Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[asaratis]

Dear @emilynghiem ,

DT above expresses nothing more than self aggrandizement coupled with intentional veiling of his apparent inability to cope with those "beneath him" that logically challenge his errant postings and surreal re-definitions of terms that have been accepted for decades. This is very much akin to the liberals changing their own label from liberal to progressive in an attempt to escape the negative connotations now attached to liberal. Ignoring the opposition is also another tactic used exhaustively by liberals. It bears no resemblance to that which it precludes; productive dialog that often leads to self improvement and understanding.

Just as does hatred, ignoring people has little effect on the target.

Regards,

asaratis

Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.

Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.

Get a load of this, oh brilliant one. I don't really promote Christianity. I don't really care what you believe. I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.

Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.

Wrong again. I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist. I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion. What you believe is up to you.

So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.

No, I didn't say that. Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious. Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities. If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Hollie
I see the local gods or laws as independent states in a union.
The point of the central Constitution is to empower all the other states to be sovereign,
while making sure the central federal govt is checked by its own Constitutional limits.

The point of having a central govt is NOT to control or dominate all the other states as subservient.

I see the role of Christianity the same way: there is supposed to be Equal Justice for all,
and within that collective agreement on Truth, Justice and Peace, there are local Tribes
where all the other Lords or Laws, Authorities or Associations that people affiliate with
are equal partners whose purpose is to represent the interests of their respective populations.

The goal is not dominance but collaboration between equals.
In this way, there is no male nor female, Jew nor Gentiles, bond nor free.
But all are one in Christ Jesus: by our collective conscience, we reach agreement
in the spirit of Truth and Justice to bring peace among all tribes and nations of the earth,
brought to full fruition as equals.

A tree is not a deity. Religions deal with deities. Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.

DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.

No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs. Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist. DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster. Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.

If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic. If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist. The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.

Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion. I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God. I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me. If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.

You're right, religions deal with deities, atheism does not. Hope that helps.

Of course it does! You believe they do not exist.

But, by definition, in order for it to be a religion, you have to worship some sort of superhuman, controlling power, or God/Gods.

Wrong. You don't have to worship. You just have to have a belief regarding the existence of a deity. I know Christians that never worship, never go to church and never pray. They are still believers in God.

There are many asserted gods. There's no reason anyone should accept belief in your angry, serial mass murderer gods as opposed to other, innocuous and well behaved gods.

For you believers, isn't belief in gods all about what you can get from them in exchange for behavior that's reliably in concert with the goals of the cult sponsoring those gods?

 

[Hollie]

Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.

Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.

Get a load of this, oh brilliant one. I don't really promote Christianity. I don't really care what you believe. I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.

Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.

Wrong again. I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist. I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion. What you believe is up to you.

So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.

No, I didn't say that. Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious. Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities. If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.

False. One can conclude that your gods don't exist without any requirement of belief.

On the other hand, Cults, (especially religious based cults), have a presumption of "belief" in supernatural entities in spite of a complete lack of evidence for such magical, supernatural entities.

 

[MaryL]

Atheism is to religion what soup is to salad. Apples to oranges. Please.

 

[emilynghiem]

There are many asserted gods. There's no reason anyone should accept belief in your angry, serial mass murderer gods as opposed to other, innocuous and well behaved gods.

NOTE: There are many Christians who do not believe in or teach that god is an "angry serial mass murderer god" out to judge and punish humanity.

Thus "There's no reason anyone should TEACH" that god is an "angry serial mass murderer"
and TEACH that is what Christianity teaches, including you Hollie!

Why are you teaching that the Christian God has to mean this? Especially if you claim not to believe it?

Why not be like these Christian authors who teach that Christianity and God are not about judgment punishment and murder:
1. Rebecca Parker "Saving Paradise" who teaches that the TRUE Christian message
got corrupted by the political crusades for power killing in the name of the Cross which started 1000 years
AFTER the early church which taught Christianity as peace on earth and brotherhood of man.
2. Carlton Pearson "Gospel of Inclusion" who gave up his fundamental preaching and started teaching that
God's message in the Bible is about INCLUSION including gays and atheists and there is no condemnation to hell,
which he teaches contradicts the Bible's message of salvation for all humanity.
3. Unitarian Universalists who teach cultural inclusion and respect for diversity in the world community
4. Bahai who teach that all the religious leaders came to expand humanity's growth to the next level
and that all religions add to knowledge for humanity to learn from history and work toward unity and equality

Hollie, there are many ways to teach this same God as
NOT being that "angry serial mass murderer"

Would you teach math by arguing against the people
teaching it wrong? Why not find the people teaching
math correctly, and use the right answers to correct the wrongs?

