Atheism is/is not a religion II: The Return

OK.....that is why I have been saying Jesus did not preach or started a new religion.

 

You provided something called tentmaker - and you provided it because it fits your purposes here.

[/SUP]Not a single word about bondage - a word used by those with an agenda to disparage the notion.

[SUP]You, of course, and wholly uninterested in any definition that doesn't fit your agenda here, and that's why I'm here to slap your agenda in the face.[/SUP][SUP] While I am not particularly a fan of organized religion, there is no bondage in it; that's asinine: even Atheists can freely choose to be Atheist. You can leave now.[/SUP]

 

Well, here's something I can agree with you on, SubD! BFSmith is using a logical fallacy called the "etymological fallacy". He doesn't want Christianity to be called a language, so he tries to say that the contemporary definition is wrong and that the etymology should be used instead.

 

That's not at all my objection. He's abused even the Etymology. Etymology is a rather precise discipline, relying on the root of words in the context of intent. There is nothing about the use of the word 'bind' in the root of word religion to mean anything other than to 'commit' - and I proved it, by posting the true etymology.

 

I had no belief on how the universe came into existence when I became an atheist. I still have no idea how the universe actually came into existence, and most atheists feel the same. I'm not sure how many thousands of times you people have to be told that the big bang theory has absolutely nothing to do with what happened BEFORE the universe existed.

Others are in the same position and have been in the same position for thousands of years. And even if we all believed the same thing, it's not part of atheism. I'm pretty sure most if not all atheists believe the earth is spherical, so does that mean that atheism involves the belief in a round earth? So people years ago that did not believe the earth was round but also did not believe in god were not atheists? People who didn't or don't have a belief as the one you stated aren't atheists? Are you actually claiming this belief is necessary in order for one to be called an atheist?

I'm not sure what this has to do with whether or not atheism is a religion. I guess a lack of belief in fairies is now a religion because your definition of religion does necessitate belief in god. You fail.

A lot of Christians trying to peg atheism as a religion or science as a matter of faith.

Wow, do you really need it explained to you in a more simple fashion? Same in value in terms of the validity of believing something based on absolutely no evidence and believing something based on stacks of research papers. In THAT sense, they try to make the level of "faith" (even though believing something based on evidence is the exact opposite of faith) the same in value. Or the belief in god having the same validity as the lack of belief.

That's actually not atheism. That's atheists AND Christians and other people supporting the separation of church and state (you do NOT have the right to use city property for religious promotion, but that's another argument). The actions of SOME people that are atheists is irrelevant to what atheism is.

I'm not sure what this has to do with whether or not atheism is a religion and why it matters. Can you tell me why you want to convince us that atheism is a religion?

 

No, its pretty much ONLY atheists suing people for praying. Because every time I pray an atheist is tortured in the state sponsored prison system? And yes, when atheists not only do it, fund it, but come up with lame propoganda (protect us from theology! Someone is praying! THere is a piece of art with a religious Waldo in it! If you can find it the Republic will explode!!! Well, the courts are not impressed, and neither am I.

Additionally, as you make you case, you may want to realize a couple of things.

#1 - Many European Countires actually pay to maintain Cathedrals as 'historic' sites ... all without undermining the system (see France).

#2 - At least one country DOES have an offical state religion, and yet people seem to be able to practicre any faith they want there (Germany).

One wonders how atheists are able to whip themselves up into such an illogical frenzy over a painting? Certainly the courts do, and the lawyers all driving new cars and living in luxury appreciate the wasteful frvility of atheism.

 

This is the part to me that I find problematic.

Main article: Glossary_of_ancient_Roman_religion#religio
Religion (from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods,"[5] "obligation, the bond between man and the gods"[6]) is derived from the Latin religiō, the ultimate origins of which are obscure. One possibility is derivation from a reduplicated *le-ligare, an interpretation traced to Cicero connecting lego "read", i.e. re (again) + lego in the sense of "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully".

I don't see how this person came to the conclusion that the word choose should be added to lego.


Modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell favor the derivation from ligare "bind, connect", probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "to reconnect," which was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius.[7][8] The medieval usage alternates with order in designating bonded communities like those of monastic orders: "we hear of the 'religion' of the Golden Fleece, of a knight 'of the religion of Avys'".[9]


The word BIND can mean bondage depending on in what context it is used. So one can translates Religion as a return to being bind or if you want to add Choose, it would say Choosing to return to being bind, even though I don’t see how the word choose would come into it....I don't see how this person come to the conclusion that "Choose" should be added.



But the last part does help to strengthen what I have been saying at least about part of the Bible......the Old Testament, which it’s not about religion but about the kingdom of God. The Israelites were to be a kingdom of priests, which can be translated as Chief, Prince or Leader. That is why Jesus told His disciples that the Pharisees sat in Moses seat and Moses represented the law.

There is no precise equivalent of "religion" in Hebrew, and Judaism does not distinguish clearly between religious, national, racial, or ethnic identities.[15] One of its central concepts is "halakha", sometimes translated as "law"", which guides religious practice and belief and many aspects of daily life.

 

Then why do so far all that I have come into contact here and outside of this forum are so adamant that God does not exist? If one does not know about a thing how can they be so sure that the other person is wrong?

But how would you know what someone believe is a fairy tale? To say you don’t know how the universe came into existence, but then to tell me what I believe is fairy tale is like a student in a class who does not know the answer to the question the teacher ask, but is telling his class mate next to him that his answer is incorrect. Once you are a position of ignorance that makes you unqualified to tell someone else that what they believe is wrong, because to say they are wrong automatically mean that you know.

 

It's a curious highly selective blindness that causes the religious use the word to disparage atheism by calling it a religion.

 

So near yet so far. A theist believes in gods, so an A-theist doesn't. Not believing isn't the same as believing.

Prefix. a- also an- ... not, without .... atheist, anaemic

 

No not believing in god is still a belief. But it would seem as if there is some confusion among atheist or at least with ARK. Because according to ARK on #55. What he is saying is contradictory to those who call themselves atheist on this forum and all the other forums I've been on. It even contradicts the definition of the word atheist.

 

I really don't care either way. I do have a religon and I am very happy with it but if you don't agree I wish you the best of luck.

 

Your ire is noted, please take it up with the atheists who sued to have it defined and protected as a religion.

Perhaps you should sue them?

 

Wow!! I was not aware of that. Is there an article or site that could provide more information?

 

There is no consistency to how atheists "practice" their beliefs. Most simply don't think about the issue because it is irrelevant to their lives. You focus on militants and extrapolate that into "atheists", which is like saying all Christians picket with "God hates (*)(*)(*)(*)" signs. They don't. There are no consistent worship standards or scheduled meetings that atheists are expected to attend. This is silly.
In the first part of this thread you said I had no standing to point out the hypocrisy of your post where you used "OMFG" while claiming to hold God in high esteem in your life. Let me correct you.
I am not an atheist.
I am a former ordained minister.
I can read. "You will not take the Lord's name in vain".
I feel I am on solid ground that the god described in the bible would not see "OMFG" as a way of holding him up in esteem. If you think conflating the "F" word with your deity is a sign of respect for him, I think you will have a tough time supporting that argument.

 

This statement is a canard; that there is no consistency is not unique to Atheists. My comment is directed at those practices which are irritating to the rest of us: those practices which are intolerant and exclusionary.

They are not the subject of my comments.

Irrational response. I'm focusing on militant Atheists. There is no extrapolation here. They are avowed Atheists; they declare themselves as such, and they are the problem.

Just as moderate Muslims should do absolutely everything in their power to condemn and fight against radical Islam, so should reasonable and tolerant Atheists battle extremists in their belief system.

But neither one do. They silently acquiesce, and tacitly approve. There is no mainstream or persistent Atheist presence which objects to things like the "Freedom From Religion" foundation, or any other activism.

Okay, I'll buy that - but I believe it is splitting hairs in the argument. As a former ordained minister, you know that one can believe in God and still sin - and that a sinner's message about sin is often more powerful than others.

 

Its the definition of atheism provided on American Atheists Web Site, a definition that allowed several atheist prisoners to sue the state for blocking their meetings in prison ... because atheism, which is not a religion, is nevertheless a religion that must be protected by the US Constitutions guarantees for ... religion.

