Let’s chat about the atheist religion.
Let’s chat about the atheist religion.
Believers in the mainstream god religions often denigrate and discriminate against atheists, non-believers and rival religions on moral grounds. Godless mean without a moral sense to them.
I seek a solution to this problem, as the godless, statistically speaking, seem more moral, law abiding and peaceful than traditional mainstream religious believers who, ironically, claim a superior moral position, while having an inferior one. Statistics are quite clear on this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA
As a Gnostic Christian, I get it from both sides. From believers who see me as an atheist and from atheists who see me as a believer. Both sides are wrong, given that Gnostic Christians are esoteric ecumenist and free-thinking naturalist, --- who hold no supernatural beliefs, --- regardless of the lies put into history by the inquisitors who decimated us, --- but never annihilated us. We are a religion of perpetual seekers of knowledge and wisdom, who raise the bar of excellence whenever we think we have the best ideological position.
This prevents the idol worshiping of the immoral gods, that the mainstream religions are prone to follow. This makes Gnostic Christianity a superior ideology. Perhaps this open-mindedness explains the hate towards us from god believers, as well as towards atheists and other non-believers that believers target.
Solutions to this endless denigration and discrimination are hard to come by, given that governments are not promoting any kind of dialog between the various religions and non-believers and allow religions to continue promoting vile homophobic and misogynous teachings.
To my way of thinking, be you following a theology and named god, a philosophy of a named philosopher, a religion that puts man above god and focuses on knowledge and wisdom like mine, a political tribe like Democrats and Republican, statism or any other thinking system, --- all groups named are following an ideology, --- and can thus be seem and described as a religion.
It is thus proper English to call atheism a religion. In fact, given the stats, atheism is a more moral religion than most. I am thinking that if all atheist proudly took on the religion label, --- as their atheist churches are doing, --- more god believing religionist would likely opt for atheism as their religion so as to improve their moral sense.
Take your deserved bow my atheist friends. You are now second only to my own Gnostic Christianity. We Gnostic Christian did what I advise here before the inquisitors got to us and that may be why we were known as the only good Christians.
Regards
DL
Believers in the mainstream god religions often denigrate and discriminate against atheists, non-believers and rival religions on moral grounds. Godless mean without a moral sense to them.
I seek a solution to this problem, as the godless, statistically speaking, seem more moral, law abiding and peaceful than traditional mainstream religious believers who, ironically, claim a superior moral position, while having an inferior one. Statistics are quite clear on this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA
As a Gnostic Christian, I get it from both sides. From believers who see me as an atheist and from atheists who see me as a believer. Both sides are wrong, given that Gnostic Christians are esoteric ecumenist and free-thinking naturalist, --- who hold no supernatural beliefs, --- regardless of the lies put into history by the inquisitors who decimated us, --- but never annihilated us. We are a religion of perpetual seekers of knowledge and wisdom, who raise the bar of excellence whenever we think we have the best ideological position.
This prevents the idol worshiping of the immoral gods, that the mainstream religions are prone to follow. This makes Gnostic Christianity a superior ideology. Perhaps this open-mindedness explains the hate towards us from god believers, as well as towards atheists and other non-believers that believers target.
Solutions to this endless denigration and discrimination are hard to come by, given that governments are not promoting any kind of dialog between the various religions and non-believers and allow religions to continue promoting vile homophobic and misogynous teachings.
To my way of thinking, be you following a theology and named god, a philosophy of a named philosopher, a religion that puts man above god and focuses on knowledge and wisdom like mine, a political tribe like Democrats and Republican, statism or any other thinking system, --- all groups named are following an ideology, --- and can thus be seem and described as a religion.
It is thus proper English to call atheism a religion. In fact, given the stats, atheism is a more moral religion than most. I am thinking that if all atheist proudly took on the religion label, --- as their atheist churches are doing, --- more god believing religionist would likely opt for atheism as their religion so as to improve their moral sense.
Take your deserved bow my atheist friends. You are now second only to my own Gnostic Christianity. We Gnostic Christian did what I advise here before the inquisitors got to us and that may be why we were known as the only good Christians.
Regards
DL
Comments (154)
Religion is not just any moral system or any philosophical system. It’s any epistemic institution that appeals to faith.
So Christ was just an ordinary dude?
i disagree. Why do you always post videos to back up what you say instead of articles? Do you have an article to back up your claim. I've never heard someone say Gnostic Christians are the good christians.
Certainly the Gnostic Christians themselves say that, otherwise they wouldn't stay Gnostic Christians.
Everyone thinks they are of the correct opinion and those who disagree are wrong, otherwise they would change their opinion to the one they think is correct.
true.
I do not know what part s you disagree with and to your last, it is not my fault that you have not gotten around enough to hear that.
Why do you think the inquisitions were used if not because we had an ideology that evil Christians could not argue against?
Regards
DL
True. Christians thing genocide is good, given that Yahweh used it so often.
Gnostic Christians see any god who uses it as satanic. Not to insult Satan.
What do you think and why?
Moral people want to know.
Regards
DL
I've never heard someone say Gnostic Christians are the good christians.[/quote]
https://www.google.ca/search?q=john+lennon+the+only+good+christian&sxsrf=ALeKk02otgMe1NTLUBJSmb1LLKWy2O3LUg:1587001922431&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiojODu6uvoAhVHU98KHQGtAtgQ_AUoAXoECAwQAw&biw=1324&bih=594#imgrc=krfw1FY3YlhXDM
Regards
DL
It partially is.
What did you think it was going to be about and what were you going to say about it.
I spoke of their good side, you seem to disagree with it, being disappointed and all. Are you one of the evil Christians?
Regards
DL
The inquisitions were done by the Roman Catholic Church. There was also the Orthodox church and later on the various Protestant churches. We also shouldn't assume everyone executed during the iquisition was relatively innocent.
What had they done, even if guilty, to deserve death?
When Christianity ran out of heretics to kill, they turned to killing witches.
How many of those do you think were real witches and deserved to die?
Regards
DL
I do not like Karma. It is victim blaming. No?
Lets chat on your last
Since following an ideology is a prerequisite of religion, atheism can be considered a religion, since atheists draws on philosophical ideologies to guide ideas, behaviors, and actions, like that of any religion. That is why atheist churches are called atheist churches.