 

[emilynghiem]

False. One can conclude that your gods don't exist without any requirement of belief.

On the other hand, Cults, (especially religious based cults), have a presumption of "belief" in supernatural entities in spite of a complete lack of evidence for such magical, supernatural entities.

Hi Hollie:
1. RE: Christianity
I believe that my friend Ray Hill, who is an atheist and does not believe in any personified God or Jesus,
is practicing Christianity when he practices and teaches unconditional compassion and forgiveness,
including "free grace," in reaching out and helping others for humanity sake, peace and justice.

Ray believes in Peace and Justice by living by Restorative Justice, which I recognize as the spirit of Christ Jesus.
Even though Ray is fully atheist, his spirit and practice is consistent with Christianity, but merely expressed in secular form.

(where Ray may fall short, and not have full understanding or faith in some areas,
is no more or less than my other Christian friends who fall short of perfect practice or understanding either.)

So my understanding of Christianity is spiritually broader and more inclusive than
whatever you are calling Christianity.

We are not even talking about the same things if I can see how an atheist can be practicing
it in spirit and be my neighbor in Christ, if not my superior for being better at it than I am.

2. As for Cults having a belief in something magical:

Do you, Hollie, believe in Justice?
Isn't our govt and court system based on faith in Justice?
Have we ever seen Justice or proven it exists?

How is this different from worshipping a deity?
Is the legal system and all the bar associations, praying to judges on the bench for relief and granting
whatever is prayed for, a huge collective cult?

 

[emilynghiem]

Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.

Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.

Get a load of this, oh brilliant one. I don't really promote Christianity. I don't really care what you believe. I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.

Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.

Wrong again. I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist. I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion. What you believe is up to you.

So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.

No, I didn't say that. Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious. Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities. If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.

Hi Asaratis: I think you and I are using the terms religion/religious differently.
I think it is throwing Hollie, Derideo_Te, Sealybobo off to use religious to mean having their ways, views, thoughts or beliefs.

I am using religious to mean when people GET religious about something.
My mother gets religious about her Buddhism, even though Buddhism itself is not a religion to many people;
to others it is.

You are using religious/religion to mean having and holding a belief,
which our friends here have already said they do not relate to.

I think it is wiser we find more specific terms we can agree to,
rather than keep arguing over terms we don't agree to.

Frankly, I'd rather address whatever mutual rejection is going on
between anti-theist, anti-Christian, or anti-atheist attitudes towards each other.

If we resolve that, maybe the other issues of how to straighten out like terms
will work themselves out.

What I see getting in the way is all the anti- attitude causing mutual rejection.

I see everyone here as committed to truth and fully articulate and intelligent
enough to tell me what is wrong and what works or doesn't work to fix it.

Can we stick to what we can fix first, and even if we never agree what
religion means, that will work itself later as we go.

There are too many intelligent minds on here to get stuck on rhetoric and terminology.

I want to get to the content behind all that, and really use our minds
and highly objective discernment to sort out the REAL meat of these matters!

Thank you Hollie, Carla, Sealybobo, Asaratis
PratchettFan, QuantumWindbag and others here.

Wow! I appreciate and respect what all of you brings here
that is so important to understand. If we can work it out, we
can help others who run into these same issues. Thank you all!

 

[asaratis]

Get a load of this, oh brilliant one. I don't really promote Christianity. I don't really care what you believe. I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.

Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.

Wrong again. I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist. I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion. What you believe is up to you.

So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.

No, I didn't say that. Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious. Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities. If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.

False. One can conclude that your gods don't exist without any requirement of belief.

On the other hand, Cults, (especially religious based cults), have a presumption of "belief" in supernatural entities in spite of a complete lack of evidence for such magical, supernatural entities.

You are delusional.

A conclusion of such a thought process is a belief that you have determined what is correct. You are laughable.

 

[asaratis]

Get a load of this, oh brilliant one. I don't really promote Christianity. I don't really care what you believe. I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.

Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.

Wrong again. I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist. I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion. What you believe is up to you.

So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.

No, I didn't say that. Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious. Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities. If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.

Hi Asaratis: I think you and I are using the terms religion/religious differently.
I think it is throwing Hollie, Derideo_Te, Sealybobo off to use religious to mean having their ways, views, thoughts or beliefs.

I am using religious to mean when people GET religious about something.
My mother gets religious about her Buddhism, even though Buddhism itself is not a religion to many people;
to others it is.

You are using religious/religion to mean having and holding a belief,
which our friends here have already said they do not relate to.

