Atheism does not mean someone is non-religious

[PureX]

I mean I think it's kind of rare, but I agree that being an atheist does not mean one must be non-religious.

 

[LuisDantas]

What word to we have for highest valuing? Ancients knew it offhand as worship. It's academics that are making definition of worship too complex.

"Higher value" seems to serve the purpose nicely, and without the baggage that comes with the word "god".

The problem that I see is that relying on such vague, ill defined concepts such as "god" and "worship" just isn't helpful.

Do you understand that many of us associate the word "god" with attributes and qualities (such as a conscious will) that just aren't necessarily a part of what one might value most?

Also, I think that you may be engaging in a bit of circular thought. You are taking for granted that everyone has some god to explain why we atheists are not "real" atheists.

And, if I understood you correctly, you are also saying that everyone engages in worship of their own god or gods even if they have no idea nor intention of doing that. Is that correct?

 

[LuisDantas]

What wouldn't?

I can't speak for @Twilight Hue , but from the context I think he means to say that solitary practice would not be recognized as proper religion in a court of law.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I can't speak for @Twilight Hue , but from the context I think he means to say that solitary practice would not be recognized as proper religion in a court of law.

Fair enough, but that deviates significantly from the premise of the exchange....

Atheism does not mean someone is non-religious

I'm making this thread because I'm an atheist who believes in a non-secular religion called Flawlessism. The way this is done is that Flawlessism teaches that all of reality is everything we can comprehend even just a little, meaning that even infinity is within reality because we can understand...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[LuisDantas]

Now that I am back to the computer, I will try to answer a bit better.

Before I even ask "why not?", you "don't think works at all" - to achieve what purpose?

Achieving a concept of religion that is both meaningful and not necessarily unadvisable.

There are many people who achieve something worthwhile due to what they consider to be religion, and I don't think that it suits anyone to fail to acknowledge that.

I essentially look at it this way - something has to earn the right to not be called a religion, such as Newton's laws of motion.

Why? Won't that choice of yours empty the already problematic word of meaning even worse?

Who decides? How is this useful? This only seems like semantics & quibbling that doesn't help put food on my plate or a roof over my head. Newton's laws of motion do put food on my plate & a roof over my head.

On the contrary, I think that this is the core issue. If we can't heal the word "religion" so that it has some meaning and some purpose beyond insult and derogation, we probably should not use that word at all.

This isn't meaningful or useful in any way, to me.

If you say so. But I think you are overestimating the meaning and usefulness of your current definition.

The only way religion would be useful to me - and I'm only saying this to make a point (but I'm not opposed to actually doing this, either), is if I were to be paid to listen to someone preach religion or talk about their religious positions & same goes with having me engage in such a discussion or debate. For example, if I'm walking along and some street preacher approached me and wanted to engage in one-on-one talk to "testify" or "share the good news", I would ask them what it's worth to them to keep me there to spend my time listening to what they have to say & if the price is right, for a given amount of time, and they were to pay me in advance, then I'd stay and listen to them for that given amount of time. I would then be able to use that money that I earned towards putting food on my plate & a roof over my head.

Seems to me that you are not only disregard and rejecting religion even in the abstract, but also refusing to acknowledge that religion is a real and significant thing for others.

I just don't see the point.

 

[LuisDantas]

Fair enough, but that deviates significantly from the premise of the exchange....

Atheism does not mean someone is non-religious

I'm making this thread because I'm an atheist who believes in a non-secular religion called Flawlessism. The way this is done is that Flawlessism teaches that all of reality is everything we can comprehend even just a little, meaning that even infinity is within reality because we can understand...

www.religiousforums.com

Yeah.

I used to think that I had a fairly informed understanding of how varied are conceptions of religion, but of course occasionally I am humbled by new events.

This thread definitely qualifies.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I can't speak for @Twilight Hue , but from the context I think he means to say that solitary practice would not be recognized as proper religion in a court of law.

Yep that's correct.

 

[siti]

What's a pleonasm?

It means "more words than necessary"...like this:

A linguistic flourish characterized by redundancy or excess.

 

[siti]

I used to think that I had a fairly informed understanding of how varied are conceptions of religion, but of course occasionally I am humbled by new events.