Regards
DL
Necessary conditions are not sufficient conditions.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
I’ve never heard of such things. Link?
There are many. Here is one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRtJPSmI9pY
Quoting Pfhorrest
What else do atheists follow if not their ideology? What would or could be added?
Regards
DL
The point is that ideology is necessary for religion, but not sufficient for religion, so not everyone who follows some ideology is therefore religious, even though all religion is ideological.
Not being an atheist, I cannot.
I can as a Gnostic Christian and Jesus, I can.
First, you should consider all that is written of Gnostic Christianity by old sources with doubt as much of it is Christian history that was written to justify the many inquisitions sent to annihilate us.
That is like Hitler writing of what Jews believe. Lies, lies and more lies, just as Christianity lied.
This following is likely the best way to proceed. Note that the first scholar is talking of the ancient intelligentsia and their intelligent ways and that Gnostics were a large part of that intelligentsia. That does not mean that I see myself as such. It just says I recognize them and try to emulate them as their ways are my ways.
I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental efforts that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.
https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2
Further.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html
Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."
Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.
"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."
Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D
Regards
DL
.
So what would you have me add. A part of their theology, which I have included in their overall ideology? It is already there.
IOW, there is nothing else that they follow.
Or ---- I repeat ----
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Regards
DL
Atheists like to pretend that the reason they use the descriptor "atheist" is because they lack a "belief" (in)any gods. But I suggest that the main reason anyone chooses "atheist" as a descriptor is because that person "believes" there are no gods...or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
I do not "believe" there are no gods...but I am not an atheist.
All atheists lack a "belief" in any gods...but not all people who lack that "belief" are atheists.
That's a Christian church with a controversial minister. Don't spread bullshit.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Atheism is the lack of a (religious) ideology It's there in the name. A (not) theism (religion). You qualify as an atheist simply by not believing in a god or gods.
To spell it out: An ideology is: "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy."
https://www.google.com/search?q=ideology&rlz=1C1CHBF_enIE831IE831&oq=ideology&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.1671j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
So, as the lack of one idea (a belief in God) qualifies you as an atheist, an ideology (a system of ideas and ideals) is not a necessary condition for atheism. Therefore, atheism is not an ideology.
If you think it is, you simply don't understand what words mean.
No, it's not. See above.
Be it a religion or atheists as a group, I class them both as tribal groups. Each has an ideology that they cling to. I KIS that way because of what is going on in reality.
Since following an ideology is a prerequisite of religion, atheism can be considered a religion, since atheists draws on philosophical ideologies to guide ideas, behaviors, and actions, like that of any religion. That is why atheist churches are called atheist churches.
------------
I quote ---
Atheists Are Sometimes More Religious Than Christians
A new study shows how poorly we understand the beliefs of people who identify as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular.
Americans are deeply religious people—and atheists are no exception. Western Europeans are deeply secular people—and Christians are no exception.
These twin statements are generalizations, but they capture the essence of a fascinating finding in a new study about Christian identity in Western Europe. By surveying almost 25,000 people in 15 countries in the region, and comparing the results with data previously gathered in the U.S., the Pew Research Center discovered three things.
First, researchers confirmed the widely known fact that, overall, Americans are much more religious than Western Europeans. They gauged religious commitment using standard questions, including “Do you believe in God with absolute certainty?” and “Do you pray daily?”
Second, the researchers found that American “nones”—those who identify as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular—are more religious than European nones. The notion that religiously unaffiliated people can be religious at all may seem contradictory, but if you disaffiliate from organized religion it does not necessarily mean you’ve sworn off belief in God, say, or prayer.
The third finding reported in the study is by far the most striking. As it turns out, “American ‘nones’ are as religious as—or even more religious than—Christians in several European countries, including France, Germany, and the U.K.”
“That was a surprise,” Neha Sahgal, the lead researcher on the study, told me. “That’s the comparison that’s fascinating to me.” She highlighted the fact that whereas only 23 percent of European Christians say they believe in God with absolute certainty, 27 percent of American nones say this.
America is a country so suffused with faith that religious attributes abound even among the secular. Consider the rise of “atheist churches,” which cater to Americans who have lost faith in supernatural deities but still crave community, enjoy singing with others, and want to think deeply about morality. It’s religion, minus all the God stuff. This is a phenomenon spreading across the country, from the Seattle Atheist Church to the North Texas Church of Freethought. The Oasis Network, which brings together non-believers to sing and learn every Sunday morning, has affiliates in nine U.S. cities.
Last month, almost 1,000 people streamed into a [Atheist] church in San Francisco for an unprecedented event billed as “Beyoncé Mass.” Most were people of color and members of the LGBTQ community. Many were secular. They used Queen Bey’s songs, which are replete with religious symbolism, as the basis for a communal celebration—one that had all the trappings of a religious service. That seemed completely fitting to some, including one reverend who said, “Beyoncé is a better theologian than many of the pastors and priests in our church today.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...theists-religious-european-christians/560936/
Regards
DL
Given the information just above, I agree.
There as many combinations or variants in thought that are screwing up traditional labels like atheism and religion.
I am trying to focus on the majority within the groups named.
Regards
DL
SOME dictionaries may describe it that way...but dictionaries do not actually define words, Baden=, they merely tell us how the word is usually used.
I'm saying that most people...the people out on the street...when using the word atheist...are supposing someone who is denying the existence of any gods...and even ASSERTING the absence of any gods.
In fact, I am saying that I have NEVER met, nor do I know of, any person who describes him/herself as an "atheist" who does not "believe" there are no gods...or who does not "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. It IS a "belief system."
If you describe yourself as an atheist, I would ask: Do you either "believe" (you may substitute "guess") that no gods exist...or that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does?
I mentioned that it is one of many.
Be your own bitch and provide another or ---------------
Quoting Baden
I can believe that you do not follow an ideology.
Since following an ideology is a prerequisite of religion, atheism can be considered a religion, since atheists draws on philosophical ideologies to guide ideas, behaviors, and actions, like that of any religion. That is why atheist churches are called atheist churches.
What do you call whatever guidance you follow.
Regards
DL
Which is wrong. It is not one at all.