I think it is wiser we find more specific terms we can agree to,
rather than keep arguing over terms we don't agree to.

Frankly, I'd rather address whatever mutual rejection is going on
between anti-theist, anti-Christian, or anti-atheist attitudes towards each other.

If we resolve that, maybe the other issues of how to straighten out like terms
will work themselves out.

What I see getting in the way is all the anti- attitude causing mutual rejection.

I see everyone here as committed to truth and fully articulate and intelligent
enough to tell me what is wrong and what works or doesn't work to fix it.

Can we stick to what we can fix first, and even if we never agree what
religion means, that will work itself later as we go.

There are too many intelligent minds on here to get stuck on rhetoric and terminology.

I want to get to the content behind all that, and really use our minds
and highly objective discernment to sort out the REAL meat of these matters!

Thank you Hollie, Carla, Sealybobo, Asaratis
PratchettFan, QuantumWindbag and others here.

Wow! I appreciate and respect what all of you brings here
that is so important to understand. If we can work it out, we
can help others who run into these same issues. Thank you all!

Yes. Some people "religiously" brush their teeth, walk their dog at certain times of day, take their medicine...ad infinitum...without their actions constituting a religion. A true religion deals with deities.

 

[dblack]

Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.

Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.

Get a load of this, oh brilliant one. I don't really promote Christianity. I don't really care what you believe. I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.

Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.

Wrong again. I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist. I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion. What you believe is up to you.

So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.

No, I didn't say that. Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious. Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities. If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.

Whatever. The point is, you're simply playing games with definitions, and going that way often paints you into a corner. If you broaden the concept of "religion" to include atheism you're just nullifying the word, and then we need something else to replace it. But it doesn't change the way things are. The point in doing this is usually political, to shift policy by manipulating meaning - ala Orwell - and it's unscrupulous because it hijacks common convictions, as represented by popular phrases and idioms, and attempts to twist their meaning. Underhanded shit, in other words.

 

[asaratis]

Get a load of this, oh brilliant one. I don't really promote Christianity. I don't really care what you believe. I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.

Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.

Wrong again. I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist. I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion. What you believe is up to you.

So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.

No, I didn't say that. Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious. Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities. If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.

Whatever. The point is, you're simply playing games with definitions, and going that way often paints you into a corner. If you broaden the concept of "religion" to include atheism you're just nullifying the word, and then we need something else to replace it. But it doesn't change the way things are. The point in doing this is usually political, to shift policy by manipulating meaning - ala Orwell - and it's unscrupulous because it hijacks common convictions, as represented by popular phrases and idioms, and attempts to twist their meaning. Underhanded shit, in other words.

The underhanded shit comes from the Atheists here trying to re-define Atheism in terms of what they and their mentors have come up with in recent years...ignoring the commonly accepted definitions established since 1570...or was it 1750?....in QW's post showing the etymology of the word "atheist"

Oh! Here it is....

Online Etymology Dictionary

atheist (n.)
1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-). The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell. [Armand Salacrou, "Certitudes et incertitudes," 1943]

 

[dblack]

Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.

Wrong again. I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist. I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion. What you believe is up to you.

So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.

No, I didn't say that. Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious. Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities. If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.

Whatever. The point is, you're simply playing games with definitions, and going that way often paints you into a corner. If you broaden the concept of "religion" to include atheism you're just nullifying the word, and then we need something else to replace it. But it doesn't change the way things are. The point in doing this is usually political, to shift policy by manipulating meaning - ala Orwell - and it's unscrupulous because it hijacks common convictions, as represented by popular phrases and idioms, and attempts to twist their meaning. Underhanded shit, in other words.

The underhanded shit comes from the Atheists here trying to re-define Atheism in terms of what they and their mentors have come up with in recent years...ignoring the commonly accepted definitions established since 1570...or was it 1750?....in QW's post showing the etymology of the word "atheist"

Oh! Here it is....

Online Etymology Dictionary

atheist (n.)
1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-). The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell. [Armand Salacrou, "Certitudes et incertitudes," 1943]

uh.... nice quote. Doesn't really seem to support your assertion that any belief about the existence of deities should be considered a "religion" however. Which is a merely dumb if borne of ignorance, dishonest otherwise.

 

[asaratis]

Wrong again. I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist. I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion. What you believe is up to you.

So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.

No, I didn't say that. Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious. Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities. If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.

Whatever. The point is, you're simply playing games with definitions, and going that way often paints you into a corner. If you broaden the concept of "religion" to include atheism you're just nullifying the word, and then we need something else to replace it. But it doesn't change the way things are. The point in doing this is usually political, to shift policy by manipulating meaning - ala Orwell - and it's unscrupulous because it hijacks common convictions, as represented by popular phrases and idioms, and attempts to twist their meaning. Underhanded shit, in other words.

