Atheism is just another religion

[Underhill]

This is not the only definition of religion.

From: What is "religion"?
All of the definitions that we have encountered contain at least one deficiency:

Some exclude beliefs and practices that many people passionately defend as religious. For example, their definition might requite a belief in a God or Goddess or combination of Gods and Goddesses who are responsible for the creation of the universe and for its continuing operation. This excludes such non-theistic religions as Buddhism and many forms of religious Satanism which have no such belief. Also, Unitarians, who are called Unitarian Universalists in the U.S., do not require their members to believe in a deity, and many members don't.

Some definitions equate "religion" with "Christianity," and thus define two out of every three humans in the world as non-religious.

Some definitions are so broadly written that they include beliefs and areas of study that most people do not regard as religious. For example, David Edward's definition would seem to include cosmology and ecology within his definition of religion. These are fields of investigation that most people regard to be a scientific studies and non-religious in nature."

Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism are considered religions, but do not necessarily fit the definition you gave.

I realize they are considered religions but by that logic theoretically one could be an atheist and a religious person which, I believe, most people in the world would say is impossible.

I've talked to Buddhist who don't consider it a religion in the traditional sense. A co-worker of mine is a Buddhist Christian and sees no conflict. One, he says, is a religion, while the other is a code of conduct that doesn't conflict with Christianity. Is it possible he is out to lunch? Knowing him it is likely. But he still raises a valid point.

 

[shunyadragon]

I realize they are considered religions but by that logic theoretically one could be an atheist and a religious person which, I believe, most people in the world would say is impossible.

I gave a reference where this is possible. Claiming impossibility is the weakest possible argument.

I've talked to Buddhist who don't consider it a religion in the traditional sense. A co-worker of mine is a Buddhist Christian and sees no conflict. One, he says, is a religion, while the other is a code of conduct that doesn't conflict with Christianity. Is it possible he is out to lunch? Knowing him it is likely. But he still raises a valid point.

The word religion is a hot potato with everyone qualifying it in one way or another so they can deny that what they believe is not a religion, and . . . ah, what other people believe is religion. Your example is classic 'Buddhism is not a religion in the classical sense. I doubt that this vague 'classical sense' can be defined differently depending who wants to justify that what they believe is not 'religion.'

 

[Jumi]

It's the fundamental basis for my entire argument: If you live in a society shaped by theistic religion, rejecting the foundations for such beliefs often has consequences for how you perceive significant aspects of society.

The reason for this is primarily that many religions don't see people who they see as not believing as having the same value as they do. Non-Christians were seen as less human. At the time of my schooling I didn't of course realize that I wasn't Christian. No one taught me that not believing in Biblical stories made me something else. It then stands to reason why atrocities against such outsiders have happened during history.

Thanks for the info

From the surviving related religions, a lot of their morals seem to revolve around making neighbors happy.

I know belief only starts to be a dominant component with monotheism, some Greeks didn't see the gods as being literally true. They still accepted the role of them and their rituals in society and culture though.

Even with some of the "monotheisms"(I'm putting this in quotes, because they're not pure monotheism), belief fought for it's place by suppressing Gnostics and other mystics. We can see that direct experience of God was most problematic to the power of those who wanted to control their beliefs. And if one believed in the wrong god, tough luck, it might mean you were a target.

This is where Confucianism is superior. It demands no belief, has the golden rule, talks of love and gentlemanly conduct, improving yourself morally. It poses no problem being a strong atheist, gnostic theist or a devout Buddhist, because the culture doesn't forcibly try to make it a problem. Why the Chinese family under the Three Teachings could have any mix of those religions being a dominant focus was no problem during times when one of the religions didn't enforce itself and we can see how a family could have an even larger mix of religions and atheism in today's China.

This is why I focused on monotheistic societies as the equivalent of atheism in historical pagan societies would have been closer to the rejecting of the dominant cultural narrative.

So you don't see religions that can't understand people having value, who don't believe their dominant narrative as being the problem, but people who at least in part don't have belief in parts of it. The intrinsic value of different religions or skeptics is inherently less.

When making the point that atheism can have significant consequences, it is easiest to focus on certain societies - the ones primarily influenced by Abrahimisms.

So your primary objection is against things that aren't monocultures, finding that atheism somehow makes people stand out even though they might fully embrace their culture.

In traditional Chinese society, the role of god would be something like the family patriarch. The equivalent of atheism would have been the rejection of his status.

Zhendema? What time period are we talking about and what "god" of the Three Teachings do you think the traditional Chinese society had, Confucius, Buddha or even Lao Tze?