Learn what words mean. You are both embarrassing yourselves.
Still missing the point, which is that you aren’t lacking in your description of atheism, but in your description of religion. A religion needs to be an institute, some kind of social arrangement, and it needs to appeal to faith. Unassociated people with a variety of reasons for having the same status of belief about the same topic don’t constitute a religion. Atheism is not a social institution, and doesn’t require appeals to faith, so it isn’t a religion.
There could be a religion with atheism as one of its tenets, if some social institute claimed that people ought to disbelieve all gods as a matter of faith. But that still wouldn’t make all of atheism a religion.
Probably not many. Not all of the Christian church participated in the Inquisition. Are you aware of all the killing done by Atheist/Socialist rulers?
I couldn't paste the picture for some reason
but google or bing
The Death Toll of Communism.
Communism/Atheism has killed far more than religion in alot less time. Just imagine the death toll in 500 years as far as Atheism goes. This doesn't even include abortion. How do you feel about Abortion?
With that comment...YOU embarrassed yourself.
So how about digging out. Instead of just slinging mud, do you think I am wrong about...
1) SOME (not all) dictionaries describe it that way (lack of "belief" in any gods).
2) Dictionaries do not actually "define" words, but rather tell us how the word is used.
3) Most people suppose "atheist" means "denying that gods (or God) exists."
4) That I have NEVER met, nor do I know of, any person who describes him/herself as an "atheist" who does not "believe" there are no gods...or who does not "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."
5) That atheism IS a "belief system."
And while you are at it, I asked a question testing #4. Here it is again:
If you describe yourself as an atheist: Do you either "believe" (you may substitute "guess") that no gods exist...or that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does?
That makes no difference. A belief system is a network of beliefs. You qualify as an atheist both if you lack any belief concerning gods or with the following one belief, "gods don't exist". One belief is not a network of beliefs, so one belief is not an ideology. It's simple English.
The words "belief system" is easily understood to be correct as used in my comment, but if you want to take exception to the inclusion of "system" to the point where you suppose I am "embarrassing myself" by doing so...okay. I guess you have decided to dig deeper.
So let's say that ATHEISM is built on just one, tiny "belief." And that "tiny belief" is that the person identifying as an atheist "believes" is that among all the things that possibly exist in this vast universe...the one thing that does not...is a god or some sort. We'll put aside all the other "beliefs" that deal with the supposed stupidity and naivety of people are who "believe" in the other direction on the issue; we'll put aside those that deal with the many problems that "believers in the other direction" cause humanity; we'll put aside all the other ancillary "beliefs" that cause people to assign "atheist" as a descriptor to self.
That initial "belief", Baden, is about as tiny as the tiny "belief" at the core of theism...which, at least, the theists are ethical and truthful enough to acknowledge as "belief"...that they KNOW that a GOD does exist in the REALITY of existence.
It does make a difference, Baden. I am not embarrassing myself by making what amounts to a rational defense of agnosticism as a contrast to both theism and atheism.
:yawn:
"Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
https://www.google.com/search?q=atheism&oq=atheism&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l3j69i60.2443j0j7&client=ms-android-samsung-gj-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
Yeah...and that does NOT negate anything I have said. Nor does it make anything I have said "embarrassing myself."
But you refusing to acknowledge that...and continuing to dig deeper...should be embarrassing to you.
It's simple logic, a lack of a belief is not a belief in the same way a lack of an apple is not an apple. And an ideology is a system of beliefs, so requires multiple beliefs. So, think of an ideology as being like a basket of apples. I tell you I have no apples and you tell me I therefore have a basket of apples. That's how wrong you are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Bottom line: I personally know of NO person who uses "atheist" as a descriptor who does not "believe" there are no gods...or who does not "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
I am convinced THOSE TWO "BELIEFS" are the reason they use atheist as a descriptor...NOT JUST BECAUSE THEY LACK A "BELIEF" IN ANY GODS.
I lack a "belief" that there are any gods. All atheists should lack that "belief." I also lack a "belief" that there is at least one god." All agnostics should lack that "belief."
To insist that because I lack the former "belief" I must consider myself an atheist is absurd.
My claim (that I am NOT an atheist) does not fail.
But you are dug in...and nothing can be done about it.
I'll just laugh at the need of atheists to include agnostics in their ranks...although I do understand. It would increase the intellectualism of atheism considerably.
I, for one, am not. looking for that.
I realize there are theists (people who assert they "believe" there is at least one god or who assert they "believe" it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none)...
...and there also are non-theists (people who do not "believe" there is at least one god and who do not "believe" it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none).
Of the non-theists...there are some who not only reject the "belief" that there is at least one god or that it is more likely that here is...but who also assert that there are no gods...or who assert that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. THOSE PEOPLE most often designate themselves as ATHEISTS.
A second group of the non-theists reject the "belief" that there is at least one god or that it is more likely that here is...but who do NOT assert the opposite, that there are no gods....or that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. That second group is willing to acknowledge that it is impossible to logically assert "there is at least one god" or "there are no gods"....and that it is absurd to suppose one can calculate which is more likely. They most often designate themselves as AGNOSTICS.
Some Agnostics (I AM ONE OF THEM) resent the hell out of atheists insisting that we are atheists.
Frankly, the only reason I see for atheists insisting that anyone who lacks a "belief" any gods exist IS AN ATHEIST...is because they want to pretend that they do not have the two "beliefs" that usually lead to someone designating him/herself an atheist. They want to pretend there is no "belief" involved in using that descriptor.
They ought to get over that fiction.
I don't care what you call yourself or whether someone calls me agnostic, atheist, non-theist etc because of the fact that I don't believe in gods. I don't see what substantial difference it makes. I'm just explaining the meaning of words and drawing logical conclusions, one, a very obvious one, which is that being an atheist does not necessarily entail having an ideology. It could, if you were also an anti-theist, but it's not part of what defines atheism. That's just reality.
Yes. All allowed and encouraged by governments. Including Christian governments, that all encouraged inquisitions and jihads.
Regards
DL
Think of the numbers that religions have killed for the 4,500 years before that.
Abortion? Wrong issue here, but lest you forget, most were done by Christian women.
Regards
DL.