This thread definitely qualifies.

I used to think I had a fairly good grasp of the English language until I read sentences (if that's the right word) like this...

I'm simply being more specific so people understand that I do not mean secular religion since my religion is atheist.

@Echogem222 may I ask, have you tried this "flawlessism" thing elsewhere? I'm guessing it wouldn't have gone down so well? One man religions don't usually do well - unless you happen to be Jesus or Mohammed or somebody with the sheer chutzpah to carry it off. The vast majority of humans that have ever lived just don't have that, and yet they almost all have had a "worldview" that is somewhere on a scale between "not quite identical" and "radically and fundamentally different" from those of the people around them.

Sometimes its better to test our ideas without giving them a new name and declaring them to be doctrines of a new religion...that way, its only the idea that gets knocked down if its not up to par and we can quietly change it and adopt a better idea into our "worldview" without having the stuffing knocked out of our entire scheme. Just a thought - from somebody who has changed his mind about what he "believes" many times.

 

[Echogem222]

I used to think I had a fairly good grasp of the English language until I read sentences (if that's the right word) like this...


@Echogem222 may I ask, have you tried this "flawlessism" thing elsewhere? I'm guessing it wouldn't have gone down so well? One man religions don't usually do well - unless you happen to be Jesus or Mohammed or somebody with the sheer chutzpah to carry it off. The vast majority of humans that have ever lived just don't have that, and yet they almost all have had a "worldview" that is somewhere on a scale between "not quite identical" and "radically and fundamentally different" from those of the people around them.

Sometimes its better to test our ideas without giving them a new name and declaring them to be doctrines of a new religion...that way, its only the idea that gets knocked down if its not up to par and we can quietly change it and adopt a better idea into our "worldview" without having the stuffing knocked out of our entire scheme. Just a thought - from somebody who has changed his mind about what he "believes" many times.

Maybe you should actually try studying Flawlessism before judging it so harshly, because based on everything you've said, you don't understand it at all. And to clarify, Flawlessism is a religion developed through trial and error, it's a religion I've spent years making, it's not something with no thought put into it as you seem to be implying.

 

[anotherneil]

Now that I am back to the computer, I will try to answer a bit better.



Achieving a concept of religion that is both meaningful and not necessarily unadvisable.

I don't see why it's necessary to achieve this purpose, and I don't see why it doesn't work at all to achieve that purpose.

There are many people who achieve something worthwhile due to what they consider to be religion,

Please provide an example of something that counts as worthwhile in this type of scenario.

and I don't think that it suits anyone to fail to acknowledge that.

So? Why do I need to be accomodating to something like that? Why do I owe them such an acknowledgement? What's in it for me to do so?

I want them to accomodate me by not trying to impose their religion on me; that's the only thing that suits me.

If someone who's a flat-earther achieves something worthwhile and attributes it to their belief that the Earth is flat, then I'm specifically and actively going to put the effort to not acknowledge such a thing; that, to me, would be a ridiculous thing to do.

Why? Won't that choice of yours empty the already problematic word of meaning even worse?

Nope, if anything it enhances clarity of the word.

On the contrary, I think that this is the core issue.

What is contrary to what, and what are you referring to as "the core issue"?

If we can't heal the word "religion" so that it has some meaning and some purpose beyond insult and derogation, we probably should not use that word at all.

I'm not thinking in terms of insult and derogation; I'm just thinking "not science", "not useful to me" (doesn't put food on my plate or a roof over my head), etc.

If you say so. But I think you are overestimating the meaning and usefulness of your current definition.

I don't see that this takes into account my context and the substance of my position, which is what matters to me; it only seems to be about a game of semantics and/or quibbling.

Please criticize my arguments or position if you wish to do so, but to me, semantics & quibbling games don't really go anywhere.

Seems to me that you are not only disregard and rejecting religion even in the abstract, but also refusing to acknowledge that religion is a real and significant thing for others.

I just don't see the point.

Far from it! I certainly do see that religion is a real and very significant thing, and I already demonstrated this when I spoke about the burdens, problems, and atrocities that it has imposed on society. So, such an assertion relies on intellectual dishonesty.

