be following God's plan, changes or not.

And it helps to cite Christians who have found that either
a. they were meant to change, and acknowledge this is a valid path
b. they weren't meant to change, and this happens also!

BOTH can happen, it is NOT either/or,
all one way or another.

Sealybobo the disadvantage you have is if you do not believe
in either #1 or #2 so you do not relate to such theists as your peers.

The Biblical way to rebuke our fellow peers is given in scripture
Matthew 18:15-20, which I apply in these cases as trying to
correct someone from "bearing false witness".

Even fellow Christians have trouble rebuking their own using this
which is the tried and true method if any such correction is going to be heard and received!

So if even fellow Christians cannot reel and reign in all members of the flock,
of course, someone seen as coming from the outside as an adversary to be opposed
is not going to be heard.

Please leave it to the fellow Christians to rebuke fellow members,
and instead of rejecting them, support them in succeeding.

As we grow together in agreement, these things will weed themselves out.
There are enough Christians who are supporting the understanding
that there are different paths going on, and don't negate each other.

Christians would have to agree among each other first,
and the rest will work itself out.

There is both a language barrier and a faith barrier.
And as I said before, the worst barrier is when people do not forgive
each other, then the changes cannot take place in an environment of
opposition, rejection and fear. Changes occur mutually between people
in relationship with each other, so both must be equally open to
receive the change for it to manifest fully. The fear and division
blocks this process when people aren't ready for mutual change.

I try to point this out to theists who are anti gay who say being gay is a choice. I try to explain to them that what they just said is only true for them. So in a way anyone who thinks being gay is a choice, whether they know it or not, is a bi sexual. They may choose not to sleep with the same sex, but to them not doing so is a choice. Maybe because their church, society and parents told them it was wrong but regardless, they are a bi who chooses to be straight.

Now as me if I could ever choose another man. Answer is no.

Now ask Richard Simmons if he could ever be with a woman.

The gays who get guilted into pretending to be straight, like Michelle bachman's husband, he is probably a bi who leans way to the gay. Or he is only fooling himself. It is possible he's a self loathing full on gay who's convinced if he goes gay he'll go to hell so he says in a sexless marriage with Michelle.

 

[emilynghiem]

No. It wasn't. Calling it an apple did not make it an apple. That is what I have been saying to you. Calling a belief a non-belief does not make it a non-belief. Perhaps it would have been more direct if rather than saying "I'm an apple" it just said "I'm not a banana". Either way it's the same. If the definition does not fit reality, it is the definition that's wrong. If the definition is held out as correct despite reality, then it is dogma.

Hi PratchettFan: Can I ask you to look at my reply to Asaratis and maybe help restate that better if you can?

Do you agree we'd be better to make a distinction between:

A. Atheism as a BELIEF there absolutely is NO god or gods, with or without proof, period.
And acknowledge this is very rare, as most people will admit they are actually agnostic and don't know for sure
since we could be wrong, or what we think or know could change, etc.

B. Nontheism as not a belief but a general description of people or systems that don't personify God
but view and describe Life and the World in SECULAR terms or natural laws without religious symbolism

Why argue about A if so few people really fit this category,
and most are either B or transition in that direction?

 

[PratchettFan]

Then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.

Maybe you're not really an agnostic. It's just a weasel-word for people afraid of confrontation. The vast majority of agnostics hasn't thought very hard, nor done any research. That doesn't seem to be the case with you.

Interesting. So you are saying my position is faulty because I'm not ignorant enough?

It really is simple. You hold a position you have no evidence to support. How is that not a belief?

I don't get how you're inferring that. What I read is that she does not hold a particular position because there's no evidence to do so.

See also

• Unicorns
• Easter Bunny
• Great Pumpkin
  
• Leprechauns, Ghoulies, Ghosties, Longleggety Beasites
  
• etc etc etc

--- none of which anyone claims are "religions".

She says she thinks there probably is not a God. How is that not a particular position? What evidence has she or anyone presented to support that?

The key word is "probably". Probably is not an absolute.

So what? It's still a position made with no evidence.

 

[PratchettFan]

You are again confusing agnosticism with atheism.

Atheists share the belief that that are no gods. That is a belief that is held by Atheists. It is not a "belief that is not present".

Actually, when we say someone's an Atheist, all we're saying is, "the person believes there is no god".

We do not share the belief that there are no Gods. You are incorrect. I have no evidence that there is a God, so I live my life under the assumption that there isn't.

You think God probably does not exist. You have said this yourself on more than one occasion. That is a belief. Calling it not a belief does not change what it is. Pogo posted a picture of a banana which is a very apt example of that.

You mean -- that wasn't an apple?

I don't understand, it said it was an "apple" like you're saying atheism is a "religion".

Now why would somebody want to pass a banana off as an "apple"? Is there a chimp around?