An ideology is a thinking system. We all think and follow the thinking by actions. All people have some kind of ideology. Thinking people all think in a way that falls under some ideology proposed by someone.
That is true for you and I and everyone else.
Sure, we have started to meld words like atheist agnostic, religious agnostic religious atheist etc.
That is why I just call them all ideologies to KIS.
This post shows how foolish the labelling is getting.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Regards
DL
The reality is that I do care that SOME atheists insist I am an atheist by dint of an inconsistent and self-serving "definition."
I will not accept it.
And I continue to maintain that "atheism" has at its core "belief" just as much as does theism.
I am not afraid of atheism...AND I DO NOT CONSIDER IT SOMETHING NEGATIVE.
I meet several times each year in NYC with a group of 7 people...all of whom I met in another forum (Abuzz, the now defunct forum of the NY Times)...and all 6 of the others are atheists...strong atheists. I love 'em...I have no negative thoughts about them because of their atheism. My annoyance with atheists has nothing whatever to do with anger, fright, or opposition to atheism. I just am NOT an atheist...and I will not have those atheists who insist that I am...do it without fighting it.
As I said I don't care a jot what you call yourself.
Yes people claim to be Atheist who misrepresent it.
If that's conflated to mean lack of any belief or void of belief, I don't agree.
Actually Europe had a pseudo-theocracy at that time in history. Feel free to educate yourself on the people's lack of say during the middle ages, renaissance, and also enlightenment period. This is why America was unique when America formed. You need to read more history books.
Most religions aren't like Christianity and the other religions are far worse than Christianity.
Actually see as how communism and atheism is more prevalent today, its safe to say atheism is far more dangerous than religion.
Why do you say most abortions were done by Christian Women?
I'm probably never going to convince you of anything because you have different i idea of right and wrong than me. I think my ethics are good. You think your ethics are good. But my ethics are different from your ethics.
You are again redefining something - to think is to have an ideology thereby every disagreement is reduced to triviality. Hence I had emphasized on first stating the distinctive or distinguishing feature of something. Thereby we can avoid the fault of multiplying unnecessary categories which you pointed out.
I suspect I agree with you strongly, but the wording was a bit ambiguous.
I suspect what you are saying is that the atheistic claim that atheism IS JUST A LACK OF BELIEF...is bullshit...then I agree completely.
It is almost certain that anyone and everyone who uses "atheist" as a descriptor...either "believes" there are no gods...or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
One of those "beliefs" is an absolute necessity for anyone who uses "atheist" to describe themselves.
1 Do you not fit the description of that word?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio
The Latin term religi?, origin of the modern lexeme religion (via Old French/Middle Latin[2]) is of ultimately obscure etymology. It is recorded beginning in the 1st century BC, i.e. in Classical Latin at the beginning of the Roman Empire, notably by Cicero, in the sense of "scrupulous or strict observance of the traditional cultus". In classic antiquity, meant conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation, or duty towards anything[3] and was used mostly in secular or mundane contexts.[4][5]
2 You do not agree with the many atheist priests and churches? Why not?
They seem to be leading atheists. Do you not have an ideology just as the religious do?
3 You have an ideology just as most adults do. What is it?
Regards
DL
If push came to shove, I doubt that we would differ much.
If you want to go all over the place, issue wise, do it in P M.
Better still, start on O.P. on the morality of Christianity verses Gnostic Christianity.
I will clean your clock.
Genocidal satanic gods fall quite quickly.
Regards
DL
I said no such thing.
On redefining. Stay flexible.
Since following an ideology is a prerequisite of religion, atheism can be considered a religion, since atheists draws on philosophical ideologies to guide ideas, behaviors, and actions, like that of any religion. That is why atheist churches are called atheist churches.
======
Atheists Are Sometimes More Religious Than Christians
A new study shows how poorly we understand the beliefs of people who identify as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular.
Americans are deeply religious people—and atheists are no exception. Western Europeans are deeply secular people—and Christians are no exception.
These twin statements are generalizations, but they capture the essence of a fascinating finding in a new study about Christian identity in Western Europe. By surveying almost 25,000 people in 15 countries in the region, and comparing the results with data previously gathered in the U.S., the Pew Research Center discovered three things.
First, researchers confirmed the widely known fact that, overall, Americans are much more religious than Western Europeans. They gauged religious commitment using standard questions, including “Do you believe in God with absolute certainty?” and “Do you pray daily?”
Second, the researchers found that American “nones”—those who identify as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular—are more religious than European nones. The notion that religiously unaffiliated people can be religious at all may seem contradictory, but if you disaffiliate from organized religion it does not necessarily mean you’ve sworn off belief in God, say, or prayer.
The third finding reported in the study is by far the most striking. As it turns out, “American ‘nones’ are as religious as—or even more religious than—Christians in several European countries, including France, Germany, and the U.K.”
“That was a surprise,” Neha Sahgal, the lead researcher on the study, told me. “That’s the comparison that’s fascinating to me.” She highlighted the fact that whereas only 23 percent of European Christians say they believe in God with absolute certainty, 27 percent of American nones say this.
America is a country so suffused with faith that religious attributes abound even among the secular. Consider the rise of “atheist churches,” which cater to Americans who have lost faith in supernatural deities but still crave community, enjoy singing with others, and want to think deeply about morality. It’s religion, minus all the God stuff. This is a phenomenon spreading across the country, from the Seattle Atheist Church to the North Texas Church of Freethought. The Oasis Network, which brings together non-believers to sing and learn every Sunday morning, has affiliates in nine U.S. cities.
Last month, almost 1,000 people streamed into a [Atheist] church in San Francisco for an unprecedented event billed as “Beyoncé Mass.” Most were people of color and members of the LGBTQ community. Many were secular. They used Queen Bey’s songs, which are replete with religious symbolism, as the basis for a communal celebration—one that had all the trappings of a religious service. That seemed completely fitting to some, including one reverend who said, “Beyoncé is a better theologian than many of the pastors and priests in our church today.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...theists-religious-european-christians/560936/
Regards
DL
True Christians typically get their OPs taken down quickly on this forum and any secular forum. If you would like to have discussion in private that would be fine with me. Like i said you have your sets of morals that i disagree with. And i have morals that you disagree with. Like you believe abortion among other things is ok. I don't see the two of us seeing eye to eye.
