Religon Influence Fading

[luns101]

Well, I think the problem with this is that atheists reject a "faith-based" cosmic viewpoint in favor of a evidence-based cosmic viewpoint, and that is the basis upon which they eschew the label of religion. In some ways I agree with both sides of this issue. Atheists and agnostics are, in some ways, not very well represented in public institutions. This is impetus behind the Darwin fish on the backs of cars. Atheists just need better art direction and marketing - an area where religion has been succeeding for millenia. On the other hand, I do think that atheist tend to be intolerant of religious thinkers (I'm talking about "people of faith" here despite what the definition of religious is asserted to be by anyone in this thread).

That's fair

[mpjh]

I believe that what my dear friend Luns is driving at, is a way to somehow say AHA! "The Atheists are religious!", even though they don't believe in gods. Am I right Luns?

No, I'm not trying to play gotcha! I already believe that atheists are religious. They deny this so that they will have the upper hand when it comes to removing religiously traditional symbols from public places. After all, if atheism was defined as religious then it could be said that the state is favoring one religious view over another. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has already defined atheism as a religion so the law actually supports this view despite your denial. Unless it was to be overturned by the Supreme Court, the standard that I gave is correct. Secular Humanism, which contains atheism as one of its core beliefs, has also been defined as a religion.

But when arguing these things on CC, atheists here obviously won't own up the fact they are religious so I dropped it and adopted your own definition, Backglass. Atheism is non-religious, no gods, blah blah blah. When I did that in this thread I was told that a religion may very well not bear a relationship to a deity whatsoever. So you can see how frustrating it is when no matter what we're discussing, non-believers (or whatever you guys are calling yourselves) keep changing the definition. The problem lies on your side. You guys come up with whether religion needs to include God or not.

Just make sure you stick to it and stop changing it mid-way through a discussion.

This is constantly being brought up by the religious as they tend to superimpose their way of thinking onto others.

Wow, we must have incredible powers to "superimpose" our ways onto others. Give me a break, Glass. Nobody has the ability to force someone else what to believe. You present your own views and that's about all one can do.

In their minds, the "absence of belief" is an entire belief system and therefor a religion of sorts. I don't see how you can make that jump personally...I truly believe the Coke Machine down the hall is full, but that does not make it a belief system or religion.

Well then let me explain it again, if not for your benefit, then for others who are not of the atheistic persuasion who read these posts of ours and then later pm me with more questions:

You are presented with information on whatever subject. You ponder it for awhile. You either accept it, reject it, or put it off until later in the hopes of finding more information that will help you make up your mind on it. There are no intellectual victims. Everyone makes a conscious decision on whether to accept something as true or to reject it as false.

To say that someone "lacks belief" is to try and pretend that one takes no intellectual action. That's absurd...people don't just do nothing with information.

Actually, you are wrong. This would be as though "let" in English meant two things as in "to let go" or "to let" as in lease. However these two meanings are distinctly different. The ancient Greeks did distinguish between murder and killing, as does almost all human cultures. The fact that the bible, and its multiple languages and authors uses words that have different eaning, even though interchangable in spelling or pronunciation does not mean that the meanings are interchangeable. It is agains as Jonesy said a matter of interpretation.

[Backglass]

No, I'm not trying to play gotcha! I already believe that atheists are religious. They deny this so that they will have the upper hand when it comes to removing religiously traditional symbols from public places. After all, if atheism was defined as religious then it could be said that the state is favoring one religious view over another. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has already defined atheism as a religion so the law actually supports this view despite your denial. Unless it was to be overturned by the Supreme Court, the standard that I gave is correct.

Then you also believe that since the courts have legalized abortion it also is true and correct? After all, its the law.

Seriously, I just find the whole thing comical. I don't worship anything. I don't pray to anything. I don't go to a special building to meet with other atheists. I don't have a bible or holy book. I don't perform rituals. I don't have/do anything religious! So THAT in itself MAKES me religious? C'mon Luns.

I will say it again. Absence of religion is not a religion. Just as absence of a duck is not a duck.

But when arguing these things on CC, atheists here obviously won't own up the fact they are religious so I dropped it and adopted your own definition, Backglass. Atheism is non-religious, no gods, blah blah blah.

No, when arguing here on CC, the religious obviously won't own up to the fact that some people simply don't believe in the existence of supernatural beings and live normal, moral, happy lives doing so. Nothing more/less.

When I did that in this thread I was told that a religion may very well not bear a relationship to a deity whatsoever. So you can see how frustrating it is when no matter what we're discussing, non-believers (or whatever you guys are calling yourselves) keep changing the definition. The problem lies on your side. You guys come up with whether religion needs to include God or not.

I don't understand why it make any difference (or why I should care) either way. I still don't believe gods exist.