 

[siti]

Maybe you should actually try studying Flawlessism before judging it so harshly, because based on everything you've said, you don't understand it at all.

You got that right.

And to clarify, Flawlessism is a religion developed through trial and error, it's a religion I've spent years making, it's not something with no thought put into it as you seem to be implying.

OK...my apologies then...however, I would have thought if you've taken years over it and come to the conclusion that what you have developed is a "non-secular religion" and that this is one of the key features you have chosen to highlight in introducing this new religion to fellow RFers, you might at least have taken a few seconds at some point to look up the definitions of the words "secular" and "religion". I'd be happy to study it (for few minutes at least) if you give me anything more than oxymorons and pleonasms (thanks @LuisDantas for that word) to get my philosophical "teeth" into.

 

[Echogem222]

You got that right.

OK...my apologies then...however, I would have thought if you've taken years over it and come to the conclusion that what you have developed is a "non-secular religion" and that this is one of the key features you have chosen to highlight in introducing this new religion to fellow RFers, you might at least have taken a few seconds at some point to look up the definitions of the words "secular" and "religion". I'd be happy to study it (for few minutes at least) if you give me anything more than oxymorons and pleonasms (thanks @LuisDantas for that word) to get my philosophical "teeth" into.

Here is my understanding of religion:

And here is my understanding of secular religion: A secular religion is a communal belief system that often rejects or neglects the metaphysical aspects of the supernatural, commonly associated with traditional religion, instead placing typical religious qualities in earthly, or material, entities.

If you are 18+ years old, then I would be happy if you studied my religion since my religion is restricted to 18+. So assuming you're 18+ go here: | https://www.reddit.com/ [---] r/GoodAndEvilReligion/wiki/index/ | (but remove the [---] part)

 

[F1fan]

Here is my understanding of religion:

And here is my understanding of secular religion: A secular religion is a communal belief system that often rejects or neglects the metaphysical aspects of the supernatural, commonly associated with traditional religion, instead placing typical religious qualities in earthly, or material, entities.

What would make your non-religious religion attractive to others?

If you are 18+ years old, then I would be happy if you studied my religion since my religion is restricted to 18+. So assuming you're 18+ go here: | https://www.reddit.com/ [---] r/GoodAndEvilReligion/wiki/index/ | (but remove the [---] part)

This bit is against the rules. You might edit it before moderators delete your post.

 

[Echogem222]

What would make your non-religious religion attractive to others?

It's a non-secular religion, not a non-religious religion (I'm not even sure what you mean by that). As for what would make anyone want to believe in it, I imagine the fact that it can evolve through trial and error, that it has enough basis to evolve in that way. But naturally it's a lot more complex than just that. Flawlessism is the most positive possibility that I can think of which could actually be true from the perspective I understand life to be, so it has many benefits for a person to have faith in it just from the positivity alone.

This bit is against the rules. You might edit it before moderators delete your post.

Flawlessism is age restricted because of a choice I made, legally speaking there's nothing in it which would be restricted to 18+ (I'm fairly certain), I just disagree with any religion being taught to people under the age of 18 because of the high risk of indoctrination due to the limited awareness of knowledge people under 18 tend to have, that and generally speaking less wisdom.

 

[F1fan]

It's a non-secular religion, not a non-religious religion.

Then how can you be an atheist? Secular means non-religious. To say "non-secular" means religious. Saying you have a religious religion is redundant. And you wouldn't be an atheist.

As for what would make anyone want to believe in it, I imagine the fact that it can evolve through trial and error, that it has enough basis to evolve in that way. But naturally it's a lot more complex than just that.

If it is an evolution that uses trial and error, you are admitting to likely errors happening. How is that flawless? Errors are flaws in a conclusion. To call it Flawlessism is an absurdity, and a bit presumptuous. That's a turn off.

How about Flawism?

Flawlessism is the most positive possibility that I can think of which could actually be true from the perspective I understand life to be, so it has many benefits for a person to have faith in it just from the positivity alone.

It could be true? Then it is prone to error, and not flawless. What you state here admits guessing and uncertainty.