Quoting christian2017
Would that this were so. Do they do that to True Scotsmen too?
You said no such thing but this is implied due to your being flexible because then anything goes!
You got your OP taken down because it was low quality not because you're a Christian. Be thankful we're allowing you to spout your ignorant religious bigotry concerning atheists on this thread.
Ok? No. I dislike any potential human being aborted.
What I think is ok is to let others make their own decisions on important parts of their lives. A free willed choice that many would not allow, while preaching that all should have freedom to think as they will.
What you think is ok is to impose your views on others without putting your money where your mouth is to insure the best end for those children. That is a non-lethal inquisition which is a Christian forte. That was the royal you Christians BTW.
All for the idol wordship of a genocidal moral monster god.
Regards
DL
Not anything, given the parameters I put.
Regards
DL
I would not pull anything, because the more atheists know about how their religious interlocutors think, the more ammo is provided to use against them.
Just reading the bible gave me my arguments, that they cannot win.
Knowing your enemy is good as it shows you their weakness.
Regards
DL
There's the problem.
BTW:
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop...Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
...what's a Gnostic doing relying on the bible for his arguments?
I don't understand the alliteration.
can you rephrase that sentence. Like i said me and you have different ideas of right or wrong. In my opinion i have the moral high ground. Perhaps i'm wrong.
What is the problem with knowing their weaknesses and seeing them as them as my enemy?
Should I just ignore that, in the past, they used their inquisitions on us and in the present, they still think themselves justified in denying us our right to think as we please?
We are presently competing for moral supremacy, mostly, and with their inquisitor attitude, it is quite hard to have a friendly conversation. Reciprocity is fair play where I come from and should I show love when they show hate?
Should I love them as my enemies as Jesus preached, while also promising that when he returns he will kill everyone that does not accept him as King?
Quoting InPitzotl
I am not a Gnostic. There is no such thing. I am a Gnostic Christian.
We have never given up our brand name and have always used that label.
Regards
DL
Perhaps?
How can you have the moral high ground while idol worshiping a genocidal god?
Would you agree that I have the moral high ground if I idol worshiped Hitler?
Hitler could not cure so killed. Your god can cure yet chooses to kill.
Which one is taking the moral low ground?
Quoting christian2017
I like it as is.
Regards
DL
I disagree. I'm done talking to you or atleast responding to your original posts/forum topics. This is the case for various reasons. Have a great week Gnostic Christian Bishop. Perhaps you are right in all of your opinions but it doesn't benefit me to argue with you.
Me neither. Perhaps the point pertains to puritans.
True Scotsman eat their porridge with just salt - that McTagger, he eats his with honey; hence he's not a true Scotsman.
Presumably those Christians who's OPs remain are not true christians.
oh ok.
...and here's that nauseating two-faced self-righteous passive aggressiveness modern Christian that we all love.
i think the same of you Banno.
take a look at what that guy who i was responding too ends every post he posts with. Note the bottom of all of his posts. Your kind of jumping in on the middle of a conversation.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
I'm lost. Is that a Gnostic cypher we should know about?
this is the usual for you Banno.
Did you see the post you made that started this whole conversation?
Regards
Not DL
Atheism is not a religion.
Since following an ideology is a prerequisite of religion, atheism can be considered a religion, since atheists draws on philosophical ideologies to guide ideas, behaviors, and actions, like that of any religion. That is why atheist churches are called atheist churches.
Atheists Are Sometimes More Religious Than Christians
A new study shows how poorly we understand the beliefs of people who identify as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular.
Americans are deeply religious people—and atheists are no exception. Western Europeans are deeply secular people—and Christians are no exception.
These twin statements are generalizations, but they capture the essence of a fascinating finding in a new study about Christian identity in Western Europe. By surveying almost 25,000 people in 15 countries in the region, and comparing the results with data previously gathered in the U.S., the Pew Research Center discovered three things.
First, researchers confirmed the widely known fact that, overall, Americans are much more religious than Western Europeans. They gauged religious commitment using standard questions, including “Do you believe in God with absolute certainty?” and “Do you pray daily?”
Second, the researchers found that American “nones”—those who identify as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular—are more religious than European nones. The notion that religiously unaffiliated people can be religious at all may seem contradictory, but if you disaffiliate from organized religion it does not necessarily mean you’ve sworn off belief in God, say, or prayer.
The third finding reported in the study is by far the most striking. As it turns out, “American ‘nones’ are as religious as—or even more religious than—Christians in several European countries, including France, Germany, and the U.K.”
“That was a surprise,” Neha Sahgal, the lead researcher on the study, told me. “That’s the comparison that’s fascinating to me.” She highlighted the fact that whereas only 23 percent of European Christians say they believe in God with absolute certainty, 27 percent of American nones say this.
America is a country so suffused with faith that religious attributes abound even among the secular. Consider the rise of “atheist churches,” which cater to Americans who have lost faith in supernatural deities but still crave community, enjoy singing with others, and want to think deeply about morality. It’s religion, minus all the God stuff. This is a phenomenon spreading across the country, from the Seattle Atheist Church to the North Texas Church of Freethought. The Oasis Network, which brings together non-believers to sing and learn every Sunday morning, has affiliates in nine U.S. cities.
Last month, almost 1,000 people streamed into a [Atheist] church in San Francisco for an unprecedented event billed as “Beyoncé Mass.” Most were people of color and members of the LGBTQ community. Many were secular. They used Queen Bey’s songs, which are replete with religious symbolism, as the basis for a communal celebration—one that had all the trappings of a religious service. That seemed completely fitting to some, including one reverend who said, “Beyoncé is a better theologian than many of the pastors and priests in our church today.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...theists-religious-european-christians/560936/
Regards
DL
Correct. Religions make the gullible victims to liars and con men. There should be a law against flagrant frauds.
Regards
DL
I read your text and for sure these people are not in reality "atheists".
They are simply people that have lost faith on their previously established god, but still need a higher power in their lives. Is sad that a great majority of people still cling to this metaphysical concept of "afterlife","god", "absolute truths", because they're not self-suficient. They outsource their responsabilities because they think they are unable to "be".
Yes, tribal groups with ideologies they cling to, so far so good.