The underhanded shit comes from the Atheists here trying to re-define Atheism in terms of what they and their mentors have come up with in recent years...ignoring the commonly accepted definitions established since 1570...or was it 1750?....in QW's post showing the etymology of the word "atheist"

Oh! Here it is....

Online Etymology Dictionary

atheist (n.)
1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-). The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell. [Armand Salacrou, "Certitudes et incertitudes," 1943]

uh.... nice quote. Doesn't really seem to support your assertion that any belief about the existence of deities should be considered a "religion" however. Which is a merely dumb if borne of ignorance, dishonest otherwise.

Try this:
The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts

Religion/Sect/ Belief System	Origins & History	Adherents Worldwide (approx.)	God(s) and Universe	Human Situation and Life's Purpose	Afterlife	Practices	Texts	More Info
Aladura	Various prophet-healing churches founded since c.1918, West Nigeria.	1 million	Generally monotheistic; a mix of Anglican, Pentecostal and traditional African beliefs.	Strong emphasis on healing and salvation in this life through prayer, fasting and other rituals.	Not emphasized; views vary.	Spiritual healing is central. Mix of Anglican and African rituals; a prophet plays a prominent role.	None	ReligionFacts article Best-Selling Aladura books (from Amazon)
Asatru	Revival of Norse and Germanic paganism, 1970s Scandinavia and USA.	unknown	Polytheistic, Norse gods and goddesses, Norse creation myths.	Salvation or redemption not emphasized. Fatalistic view of universe.	Valhalla (heaven) for death in battle; Hel (peaceful place) for most; Hifhel (hell) for the very evil.	Sacrifice of food or drink, toast to the gods, shamanism (less frequently), celebration of solstice holidays. Nine Noble Virtues is moral code.	Eddas (Norse epics); the Havamal (proverbs attributed to Odin)	ReligionFacts article Best-Selling Asatru books (from Amazon)
Atheism	Appears throughout history (including ancient Greek philosophy), but especially after the Enlightenment (19th cent).	1.1 billion (this figure includes agnostic and non-religious, which tend to be grouped on surveys)	There is no God or divine being. Beliefs about the universe usually based on latest scientific findings.	Since there is no afterlife, this one life is of great importance. Only humans can help themselves and each other solve the world's problems.	none	none	Influential works include those by Marx, Freud, Feuerbach, and Voltaire. Notable modern authors include Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan.	Best-Selling Atheism books (from Amazon)
Baha'i Faith	Founded by Bahá'u'lláh, 1863, Tehran, Iran.	5-7 million	One God, who has revealed himself progressively through major world religions.	The soul is eternal and essentially good. Purpose of life is to develop spiritually and draw closer to God.	Soul separates from the body and begins a journey towards or away from God. Heaven and hell are states of being.	Daily prayer, avoidance of intoxicants, scripture reading, hard work, education, work for social justice and equality.	Writings of Bahá'u'lláh and other Bahá'í leaders.	ReligionFacts section Best-Selling Bahai books (from Amazon)
Bahai history	Bahai fast facts	Bahai beliefs in God	Bahai on human nature	Bahai and the afterlife	Bahai practices	Bahai texts	Bahai symbols
Bön	Indigenous religion of Tibet.	100,000	Nontheistic Buddhism, but meditation on peaceful and wrathful deities.	Purpose is to gain enlightenment.	Reincarnation until gain enlightenment	Meditation on mandalas and Tibetan deities, astrology, monastic life.	Bonpo canon	ReligionFacts article Best-Selling Bon books (from Amazon)
Buddhism	Founded by Siddharta Gautama (the Buddha) in c. 520 BC, NE India.	360 million	Varies: Theravada atheistic; Mahayana more polytheistic. Buddha taught nothing is permanent.	Purpose is to avoid suffering and gain enlightenment and release from cycle of rebirth, or at least attain a better rebirth by gaining merit.	Reincarnation (understood differently than in Hinduism, with no surviving soul) until gain enlightenment	Meditation, mantras, devotion to deities (in some sects), mandalas (Tibetan)	Tripitaka (Pali Canon); Mahayana sutras like the Lotus Sutra; others.	ReligionFacts section Best-Selling Buddhism books (from Amazon)
Buddhism history	Buddhism fast facts	Compare Theravada and Mahayana	Human nature in Buddhism	Afterlife in Buddhism	Buddhism practices	Buddhist texts	Buddhist symbols
********************************* There's much more at the site.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi dblack: I think the trick here is to keep Asaratis use of the term religion/religious
within his context, and not apply it outside.