Wow, we must have incredible powers to "superimpose" our ways onto others. Give me a break, Glass. Nobody has the ability to force someone else what to believe. You present your own views and that's about all one can do.

I never said you were forcing anything...you misunderstand. What I am saying is that you are a devoutly religious man. You life is consumed with service to your god. You THEN assume that I, with my "atheist religion", have devoted my life to atheism and live in service to it's creedo of non-god-ism!

It really seems to drive christians nuts that there are those that simply aren't on ANY team.

To say that someone "lacks belief" is to try and pretend that one takes no intellectual action. That's absurd...people don't just do nothing with information.

Look, you can distill the semantics of it anyway you like if it helps you out, but it really doesn't change anything. <WAIT FOR IT!>

You don't believe Leprechauns exist I assume, yet I wouldn't say that you have a belief system of leprechaun dis-belief that you religiously live your life by. You simply think it's a story, as do I with all mystical beings. But you don't stop there! You have a need to make it MORE than that...it MUST be like YOU...something that I consciously think about, like an "atheists code of conduct". But it isn't. It's just a definition. It's simply a word in the dictionary that describes me when I say "I don't believe in diety's". It really isn't anything more than that.

[jesterhawk]

No, I'm not trying to play gotcha! I already believe that atheists are religious. They deny this so that they will have the upper hand when it comes to removing religiously traditional symbols from public places. After all, if atheism was defined as religious then it could be said that the state is favoring one religious view over another. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has already defined atheism as a religion so the law actually supports this view despite your denial. Unless it was to be overturned by the Supreme Court, the standard that I gave is correct.

Then you also believe that since the courts have legalized abortion it also is true and correct? After all, its the law.

Seriously, I just find the whole thing comical. I don't worship anything. I don't pray to anything. I don't go to a special building to meet with other atheists. I don't have a bible or holy book. I don't perform rituals. I don't have/do anything religious! So THAT in itself MAKES me religious? C'mon Luns.

I will say it again. Absence of religion is not a religion. Just as absence of a duck is not a duck.

Actually, a religion is basically a belief system and atheist believe there is no God. You can claim it is a lack of belief, but in reality it is still a belief. It is like saying that black is the absence of color and yet it is still a color also. So, it is both. Yes, atheism is a lack of a belief in God and at the same time it is the belief that there is no God, and it is the fact that it is that belief system that makes it a religion. Argue all you want, but that is what it is plain and simple.

JH

[StiffMittens]

...there is no such thing as "deciding not to decide".

Not true. Have you ever done this?:

Someone else: What kind of ice cream do you want with your cake? Chocolate or vanilla?
You: I don't care. Surprise me.

If so, then you made a decision that you didn't want to decide and allowed someone else to make the decision for you.

PS - Neil Peart is the drummer/lyricist for Rush. The song quoted is Free Will from the album Permanent Waves. ;-}

[mpjh]

But didn't you make a decision to be neutral between the flavors?

[StiffMittens]

I will say it again. Absence of religion is not a religion. Just as absence of a duck is not a duck.

But maybe it is a duck and there's an anti-duck occupying the same segment of spacetime which is negating the actual duck and preventing us from perceiving it.

[jesterhawk]

But didn't you make a decision to be neutral between the flavors?

Yes, I would believe that is true.

I will say it again. Absence of religion is not a religion. Just as absence of a duck is not a duck.

But maybe it is a duck and there's an anti-duck occupying the same segment of spacetime which is negating the actual duck and preventing us from perceiving it.

This is priceless! I will have to remember this one!


JH

[StiffMittens]

As for the coke machine, a single belief doesn't really qualify as a belief system. If, however, the idea that the coke machine down the hall is full becomes a guiding principle in how you plan to lead the rest of your life, then I would say that it is a religion.

Then is my plan to hit the treadmill daily a religion? Or my sincere attempt to lower my cholesterol? After all these are now guiding principles of my life that I "religiously" adhere to.

Well, I think the real crux of the biscuit here is a matter of degree (gee, imagine that - a question without an easily quantifiable answer). You yourself decribe these behaviors as something you "religiously adhere to." So you are acknowledging that they bear a resemblance to religion. What keeps them from being an actual religion is a how fundamental they are to your cosmic viewpoint. In your case, I suspect that you are doing these things because you want to be more healthy (perhaps decided that on your own, or were advised to do so by a doctor) and not because you believe that it is a fundamental truth of the cosmos that you should be more healthy.

[StiffMittens]

But didn't you make a decision to be neutral between the flavors?

Exactly. You made a decision to not decide between the flavors. You have made a decision to not make one. Which is clearly possible to do, despite Luns' assertion.

[mpjh]

Luns is playing semantics, and trivializing the whole matter. From my perspective, I decided to know as opposed to believe by using science. If I don't have answer from science, I have a question for science to explore, not a belief.