No. It wasn't. Calling it an apple did not make it an apple. That is what I have been saying to you. Calling a belief a non-belief does not make it a non-belief. Perhaps it would have been more direct if rather than saying "I'm an apple" it just said "I'm not a banana". Either way it's the same. If the definition does not fit reality, it is the definition that's wrong. If the definition is held out as correct despite reality, then it is dogma.

My post was entirely allegorical. You get that doncha?

And...?

 

[emilynghiem]

No. No one has all the answers. In this arena I would go further though. No one has any answers. There is not a shred of valid evidence upon which to establish any conclusion of any kind - save that there is no evidence. In Dawkins scale, the only difference between number 6 and number two is which side of the scale you're on.

In math, when we use labels such as 6 and 2, we AGREE what they mean.
* * * * * * is what 6 means
* * is what 2 means.
There is also "absolute value" where -6 and 6 both have "absolute value of 6";
but this does NOT mean they are the same!

Why not apply the same approach to agreeing what symbols in religion mean?

In one context, God may refer to forces of Life, laws of Nature, unconditional Love connecting all humanity, etc.
God's will may mean the ideal or greater good for all humanity, perfect good will driving society to reach maturity and peace.

For Jesus, one context may mean spiritual salvation or liberation from the cycles of human suffering and retribution or karma.
Another may mean Equal Justice, Social Justice, Restorative Justice, Justice with Mercy, Peace and Justice.
But to the person taking an OT approach that God means judgment and punishment, Jesus may mean Retributive Justice.

What do we MEAN by these symbols?
Do we see God or Jesus as negative or positive?

In math, this makes a HUGE difference.

You cannot simply equate -3 with +3 just because they "relatively" have the same "absolute value" on opposite sides of the scale.

How can we ALIGN our variables with the values we agree they represent,
so we can at least communicate the same meanings?

 

[PratchettFan]

No. It wasn't. Calling it an apple did not make it an apple. That is what I have been saying to you. Calling a belief a non-belief does not make it a non-belief. Perhaps it would have been more direct if rather than saying "I'm an apple" it just said "I'm not a banana". Either way it's the same. If the definition does not fit reality, it is the definition that's wrong. If the definition is held out as correct despite reality, then it is dogma.

Hi PratchettFan: Can I ask you to look at my reply to Asaratis and maybe help restate that better if you can?

Do you agree we'd be better to make a distinction between:

A. Atheism as a BELIEF there absolutely is NO god or gods, with or without proof, period.
And acknowledge this is very rare, as most people will admit they are actually agnostic and don't know for sure
since we could be wrong, or what we think or know could change, etc.

B. Nontheism as not a belief but a general description of people or systems that don't personify God
but view and describe Life and the World in SECULAR terms or natural laws without religious symbolism

Why argue about A if so few people really fit this category,
and most are either B or transition in that direction?

I wouldn't argue either. I think attempting to narrowly define an entire group is both pointless and dogmatic. And, to be frank, I don't think there are any non-theists currently on this board. At least none that are posting anything. It isn't about definitions, it is about behavior. Let me expand on that and I warn you it might get a bit wordy, but it also deals with this question that was brought up earlier as to just what is in it for us.

My wife is a non-smoker. By that I mean she has never so much as taken a single drag on a cigarette. She understands all of the bad stuff that can happen, but having never smoked she has no concept at all of the good stuff. I started smoking about two weeks into my first tour in Vietnam. I put out my last cigarette at 11:59 pm 12/31/1979. I am an ex-smoker, not a non-smoker. If my wife were to take a drag it would only confirm for her that she doesn't smoke. If I were to take a drag I would be at two packs a day within a week. As an ex-smoker I not only understand what is bad but also what is good about smoking. I get the attraction. Therefore, I see cigarettes as a direct threat to me while my wife sees them as an annoyance.

My parents were Christians. I went to Sunday school, learned Jesus Loves Me, did finger paintings of the cross, etc. Around the age of 9 or 10 I actually stopped and listened to what was being said and, for the first time in my life, grasped what it was being said. I was stunned. I could not then and to this day cannot understand why anyone would believe it. It is incomprehensible to me. Not the concepts of Christianity but that anyone would believe those concepts for a second. I am a non-Christian in the same way my wife is a non-smoker. I have never believed. However, in reading the posts of the various Atheists on this board I see people who were Christians into their 40's, attending religious schools, etc. They are ex-Christians in the same way I am an ex-smoker. So they get the attraction of it and that makes it a personal threat.

So of course it has to be non-belief, because otherwise they might be engaging in the same behavior they have rejected. The problem is that belief is a human thing, not a Christian thing. We are a species of believers. If we weren't we never would have developed the scientific method. The irony is that this need for it to be non-belief is what is turning Atheism into a religion. If I just say I believe there is no God, that stops it right there. Let's go play some golf. It is this insistence that some narrow definition be followed and evidence be ignored in order to match that definition which creates the religious aspect. It's not about the belief, its all about the behavior.