 

That would be fine, if that's where it ended - but it doesn't. Atheists want the legal cover of being considered a religion, but want to deny claims that they are a religion when convenient.

This is particularly important when contemplating the validity of attacking free expressions of religious belief on the grounds that battling to remove free expressions of Christian belief doesn't simply replace them with beliefs of another faith.

 

Atheism isn't a belief system. These "militant Atheists" may well have a system of beliefs that goes beyond the basis not believing in any gods but that belief system is not atheism (and remember, this all started out with a question of what atheism is, not what some atheists do).

The idea that all atheists have a responsibility to address extremist atheists isn't equivalent to expecting moderate Muslims to address racial Islam, it's equivalent to expecting all theists to address radical Islam. I have no more connection to "militant Atheists" as you did to Osama bin Laden.

 

A religion should've to be based on a belief of something. The Atheism based on ignoring the existence of God, is that a belief with a manner or it's just a useless and clueless presumption of someone?

 

You must have come in contact with many, because I know tons of atheists who don't actually claim god doesn't exist. They simply say they lack belief and make no statements about god's existence.

False. You can lack the knowledge of how something was created, but you can certainly rule out certain things. Like, Christianity is most certainly not true. It simply can't be because it is full of contradictions and false scientific and historical claims.

Regardless, you have done nothing to advance the argument of atheism being a religion or atheism being a belief about how the universe came into existence. You deleted this part.

No argument?

blah blah blah. Not relevant to the topic.

What I'm saying is what MANY atheists are saying. Most atheist lack belief in god and they do not believe that belief about the creation of the universe is part of atheism. And a lack of belief is NOT a belief. lol.

 

If what you say is your true belief, then only condemn the radical atheists and leave the others out of it. Don't make a sweeping generalization about atheists, because they are simply false.

As for a sinners message being more powerful than others, what others can there be? Is there anyone without sin?
What undermines a message is a complete disrespect for the deity you claim to worship.
I don't think it is splitting hairs at all. It goes to the root of the depth of the honor and true belief of the speaker.

By the way, do you also believe that moderate Christians should vehemently denounce extreme fundamental Christianity? That would be consistent with your argument, wouldn't it?

 

Then why do you think that out of all possible examples of a religion, the two given are the Christian religion and the Buddhist religion? Do you think they just happened to pick those two, rather than name some boy scout organisation instead?

Dusty

 

So what's your point? The only reason any of us care about what Atheism is, is because of what Atheists do.

That's nonsense. The connection is exactly the same as Muslims who view the Qu'ran as not incendiary, and then do nothing about militant Muslims who rationalize violence due to what they read in the Qu'ran.

You may be a moderate non-confrontational Atheist. Bully for you. There are very radical activist Atheists who are screwing up your vibe - just as radicals of any general belief system do for that belief system.

Or are you going to try to claim now that Atheists and other groups don't view people like Phelps from Westboro as evidence that "Christianity is dangerous" and "religion has to go"?

I think we know that answer.

 

Not if the rest of the Atheists do not join me - and they don't.

Not if the rest of the Muslim world refuses to join me - and they don't.

You will be associated until you likewise choose to condemn.

No - there isn't - but there are degrees. Regardless, I'm addressing those who would disqualify the message due to its delivery from a sinner.

Nah. It is a syllogism - and (regardless) Neutral's debate could be Devil's Advocatism, and still carry with it the strength of the meaning of the words. The 'taking the Lord's Name in vain' part is windmill jousting, IMO. It questions the nature of the relationship between God and Man, and the debate itself is still trying to validate belief in God at all.

If all debatants accept that God exists, (ie: if two Christians were debating), then I think the objection is a bit more valid. If the objection is raised by a non-believer, then it is just a deflection.

Without question - and I believe in those rare cases where it appears (like Phelps at Westboro), that is what takes place. Phelps is a pariah in the mainstream Christian world, and I believe those people who confronted Phelps at that Marine funeral were also Christian (it was a Christian burial, after all), and they didn't mince any words at all.