[luns101]

Luns is playing semantics, and trivializing the whole matter.

Nope, it's your side that's engaging in that. I once tried to argue that atheism was religious in nature. Atheists rejected that and said it was the lack of belief in God or gods. So in this thread I accepted that premise and it was nitpicked by yourself and Stiffy. Seems that no matter what a Christian says, you're knee-jerk reaction will be to disagree, even if it means contradicting your own definitions. You guys got caught this time and don't like it so you're trying to throw the spotlight back on me.

[mpjh]

Funny, caught, you like these competitive terms, expecially the guilt ridden ones. You haven't caught anyone, you are only playing word games -- trolling.

[StiffMittens]

Luns is playing semantics, and trivializing the whole matter.

Nope, it's your side that's engaging in that. I once tried to argue that atheism was religious in nature. Atheists rejected that and said it was the lack of belief in God or gods. So in this thread I accepted that premise and it was nitpicked by yourself and Stiffy. Seems that no matter what a Christian says, you're knee-jerk reaction will be to disagree, even if it means contradicting your own definitions. You guys got caught this time and don't like it so you're trying to throw the spotlight back on me.

Oh darn, different people have different viewpoints on broad, ambiguous topics. What a headache!

[luns101]

Then you also believe that since the courts have legalized abortion it also is true and correct? After all, its the law.

Fine, I'd be willing to trade off on that one. You guys stop attacking the innocent unborn which have done nothing to you and we'll make sure that atheist prisoners can't hold meetings in cells to protect the definition of atheism as non-religion.

You're actually making the case for natural law as the basis for constitutional decisions whether you know so or not.

Seriously, I just find the whole thing comical.

So do I since I was going by your definition of religion.

I don't worship anything. I don't pray to anything. I don't go to a special building to meet with other atheists. I don't have a bible or holy book. I don't perform rituals. I don't have/do anything religious! So THAT in itself MAKES me religious? C'mon Luns.

Good for you, but many of your fellow atheists do. Perhaps you non-religious atheists should start your own Reformation against the religious ones who attend in DFW, Texas, Houston, formerly in Santa Rosa, CA or Colorado (you might even be able to get an autograph from Reverand Newdow )

I will say it again. Absence of religion is not a religion. Just as absence of a duck is not a duck.

Could you say that again, please? Look, I tried agreeing with your definition and it didn't go over well with the other non-believers. Tell them about it...not me.

I never said you were forcing anything...you misunderstand. What I am saying is that you are a devoutly religious man. You life is consumed with service to your god. You THEN assume that I, with my "atheist religion", have devoted my life to atheism and live in service to it's creedo of non-god-ism!

Down boy, down! I'm trying to convey to you that I started this discussion on your terms. Actually, I don't think you've "devoted" your life to atheism but rather that you've devoted your time to attacking and ridiculing religious people, especially of the Christian variety.

You post pictures mocking us. You try and equate us with leprechaun worshipers. You make false analogies to spaghetti monsters. If you weren't bothered by the message of the Bible then you wouldn't dedicate most of your posts towards ridiculing those who accept its message.

It really seems to drive christians nuts that there are those that simply aren't on ANY team.

It doesn't drive us nuts...it's just that we find it funny to watch atheists form a religion called secular humanism and then in the next breath declare "hey, it's not a religion".

Look, you can distill the semantics of it anyway you like if it helps you out, but it really doesn't change anything. <WAIT FOR IT!>

BG, PLEASE PLEASE listen to this: I was the one that said mpjh was splitting hairs by trying to distance God from most religions. Please go back to page 2 of this thread and read again. Then I was told that it was indeed, a hair that needed to be split. Go back to page 3 of this thread and read that again. I quoted your definition to affirm this but it was rejected.

Leprechauns have never been seriously introduced as a first cause for the universe. It's apples and oranges. If you want to make an attempt at equating them that is your choice. Personally, I think it's a back-handed attempt to ridicule those who accept a belief system which bothers you...especially the part about hell.

[luns101]

...there is no such thing as "deciding not to decide".

Not true. Have you ever done this?:

Someone else: What kind of ice cream do you want with your cake? Chocolate or vanilla?
You: I don't care. Surprise me.

If so, then you made a decision that you didn't want to decide and allowed someone else to make the decision for you.

OK, so atheists let other people make the decision for them on the existence of God...got it. Whatever way you want to play the game.

[StiffMittens]

...there is no such thing as "deciding not to decide".

Not true. Have you ever done this?:

Someone else: What kind of ice cream do you want with your cake? Chocolate or vanilla?
You: I don't care. Surprise me.

If so, then you made a decision that you didn't want to decide and allowed someone else to make the decision for you.

OK, so atheists let other people make the decision for them on the existence of God...got it. Whatever way you want to play the game.