By his literal definition, Buddhism is also NOT a religion.

So if in your system and mine, Buddhism CAN be counted or IS counted as a religion,
clearly we are not using the words the same way as Asaratis.

This is causing confusion because we are all using the same term religion/religious
but each person uses it in different ways.

This is as confusing is if we each have a concept of 1, 2 and 3.

But some people use the symbol 2 to mean 1.
Some people use the symbol 2 to mean 3.
And here I come saying wait a minute, the same symbol 2
is being used in different contexts by different people to mean 1, 2, and 3:
so let's talk about the concept 1, 2 or 3 we mean, and let's not use the symbol 2 and argue over it.

Of course it will cause conflict if we keep using the symbol 2,
knowing that not all people are assigning the same values to that symbol.

I don't think anyone here is delusional or ill intending,
but is stubborn and used to thinking and speaking in those terms,
where it offends us if someone tries to insult us or tell us we are the ones who need to change
to their way of using these words.

If we stick to the concepts, we can agree what is what.
* when are people being religious about something as in ardently adhering to it almost superstitiously as an absolute given
or necessity to follow period, absolutely and unquestioned
* when do people think something strongly but do not consider it part of a larger collective identity or system
* when do people use religion to mean a belief system that does or does not necessarily require a deity or
supernatural explantions for things in the world -- since people here do not agree on this,
why can't we just accept if some people do or do not count deifying things or explanations as religion or not
* when do people perceive some collective belief as a religion, regardless of this reason or that reason

So what if we don't all agree, of course we don't.
But why can't we take each person's system, such as Asaratis system for him,
and Derideo Te system for him, and let each person explain what they do or do not see
and let them have that way of expressing it for themselves.

Clearly we do not use the terms atheism or religion the same way.
Hollie does not mean the same thing by Christianity that I do.

So we cannot get caught up on terms, we need to talk about the content.

Just like any other language barrier.
If gato means cat in Spanish and gateaux means cake in French,
we cannot use those sounds or it causes confusion if one person hears cake and the other hears cat.
We would have to spell out do we mean a feline animal or do we mean a baked dessert?
If we stick to the concept, we don't have to argue what gato or gateaux mean to each person.

Here it is even trickier because the words god, Gods, Christianity, religion, atheism
are the exact same words, and yet people are assigning different meanings to them that are not compatibly defined.

I value everyone's input and what we all have to share and gain from each other.
I want to get to the content behind what each person believes and how they see and say it.

I am willing to accept the fact that people may not use the same words the same way.
Why waste time, why not just find out what we do mean and stick to the meanings.

We may have to use more specific words, but that's not the same as insulting someone or saying they
are delusional or trying to deny truth. it's not either person's fault we have these preferences or biases.
these are very difficult subjects to discern these finer distinctions, so I commend everyone for at least
trying to resolve where we are talking past each other and making generalizations other people are not following.

Thanks for this. sorry for the confusion and any insult I don't think is necessary or intended. I think it is mutual
and just coming from the conflicts between how we use words differently.

Dear @emilynghiem ,

DT above expresses nothing more than self aggrandizement coupled with intentional veiling of his apparent inability to cope with those "beneath him" that logically challenge his errant postings and surreal re-definitions of terms that have been accepted for decades. This is very much akin to the liberals changing their own label from liberal to progressive in an attempt to escape the negative connotations now attached to liberal. Ignoring the opposition is also another tactic used exhaustively by liberals. It bears no resemblance to that which it precludes; productive dialog that often leads to self improvement and understanding.

Just as does hatred, ignoring people has little effect on the target.

Regards,

asaratis

Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.

Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.

Get a load of this, oh brilliant one. I don't really promote Christianity. I don't really care what you believe. I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.

Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.

Wrong again. I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist. I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion. What you believe is up to you.

So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.

 

[emilynghiem]

False. One can conclude that your gods don't exist without any requirement of belief.

Hi Hollie: Do you agree with Godel's proof that man can neither prove nor disprove the
existence or nonexistence of God?
Where God represents the absolute sum and source of all knowledge and all laws of the universe/creation,
all collective truth of all events that have ever occurred, assuming such existence exists;
man is clearly unable to contain, define or perceive of all this which God represents.
Thus we can neither prove nor disprove; all our knowledge comes from previous data, experience or perceptions
handed down from other sources, and thus could be wrong, could change or be incomplete.

Do you agree that given this definition of God, then man cannot know or prove either way,
and it is all faith based if God exists or not?