Though to quibble a bit we might recall that the vast majority of both believers and atheists are not clinging too tightly. In fact, most ignore their ideology most of the time.
Anyway, I don't quite see the point of labeling all ideologies as religions. Wouldn't that make the word religion essentially useless? If you seek a global term applying to all tribes, why not just use the word ideology? I could certainly agree atheism is an ideology.
Necessity is not sufficiency.
Nicely put.
Abdicating their responsibility for their sins and riding into heaven on their Jesus scapegoat is what Christianity is all about.
Strange how so called good Christian people follow such a vile and immoral ideology.
Regards
DL
Not to the secular who seem to know what religions are.
Religio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dedication from Roman Britain announcing that a local official has restored a locus religiosus[1]
The Latin term religi?, origin of the modern lexeme religion (via Old French/Middle Latin[2]) is of ultimately obscure etymology. It is recorded beginning in the 1st century BC, i.e. in Classical Latin at the beginning of the Roman Empire, notably by Cicero, in the sense of "scrupulous or strict observance of the traditional cultus". In classic antiquity, meant conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation, or duty towards anything[3] and was used mostly in secular or mundane contexts.[4][5]
True that most of us do not follow our ideologies that well, but to deny that we all have one and are even born with a moral sense would be incorrect.
To your overall point, if we were to have the real stats for believers versus non-believers, I think the vast majority would be in the non-belief side.
Some places show 95% Christian, while only 5% go to church even once a year.
Somebody is lying.
Regards
DL
I agree.
That is why the religious are labelled hypocrites so often.
Regards
DL
Apologies, but you appear to have no understanding of what Christianity is all about, and no, I'm not going to teach you. Good luck with the holy jihad!
Take Jesus as your scapegoat out of Christianity and what is left?
Nothing but a genocidal prick of a god.
Thanks for acknowledging that my inquisitor ways are working.
I stick to arguments and not the murders, that your religion seems to prefer.
Strange though that you invoked jihad instead of inquisitions, which is the Christian forte.
Some would see that as deflection or hypocrisy.
I just call it the usual poor Christian apologetics.
Regards
DL
Given the fact that most atheists (I have encountered) tend to be of the proselytizing variety, perhaps "rejection of religious ideology" would be more accurate?
You can have an ideology without being religious, even though you can’t be religious without an ideology.
Atheism is the belief that human reason is qualified to deliver useful statements on issues the scale of the God question. Atheism feels like "simply a refusal to believe in God" to most atheists because their faith in the infinite reach of human reason is so deep, and so unexamined, that they take such a qualification to be an obvious given requiring no inspection.
Few atheists seem to grasp that atheism is just as much a positive assertion as theism, with just as little proof to back it up.
That said, the belief that posting the above will accomplish anything at all is just as lacking in evidence as theism and atheism, so we are united as brothers in self delusion.
No its not. A specific atheist might have that belief but thats him, not atheism. Neither is atheism a “refusal” to believe in god, its simply the lack of a belief in god. Atheism isnt even specific about WHY the person doesnt believe in god.
An easy way to think about it is if the answer to the question “is there a god?” Is anything other than “yes”, then you are some kind of atheist.
Quoting Nuke
This is just a broad and inaccurate generalisation. First, there is no “faith” in reason, not in the same sense that religious people have faith in god. The distinction is “faith” in the sense of confidence and “Faith” as a reason for believing in god (which of course its not). You are mixing those two uses up.
Second, its rich that blind adherence to dogma somehow qualifies as examined but noticing the lack of evidence and very clear contradictions and magical thinking of religious thought is somehow “unexamined”. Just the act of questioning religion or the existence of god thats being fed to you by trusted parents or authority figures is substantial “inspection”.
Quoting Nuke
No its not, Believers are the ones making making a positive assertion, and atheists the ones unconvinced by the positive assertion believers make. Because they are unconvinced of the claim, yes an atheist might say they do not believe there is a god but that does not mean they are making a positive claim.
Quoting Nuke
Again, not true. There are many former believers who have been convinced by argument or discussion and are now atheists. There is plenty of evidential first hand accounts of the journey from believer to non-believer that directly contradicts your views here on every level. Likewise, many atheists have been converted to or back to religion and plenty of evidence there too.
The only way its a waste is if either or both participants in the discussion aren’t open to changing their minds and are being disingenuous.
No it is not. There are theists who also believe reason is capable make informative statements about God. That does not make them atheists. Second Buddhists for instance believe that reason oversteps its boundaries in attempting to deliver answers about the ultimate cause of the world and hence needs a corrective. They do not cease to be atheists because of that. Third, people differ in their views of what 'human reason' is and so if you choose to specify what you mean by 'reason' you would be unnecessarily forcing a uniformity of views. Finally if one definition is sufficient to distinguish a particular view from others then you do not require an addition.
I agree. But the assumption that reason is qualified is not a requirement in theism, as one can become theist by other means. That assumption is however required in atheism. I've been doing this for 20 years, and have yet to meet an atheist who arrived at their perspective by any other method.
Could you please introduce us to the atheist who does not believe that reason is qualified to generate useful statements on the subject?
Quoting DingoJones
Here's how it works. Not understanding their own perspective, most atheists will sincerely claim it is "merely a lack of belief". And then dictionary writers who probably aren't that interested in the topic and are racing against a deadline will accept this claim and put it in the dictionary. And then the atheists will hold up the dictionary as proof saying, "See? We told you. It's right in the dictionary!"
Quoting DingoJones
Ah, good, so you will then be able to provide proof that reason is qualified.
Quoting DingoJones
Believers are making a positive assertion that they know they are making, and atheists are (typically) making a positive assertion that they don't know they are making.
Please recall, theism is thousands of years old, whereas atheism is maybe 500 years old, or something like that. It's grandpa talking to a teenager.
Quoting DingoJones
Ok, fair point. I will reframe my claim that this is a highly inefficient process which typically, but not always, goes pretty much nowhere.
The method of thinking about the question, possibly looking for evidence, and then coming to the best conclusion they can? What other method would you think better?
Non-sequitor. This doesn't address you mixing up uses of the word “faith”.