You're ridiculous. You know very well that is not the intended meaning of this. It's a simple example of how one could decide not to decide (which you said was impossible). And atheists don't care if you decide that god exists or not, because they don't believe you anyway. So stop being so deliberately obtuse. It's getting really annoying. If you want to discuss something, then let's discuss it. Otherwise if you continue with these idiotic misinterpretations of anything anybody else says, then I'll have to come to the conclusion that you are a 13 year old jackass just trying to screw around with people (which, if it were true, would actually be pretty funny. Sadly, however, I suspect that's not the case).

[jonesthecurl]

Well, I think the real crux of the biscuit here is a matter of degree (gee, imagine that - a question without an easily quantifiable answer). You yourself decribe these behaviors as something you "religiously adhere to." So you are acknowledging that they bear a resemblance to religion. What keeps them from being an actual religion is a how fundamental they are to your cosmic viewpoint. In your case, I suspect that you are doing these things because you want to be more healthy (perhaps decided that on your own, or were advised to do so by a doctor) and not because you believe that it is a fundamental truth of the cosmos that you should be more healthy.

No: the crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe. (cue guitar solo)

[got tonkaed]

luns, its possible youve told me this before and i could have forgotten but where does the desire to quantify Atheist as being religious come from?

Some of them surely act in ways which we could understand to be religious, im sure you probably have a fair number of sources which would provide ample evidence of this. I doubt it makes up the majority of the world's non-theists however or even reflects their sentiments.

Personally id liken it to notions that people do vastly different things under one label which thefore puts anyone trying to make blanket statements on a slippery slope. Its very hard to say that all people who self identify themselves as something act or think in the same way, especially when you start to talk about numbers that could be in the millions and up range.

[luns101]

You're ridiculous. You know very well that is not the intended meaning of this. It's a simple example of how one could decide not to decide (which you said was impossible).

Nope, I'm illustrating the ridiculousness of the argument by applying it to what was originally being discussed...an atheist claiming he/she has a lack of belief. Interesting that you and mpjh were the ones trying to make the case that hairs needed to be split on this and now you are the ones crying foul.

And atheists don't care if you decide that god exists or not, because they don't believe you anyway.

Yet they dedicate the majority of their posts trying to ridicule Christians for believing in God. Nobody spends that much time arguing against something they don't believe exists in the first place.

So stop being so deliberately obtuse. It's getting really annoying.

Once again, illustrating the way that a majority of atheists here on CC behave towards Christians. It's fine and dandy to say unkind things and make ridiculous charges of leprechaun worship but when it's thrown back on you guys then we hear "STOP IT"!!

If you want to discuss something, then let's discuss it. Otherwise if you continue with these idiotic misinterpretations of anything anybody else says, then I'll have to come to the conclusion that you are a 13 year old jackass just trying to screw around with people (which, if it were true, would actually be pretty funny. Sadly, however, I suspect that's not the case).

Aww, don't worry. Backglass will be making more silly analogies to flying spaghetti monsters in another thread faster than mpjh can say "Anti-communist propaganda". Funny how you only hold me accountable and not the nearly countless posts against Christians which employ the same method.

But hey, if you're going to complain when this style is thrown back towards your side then I'll leave you alone.

[luns101]

luns, its possible youve told me this before and i could have forgotten but where does the desire to quantify Atheist as being religious come from?

Not really a desire but just what I've read them say in their own words. Atheism is the basis for the secular humanist religion.

[MeDeFe]

luns, its possible youve told me this before and i could have forgotten but where does the desire to quantify Atheist as being religious come from?

Not really a desire but just what I've read them say in their own words. Atheism is the basis for the secular humanist religion.

And what if you're an atheist but not a secular humanist?

[Napoleon Ier]

Defining "religion" in such restrictive terms as to exclude atheism from being an element of its set may be possible (though I've yet to see it done convincingly), but only through the grossest semantic sophistries can most of the arguments being made by the atheists here be posited, for the good reason that the definition of religion they're left with is so empty and meaningless as to render any analytic on it a futile exercise.

[got tonkaed]

Defining "religion" in such restrictive terms as to exclude atheism from being an element of its set may be possible (though I've yet to see it done convincingly), but only through the grossest semantic sophistries can most of the arguments being made by the atheists here be posited, for the good reason that the definition of religion they're left with is so empty and meaningless as to render any analytic on it a futile exercise.

I dont think thats necessarily the issue. I think there are a few athiests on the board who wouldnt argue that atheism can possibly end up manifesting itself in religious fashions. I certainly wouldnt as i know athiests who would identify themselves as religious or spirtual.

I think the issue is luns seems to make an effort from time to time to posit that all athiests are religious (usually done by pointing out the secular humanism example). I dont think this is really a credible point and im still not entirely sure why it happens.

[Neoteny]

I thought it was just to piss off Backglass.