On the other hand, Cults, (especially religious based cults), have a presumption of "belief" in supernatural entities in spite of a complete lack of evidence for such magical, supernatural entities.

Hollie, since you are not one to walk away from a challenge but to call things for what they are and mean to you.
I challenge you to explain to me what you believe about Justice compared to what other people believe.
And tell me how this is or is not the equivalent of what some people believe about Jesus compared to other people.

I will start, and you can tell me if you believe similar or not.

I believe that Restorative Justice is the supreme will or ideal that humanity is driven by and meant to fulfill.
And this is the spirit and meaning of Christ Jesus.

So those, like my friend Ray Hill who is atheist believe and live by Restorative Justice
and are thus neighbors with me in Christ, the same as Christians who believe in this path of peace and justice in life.

on the other hand, people who believe in Retributive Justice without forgiveness
but seek to judge and punish are following the spirit of Antichrist. this includes
teh Christians you fault for religious abuses, for teaching a murderous merciless God,
similar to Jihadists or extreme zionists who preach armageddon.

Not all Christians are Antichrist but the ones who get the worst rap for hypocrisy
get the most publicity. So the Antichrist false christians are the most visible that give Christianity a bad name.

What do you believe about justice Hollie?

If you believe Christianity is evil and needs to be changed,
is that part of your belief about justice?

Thanks Hollie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Whatever. The point is, you're simply playing games with definitions, and going that way often paints you into a corner. If you broaden the concept of "religion" to include atheism you're just nullifying the word, and then we need something else to replace it. But it doesn't change the way things are. The point in doing this is usually political, to shift policy by manipulating meaning - ala Orwell - and it's unscrupulous because it hijacks common convictions, as represented by popular phrases and idioms, and attempts to twist their meaning. Underhanded shit, in other words.

Have you read sealybobo's posts? He is attempting to redefine agnosticism as atheism. If you have a beef with people playing games with definitions you should get after everyone who is doing it.

That said, the simple fact is that some atheists actually identify their belief as a religion, they have even started churches based on that belief. That, in and of itself, doesn't mean that all atheists think that way, but anyone who denies that reality is no different than a Young Earth Creationist.

Atheism can be religion because the definition of religion does not restrict belief to believing in a supernatural being.

1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
​

In other words, by insisting that the only valid definition of religion involves gods you are the one playing with definitions. It would also exclude a few religions that actually don't believe in gods, like Buddhism.

I leave you to pander how anyone can claim that Buddhism is a religion, yet insist that anyone who says that religion has to involve gods, and not have their head explode from the inherent contradiction.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's even more interesting than that!
Asaratis was saying Buddhism is not a religion by his view, and atheism is.

From my viewpoint the Democrat platform constitutes a political belief and religion.
But I understand some Democrats and liberals DON'T make a religion of their principles
and some DO m ake it just like a cult where you ahve to follow the leader or get ostracized from the herd.

My mother says Buddhism is not a religion, yet gets very religious about it.
She will say Christians are a religion, yet I have friends who are believers and say they do not follow a religion
and they reject the false religions and churches they see as Antichrist and not following God and the Bible.

Can you see what is going on here
people are labeling from their own viewpoint and it doesn't match someone else
so what

When I work with Asaratis I know to use his definitions for things
When I talk with Derideo or other nontheists who don't see themselves as members of a rleigious following
or collective identity I let them define their terms so I can follow their system when I talk with them

to each his own

Asaratis system has to apply just to him or else it will be flipped backwards
from peole who see Buddhism as a religioin but not atheism.
why apply the wrong system to the opposite people?
if people speak Spanish then speak spanish when talking with them
if people speak French or English, then speak using their language, accent or dialects

Brazilian and European Spanish is going to be different from Mexican Spanish
big deal

so why can't ppl's ways of using words like atheism, religion, God etc be different too
people are not perfectly the same, we don't use words or attach meanings and perceptions the same

we all have biases, why not be honest about them and work around these biases

Whatever. The point is, you're simply playing games with definitions, and going that way often paints you into a corner. If you broaden the concept of "religion" to include atheism you're just nullifying the word, and then we need something else to replace it. But it doesn't change the way things are. The point in doing this is usually political, to shift policy by manipulating meaning - ala Orwell - and it's unscrupulous because it hijacks common convictions, as represented by popular phrases and idioms, and attempts to twist their meaning. Underhanded shit, in other words.

Have you read sealybobo's posts? He is attempting to redefine agnosticism as atheism. If you have a beef with people playing games with definitions you should get after everyone who is doing it.