Quoting Nuke
Thats ridiculous conjecture and completely baseless. Not only unable to show atheists do not understand their own perspective, the notion that they do not is absurd. They just have to answer something other than “yes” to the question “do you believe in god”. Thats it. Anyone can understand that, unless of course they have a vested interest in not understanding it such as oh lets say in defence of religion for example.
You have a good sense of humour though, your phrasing made me laugh. I pictured this uppity atheist badgering these busy 50’s newsroom style Dictionary writers and one just gets fed up and snatches the paper to change the definition so the atheist will shut up
Quoting Nuke
Non-sequitor. This doesnt address what you quoted.
Quoting Nuke
Lol, really? We’ve just been getting dumber and dumber since the good old biblical days huh?
Please, tell me all about what ignorant savages who believe in magic can teach us intellectual teenagers.
And just because you call it a positive assertion doesnt make it so. I precisely pointed it out to you already. Bolded so you wont miss it this time.
“Because they are unconvinced of the claim, yes an atheist might say they do not believe there is a god but that does not mean they are making a positive claim.“
Quoting Nuke
Ok. Why do you think that is?
I do not blame you for wanting to ignore me more. I am hard on the immoral.
Strange that you would willingly choose to be wrong though.
Do you have reason and logic that tells you why you prefer that position?
Please share.
And you profess to know more than a Gnostic Christian about Christianity. How droll.
Regards
DL
Give an example of someone with an ideology that cannot does not fit into an ism.
Regards
DL
You want the win without naming something to look at. Ok.
You win this argument on whatever group you had in mind.
Strange though. I post to lose arguments and thus learn something new, but you did not provide anything new.
Telling you that religio is/was mostly a secular tern and experts cannot agree on the definition of religion would not make any difference.
Regards
DL
As Nietzsche has already said:
The word 'Christianity' is already a misunderstanding - in reality there has been only one Christian, and he died on the Cross.
It's not just you. The understanding of Christianity on philosophy forums tends to be pretty primitive. Almost all the focus goes to ideological assertions, while crucial topics like the experience of love are almost entirely ignored.
I agree with the thinking and looking for evidence. And so when it comes to the largest of questions we might ask, where is the evidence that any theist or atheist has ever proven anything? Lacking such evidence the conclusion we might come to is that we are united in ignorance on such questions. I see a few roads which present themselves from there.
1) We can retreat in to denial and pretend we have proven something.
2) We may conclude that if we're ignorant and can't do anything about that, let's just forget the whole subject and direct our attention elsewhere.
3) We may conclude that finding this ignorance is itself an answer of sorts, and then ask, what can we do with what we have discovered?
It's interesting to me that theists and atheists, who are so often posed as enemies, share near universal agreement on some issues fundamental to the inquiry. First, they almost always agree that a God can only exist, or not, one or the other. Second, they almost always agree the point of the inquiry should be to develop knowledge.
When any investigation goes endlessly round and round to nowhere for 500 years it seems worthwhile to begin to question the assumptions that investigation is built upon. This seems a challenge suitable for philosophers.
Agreed.
They are making a positive claim, without knowing that they are making a positive claim.
But I know you'll never get that no matter how many times it is explained so rather type ourselves in to a pointless fury why don't I just respectfully accept that you are entitled to any view on the subject which works for you and it's not my place to stick my nose in to it.
You havent provided any explanation that hasnt been refuted. Just because you ignore arguments does mean they havent been made.
So what you really mean is no matter how many times you repeat the same assertion I will not be convinced by it, and you are right. You have to do better than that.
Implying that Im too dogmatic or narrow-minded to understand what you are saying is just your way of avoiding arguments/questions you don’t have answers for.
Im an open minded person, but not so open my brain falls out. You have to have an an actual explanation, not just a bare assertion and you have to address counter-arguments instead of just pivoting and deflecting.
There is no fury happening with me, im not angry at all. If my last post came across as terse I apologise. I thought you were having some fun in your last post so I was reciprocating.
That does not explain the fact that Christians are following an obviously immoral religion.
They know it and that is why they run from any moral discussions.
They are moral cowards and do not want to learn how to be brave.
Regards
DL
Except Jesus was a Jew, and he probably died because the Romans thought he was agitating revolution. Jesus likely believed God anointed him the messiah to help usher in the Kingdom of God and restore Israel, free of Roman rule.
That or Peter, James and Paul had visions of an angel they called Jesus who they thought was crucified by the devil in the firmament, and the next generation turned that into a historical narrative.
Of course it is primitive. It was born as a pagan religion.
The rest of the world knows that to adore a genocidal god is immoral. Christians and Muslims have yet to progress away from their immoral thinking.
They ignore love, because they have a god of hate.
Regards
DL
Which helped usher in 1,000 years of Dark Ages.
Thanks Christianity. Not.
Regards
DL
Interesting. Where did you find this hypothesis?
I would say that the muslims are even more backwards than christians. Christianity today is just a new pantheon religion, but a pantheon of interpretations of God.
I agree. 3,000 gods and counting, while none admit that a genocidal god id a prick of a god.
Fascist like genocide..
Regards
DL
We were talking about Pan-psychism earlier.
For the sake of argument if we assume there was god or gods, and if he/she ran scenarios through his/her head (like a business planner or war planner), do those scenarios happen in reality or just in his/her head? or both?
I would argue both.
I suppose if there was a god he/she could predict and run the collision of all the particles in the scenario. The scenario would have all the feelings of all people. Atleast thats my guess.
All that is said of imaginary gods is speculative nonsense.
Even if your god were real, he should be rejected for the satanic prick that he is.
Would you follow Hitler out of fear?
Why, if not fear, do you follow a genocidal god?
Regards
DL
If you do not, then you live in a plethora of conflicting definitions.
Have a look at the dogs breakfast of terms and I hope you cannot blame me for trying to simplify the language.
Since following an ideology is a prerequisite of religion, atheism can be considered a religion, since atheists draws on philosophical ideologies to guide ideas, behaviors, and actions, like that of any religion. That is why atheist churches are called atheist churches.
---------------
Atheists Are Sometimes More Religious Than Christians
A new study shows how poorly we understand the beliefs of people who identify as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular.
Americans are deeply religious people—and atheists are no exception. Western Europeans are deeply secular people—and Christians are no exception.