Flawlessism is age restricted because of a choice I made, legally speaking there's nothing in it which would be restricted to 18+ (I'm fairly certain), I just disagree with any religion being taught to people under the age of 18 because of the high risk of indoctrination due to the limited awareness of knowledge people under 18 tend to have, that and generally speaking less wisdom.

Indocrination of what? I see no dogma.

And a major flaw in your thinking is that if there is a risk of indoctrination then it isn't knowledge or something that reflects reality. Indoctrination tends to be a teaching of untrue and irrational ideas that would not withstand reason.

 

[Echogem222]

Then how can you be an atheist? Secular means non-religious. To say "non-secular" means religious. Saying you have a religious religion is redundant. And you wouldn't be an atheist.

No, it's not redundant, because if I said I was just religious and an atheist, many would assume I believe in a secular religion, so I was being more specific as to avoid that misunderstanding from happening. If you still think it's redundant after reading that explanation, then I just don't care about your opinion. Why wouldn't I be an atheist??

If it is an evolution that uses trial and error, you are admitting to likely errors happening. How is that flawless? Errors are flaws in a conclusion. To call it Flawlessism is an absurdity, and a bit presumptuous. That's a turn off.

That is not why it's called Flawlessism, if you bothered to study it any, you would understand why it's called that. (though it's very useful for allowing me to know when someone hasn't actually studied Flawlessism but likes to pretend they have)

How about Flawism?

How about not.

It could be true? Then it is prone to error, and not flawless. What you state here admits guessing and uncertainty.

No idea what you're even talking about now.

Indocrination of what? I see no dogma.

Clearly you understand very little about this subject, so I'll refrain from going into detail about it with you.

 

[F1fan]

No, it's not redundant, because if I said I was just religious and an atheist, many would assume I believe in a secular religion, so I was being more specific as to avoid that misunderstanding from happening. If you still think it's redundant after reading that explanation, then I just don't care about your opinion.

Your opinion is absurd. If you ahve a religion just say you have a religion. To qualify a religion as either secular or non-secular only creates confusing and incoherency.

Why wouldn't I be an atheist??

Because you are advocating for a religion without any explanation of how it is one. Where is the dogma? What is the purpose? How is it consistent with not believing any gods exist?

That is not why it's called Flawlessism, if you bothered to study it any, you would understand why it's called that. (though it's very useful for allowing me to know when someone hasn't actually studied Flawlessism but likes to pretend they have)

Thus far I haven't noticed any coherent claims or dogma. How can I bother to study something you haven't clarified?

Thus far your presentation and thinking are highly problematic and flawed. Nothing you state is flawless. And you totally ignored my point that you say the process is trail and error, and that this means there's no conclusive truth, thus a process that includes error.

Flawism is what you have, and not attractive.

How about not.

No idea what you're even talking about now.

Clearly you understand very little about this subject, so I'll refrain from going into detail about it with you.

You are writing this criticsm of me. Yet not a single word about what your religion states as truth. What is there to understand? Are we supopsed to be clarvoyant and read your mind?

 

[Echogem222]

Your opinion is absurd. If you have a religion just say you have a religion. To qualify a religion as either secular or non-secular only creates confusing and incoherency.

Because you are advocating for a religion without any explanation of how it is one. Where is the dogma? What is the purpose? How is it consistent with not believing any gods exist?

Thus far I haven't noticed any coherent claims or dogma. How can I bother to study something you haven't clarified?

Thus far your presentation and thinking are highly problematic and flawed. Nothing you state is flawless. And you totally ignored my point that you say the process is trail and error, and that this means there's no conclusive truth, thus a process that includes error.

Flawism is what you have, and not attractive.

You are writing this criticism of me. Yet not a single word about what your religion states as truth. What is there to understand? Are we supposed to be clairvoyant and read your mind?

Yeah, based on everything you've said, you sound like nothing but a troll to me, so I'm going to stop responding to you, reply back with more nonsense and I'll just block you instead of replying to you next time.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, based on everything you've said, you sound like nothing but a troll to me, so I'm going to stop responding to you, reply back with more nonsense and I'll just block you instead of replying to you next time.

You introduced your claims to the forum. If you can't respond to criticsm by actual atheists then you might want to go back to the drawing board. If you have any actual truth you should have an advantage, and face challenges. Your confidence seems compromized.