That said, the simple fact is that some atheists actually identify their belief as a religion, they have even started churches based on that belief. That, in and of itself, doesn't mean that all atheists think that way, but anyone who denies that reality is no different than a Young Earth Creationist.

Atheism can be religion because the definition of religion does not restrict belief to believing in a supernatural being.

1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
​

In other words, by insisting that the only valid definition of religion involves gods you are the one playing with definitions. It would also exclude a few religions that actually don't believe in gods, like Buddhism.

I leave you to pander how anyone can claim that Buddhism is a religion, yet insist that anyone who says that religion has to involve gods, and not have their head explode from the inherent contradiction.

 

[asaratis]

Hi dblack: I think the trick here is to keep Asaratis use of the term religion/religious
within his context, and not apply it outside.

By his literal definition, Buddhism is also NOT a religion.

So if in your system and mine, Buddhism CAN be counted or IS counted as a religion,
clearly we are not using the words the same way as Asaratis.

This is causing confusion because we are all using the same term religion/religious
but each person uses it in different ways.

This is as confusing is if we each have a concept of 1, 2 and 3.

But some people use the symbol 2 to mean 1.
Some people use the symbol 2 to mean 3.
And here I come saying wait a minute, the same symbol 2
is being used in different contexts by different people to mean 1, 2, and 3:
so let's talk about the concept 1, 2 or 3 we mean, and let's not use the symbol 2 and argue over it.

Of course it will cause conflict if we keep using the symbol 2,
knowing that not all people are assigning the same values to that symbol.

I don't think anyone here is delusional or ill intending,
but is stubborn and used to thinking and speaking in those terms,
where it offends us if someone tries to insult us or tell us we are the ones who need to change
to their way of using these words.

If we stick to the concepts, we can agree what is what.
* when are people being religious about something as in ardently adhering to it almost superstitiously as an absolute given
or necessity to follow period, absolutely and unquestioned
* when do people think something strongly but do not consider it part of a larger collective identity or system
* when do people use religion to mean a belief system that does or does not necessarily require a deity or
supernatural explantions for things in the world -- since people here do not agree on this,
why can't we just accept if some people do or do not count deifying things or explanations as religion or not
* when do people perceive some collective belief as a religion, regardless of this reason or that reason

So what if we don't all agree, of course we don't.
But why can't we take each person's system, such as Asaratis system for him,
and Derideo Te system for him, and let each person explain what they do or do not see
and let them have that way of expressing it for themselves.

Clearly we do not use the terms atheism or religion the same way.
Hollie does not mean the same thing by Christianity that I do.

So we cannot get caught up on terms, we need to talk about the content.

Just like any other language barrier.
If gato means cat in Spanish and gateaux means cake in French,
we cannot use those sounds or it causes confusion if one person hears cake and the other hears cat.
We would have to spell out do we mean a feline animal or do we mean a baked dessert?
If we stick to the concept, we don't have to argue what gato or gateaux mean to each person.

Here it is even trickier because the words god, Gods, Christianity, religion, atheism
are the exact same words, and yet people are assigning different meanings to them that are not compatibly defined.

I value everyone's input and what we all have to share and gain from each other.
I want to get to the content behind what each person believes and how they see and say it.

I am willing to accept the fact that people may not use the same words the same way.
Why waste time, why not just find out what we do mean and stick to the meanings.

We may have to use more specific words, but that's not the same as insulting someone or saying they
are delusional or trying to deny truth. it's not either person's fault we have these preferences or biases.
these are very difficult subjects to discern these finer distinctions, so I commend everyone for at least
trying to resolve where we are talking past each other and making generalizations other people are not following.

Thanks for this. sorry for the confusion and any insult I don't think is necessary or intended. I think it is mutual
and just coming from the conflicts between how we use words differently.

Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.

Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.

Get a load of this, oh brilliant one. I don't really promote Christianity. I don't really care what you believe. I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.

Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.

Wrong again. I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist. I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion. What you believe is up to you.

So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.

Dear @emilynghiem ,
After reading further, I must reverse my contention that Buddhism is not considered a religion. It is apparently considered a religion...even by Buddhists. It is a nontheistic religion...having no god. That does not detract from its be a totally respectable basic philosophy of life..

The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts

Buddhism Beliefs
I can't copy from this site to post the very enlightening quote of Lama Yeshe at the top of the page. Essentially it says that religion is one's basic philosophy of life, not just some dry intellectual idea. This is in support of the argument that Atheism is also a religion.


Buddhism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Hollie]

Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.

Wrong again. I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist. I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion. What you believe is up to you.

So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.

No, I didn't say that. Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious. Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities. If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.

False. One can conclude that your gods don't exist without any requirement of belief.