These twin statements are generalizations, but they capture the essence of a fascinating finding in a new study about Christian identity in Western Europe. By surveying almost 25,000 people in 15 countries in the region, and comparing the results with data previously gathered in the U.S., the Pew Research Center discovered three things.
First, researchers confirmed the widely known fact that, overall, Americans are much more religious than Western Europeans. They gauged religious commitment using standard questions, including “Do you believe in God with absolute certainty?” and “Do you pray daily?”
Second, the researchers found that American “nones”—those who identify as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular—are more religious than European nones. The notion that religiously unaffiliated people can be religious at all may seem contradictory, but if you disaffiliate from organized religion it does not necessarily mean you’ve sworn off belief in God, say, or prayer.
The third finding reported in the study is by far the most striking. As it turns out, “American ‘nones’ are as religious as—or even more religious than—Christians in several European countries, including France, Germany, and the U.K.”
“That was a surprise,” Neha Sahgal, the lead researcher on the study, told me. “That’s the comparison that’s fascinating to me.” She highlighted the fact that whereas only 23 percent of European Christians say they believe in God with absolute certainty, 27 percent of American nones say this.
Quoting Becky
I agree. I hold no such fear of the unknown.
Regards
DL
i disagree.
Another way to look at it is to conclude that atheists aren't godless, they merely refuse to call what they worship 'god'.
Insightful.
We all hold so kind of ideal human or god in mind. We all, in that sense, have a god.
Atheists tend not to be loose enough with their definitions. I do not blame them as believers do the same thing.
I think the world is full of agnostics, and we just are too insecure to admit it if we happen to be religious.
Our tribes rule us, be they right or wrong. Polarization.
You might enjoy this presentation.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=counterfeit+god&&view=detail&mid=2AA2BD4518A0DED948212AA2BD4518A0DED94821&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcounterfeit%2Bgod%26FORM%3DHDRSC3
Regards
DL
Atheists would say anyone who says that is too loose with their definitions. Every human who ever lived or ever will live is definitively a believer or an atheist. If atheists too are believers of sorts because they believe something, then theism is defined so broadly as to be utterly meaningless.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities. It isn't a question of being too strict with definitions of those deities: that is what the word means if it is to mean anything. That I can conceive of a sixty-foot flying pig says nothing about what I believe in.
We've discussed this stuff before. You didn't like my answers. Just because i have a low i.q. doesn't mean you have to make fun of me. How do you feel about pan-psychism? Plato had his own form too. There are over 11 different forms.
I'm not sure that is what causes it. I see some other probable causations. Though generally several atheists arguments seem to apply the following kind of logic: "some people claiming to be mathematicians told me pi is 5, I tried it with a circle and it doesn't make sense, this proves pi does not exist, so we should get rid of all math."
Not saying that in general non atheist logic is any better though.
Not if there are other prerequisites for religion atheism does not fulfill.
Concrete example perhaps:
Having apples is a prerequisite for being an apple tree, a fruit scale may have apples, but if it does that doesn't mean that thus a fruit scale is an apple tree.
With what, goof?
Regards
DL
Think of ideology as a fruit and you are there. Push your analogy just a touch further and look at the forest of fruit trees instead of just the one fruit tree.
Regards
DL
you replied to this statement earlier.
Don't red herring me. We have a severe problem of recognition, I wasn't providing an analogy, I was providing a concrete example of how ridiculous your previous assertion turns out when applying the same logic on a more concrete example. But apparently you didn't get it so I'll try explain the problem some other way.
If we choose define something by having a certain set of properties, and we recognize that something as such by it's full set of properties, you cannot sensibly conclude that we are dealing with that something if it only has one of the properties rather than the entire set. Yet this is what you reasoned by stating:
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
So either you meant instead "Since following an ideology is the only prerequisite of religion, atheism can be considered a religion" or you left out crucial information pointing out that atheism also fulfils the other criteria to constitute as a religion.
So the real question you seem to be avoiding is: What do you consider to be the full list of prerequisites of religion?
You mean to say that deities are defined as those things atheists don't believe in?
How odd, usually human beings tend to define concepts by the way in how they are believed rather than how they are disbelieved. If we go on that kind of logic a pear is an orange as neither is believed to be an apple.
No, hence that is what I did not say.
You may not have meant it this way, but it seems to me that this is what it effectively states.
That (atheism, defined as simply a lack of beliefs in deities) is what the word (atheism) means if it is to mean anything. Hence the word 'deities' also only means something as defined by 'that what atheists don't believe in". As by your choice of defining the word 'atheist' you also defined the word 'deities' to mean just 'that what is not believed by atheists". If there are additional meanings of the word, you should at least have left out the word 'simply', as obviously then it isn't as simple as you are proposing.
Language need not be circular, it is mostly hierarchical. Deities is defined without the need for atheism. Whether a deity is believed by one, most, all contingently, or all necessarily, the word can be rendered meaningful, the meaning depending on the claim, not its sceptics.
I do not avoid it. All a religion is, is a tribe or group. religio has a definition of being secular.
This link shows an atheist preacher that knows that she is running what they used to call mystery schools.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRtJPSmI9pY
I have modernized my wording but if you do not wish to ----
Regards
DL
Not if you insert words like 'simply' pretending that that's all there is to it.
I take it you meant 'also' rather than 'simply'.
Well in that case, a bunch of kids gathered in a group to play with marbles also constitute as a religion, as they are a group.
I didn't ask for a youtube video about someone elses ideas, I asked for your definition.
Ah, I see.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Yes, I suppose by definition it isn't simple. Maybe a little bit pedantic..? :p
Or merely Dutch bluntness combined with a low tolerance for vagueness or sloppiness.
Bully for you, big boy! I'm happy to be called out where an error exists and will correct/clarify as necessary, although in this case if you didn't catch my actual meaning you're a bit thick. Your intolerances however are purely your problem. Presume me disinterested in them.
Maybe I am a bit thick, or maybe you were just so eager to emphasize your point that you started to exaggerate to the degree you were diminishing the validity of the point you were trying to make. Probably both.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
You certainly didn't sound all that happy about it when I pointed it out, don't you think "maybe a little bit pedantic?" gives a rather different impression than 'I'm happy you called out my mistake'.