On the other hand, Cults, (especially religious based cults), have a presumption of "belief" in supernatural entities in spite of a complete lack of evidence for such magical, supernatural entities.

You are delusional.

A conclusion of such a thought process is a belief that you have determined what is correct. You are laughable.

I'm hardly the delusional one.

Let's remember that it is you who believes in supernatural, magical entities. It is you who is attempting to impose your belief on others. I've made the rational, reasonable conclusion that your inventions of gods are no different than other inventions of gods. All of them products of fear and superstition.

So who, really, is the delusional one?

 

[Hollie]

Hi dblack: I think the trick here is to keep Asaratis use of the term religion/religious
within his context, and not apply it outside.

By his literal definition, Buddhism is also NOT a religion.

So if in your system and mine, Buddhism CAN be counted or IS counted as a religion,
clearly we are not using the words the same way as Asaratis.

This is causing confusion because we are all using the same term religion/religious
but each person uses it in different ways.

This is as confusing is if we each have a concept of 1, 2 and 3.

But some people use the symbol 2 to mean 1.
Some people use the symbol 2 to mean 3.
And here I come saying wait a minute, the same symbol 2
is being used in different contexts by different people to mean 1, 2, and 3:
so let's talk about the concept 1, 2 or 3 we mean, and let's not use the symbol 2 and argue over it.

Of course it will cause conflict if we keep using the symbol 2,
knowing that not all people are assigning the same values to that symbol.

I don't think anyone here is delusional or ill intending,
but is stubborn and used to thinking and speaking in those terms,
where it offends us if someone tries to insult us or tell us we are the ones who need to change
to their way of using these words.

If we stick to the concepts, we can agree what is what.
* when are people being religious about something as in ardently adhering to it almost superstitiously as an absolute given
or necessity to follow period, absolutely and unquestioned
* when do people think something strongly but do not consider it part of a larger collective identity or system
* when do people use religion to mean a belief system that does or does not necessarily require a deity or
supernatural explantions for things in the world -- since people here do not agree on this,
why can't we just accept if some people do or do not count deifying things or explanations as religion or not
* when do people perceive some collective belief as a religion, regardless of this reason or that reason

So what if we don't all agree, of course we don't.
But why can't we take each person's system, such as Asaratis system for him,
and Derideo Te system for him, and let each person explain what they do or do not see
and let them have that way of expressing it for themselves.

Clearly we do not use the terms atheism or religion the same way.
Hollie does not mean the same thing by Christianity that I do.

So we cannot get caught up on terms, we need to talk about the content.

Just like any other language barrier.
If gato means cat in Spanish and gateaux means cake in French,
we cannot use those sounds or it causes confusion if one person hears cake and the other hears cat.
We would have to spell out do we mean a feline animal or do we mean a baked dessert?
If we stick to the concept, we don't have to argue what gato or gateaux mean to each person.

Here it is even trickier because the words god, Gods, Christianity, religion, atheism
are the exact same words, and yet people are assigning different meanings to them that are not compatibly defined.

I value everyone's input and what we all have to share and gain from each other.
I want to get to the content behind what each person believes and how they see and say it.

I am willing to accept the fact that people may not use the same words the same way.
Why waste time, why not just find out what we do mean and stick to the meanings.

We may have to use more specific words, but that's not the same as insulting someone or saying they
are delusional or trying to deny truth. it's not either person's fault we have these preferences or biases.
these are very difficult subjects to discern these finer distinctions, so I commend everyone for at least
trying to resolve where we are talking past each other and making generalizations other people are not following.

Thanks for this. sorry for the confusion and any insult I don't think is necessary or intended. I think it is mutual
and just coming from the conflicts between how we use words differently.

Get a load of this, oh brilliant one. I don't really promote Christianity. I don't really care what you believe. I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.

Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.

Wrong again. I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist. I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion. What you believe is up to you.

So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.

Dear @emilynghiem ,
After reading further, I must reverse my contention that Buddhism is not considered a religion. It is apparently considered a religion...even by Buddhists. It is a nontheistic religion...having no god. That does not detract from its be a totally respectable basic philosophy of life..

The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts

Buddhism Beliefs
I can't copy from this site to post the very enlightening quote of Lama Yeshe at the top of the page. Essentially it says that religion is one's basic philosophy of life, not just some dry intellectual idea. This is in support of the argument that Atheism is also a religion.


Buddhism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Cutting and pasting rote lists from wiki doesn't support your religion of "atheism is a religion".

Why not cut and paste the organized rituals, practices and traditions that define the "atheism is a religion", you are a convert to.