None of this requires anti-theism. If morality is believed to have come from God's design, not believing in this god automatically removes this foundation stone.

This is of course a problem for those theists who are acting morally due to their belief in their religions God, but for people who are moral it's not problematic to find a suitable ethic.

It's perfectly possible that someone could adopt Christian morals for non-theistic reasons, they would still have to justify this to themselves via another method though.

Why is this even a problem? People tend to follow the morals of their culture and atheists tend to follow the laws of their countries. We see that the amount of atheists jailed is less than various religions by adherents. An apologetic should find this a problem.

Again, it is easiest to work with the clearest cut examples, so I used the ideologies that sought to radically reshape morality due to the belief that traditional religious values were founded on a false premise and could thus be discarded.

But you can't see how an atheist or actually a person who believes in any other religion than the main religion of a country might see all this as insignificant. When I was at an age barely able to read I certainly didn't think about cultural narratives even though it was certain I lacked God-belief. So this, what you are driving at, was completely meaningless to me when I was an atheist from the get-go. As I or other non-believers had no problems with laws or with the dominant culture you could say that this ivory tower speculation you like to say others engage in, is something you should ask yourself about.

 

[Jumi]

The word religion is a hot potato with everyone qualifying it in one way or another so they can deny that what they believe is not a religion, and . . . ah, what other people believe is religion. Your example is classic 'Buddhism is not a religion in the classical sense. I doubt that this vague 'classical sense' can be defined differently depending who wants to justify that what they believe is not 'religion.'

Buddhism is of course a religion. Whether someone follows it as a religion or not, Buddhism has all the ingredients that modern scholars of religion use to identify one. That in itself does not mean that anyone using the ideas of Buddhism is a follower of the religion. In fact, they can reject the religion itself and just use it's teachings as a mix of philosophy and psychology. This would be unconventional in the east, but almost commonplace in the west.

 

[Augustus]

The reason for this is primarily that many religions don't see people who they see as not believing as having the same value as they do. Non-Christians were seen as less human.

If all Christians were super liberal, open minded and never interfered with another persons's business, their very existence in society would still make atheism consequential.

Most people in the West are aware of the religious demand for no sex before marriage - most atheists reject this purely because they see it as having no moral authority as they don't believe in its source.

From the surviving related religions, a lot of their morals seem to revolve around making neighbors happy.

Do you know how the religion was interwoven with political power/social structure?

Even with some of the "monotheisms"(I'm putting this in quotes, because they're not pure monotheism), belief fought for it's place by suppressing Gnostics and other mystics. We can see that direct experience of God was most problematic to the power of those who wanted to control their beliefs. And if one believed in the wrong god, tough luck, it might mean you were a target.

IIRC, this really only started when Christian Orthodoxy became interwoven with political power. Heresies were seen as weakening the power and the legitimacy of the polity. In the pre-modern world, rival sources of power were seen as dangerous (and often were). This created a striving for orthodoxy which led to further oppressions.

Also possibly a reason why Romans persecuted Christians at times, their refusal to accept the dominant cultural practices were seen as a public undermining of official power.

This is where Confucianism is superior. It demands no belief, has the golden rule, talks of love and gentlemanly conduct, improving yourself morally. It poses no problem being a strong atheist, gnostic theist or a devout Buddhist, because the culture doesn't forcibly try to make it a problem. Why the Chinese family under the Three Teachings could have any mix of those religions being a dominant focus was no problem during times when one of the religions didn't enforce itself and we can see how a family could have an even larger mix of religions and atheism in today's China.

There were some repression of Buddhism, especially Tang Dynasty 9th C.

This is where comparing different 'religions' becomes difficult though. By focusing on where it is more tolerant 'belief' it makes it seem more open minded.

Confucianism was very restrictive, in some ways the ultimate monoculture. The purpose of education was to indoctrinate people into the Confucian culture and their status in society was decided by how well they progressed within this culture. All individual worth was bestowed or revoked by the state. There was no space for heterodoxy as this was a direct challenge to the legitimacy of every important member of society from the bottom to the top..

As an off topic aside, I've seen interesting argument that make the case that Chinese society was so successful in creating stability, that this is why they didn't have an industrial of scientific revolution despite being far more advanced than Europe for the majority of their history. The state only valued practical science and there was no room for an emerging industrial class to drive industrialisation

So you don't see religions that can't understand people having value, who don't believe their dominant narrative as being the problem, but people who at least in part don't have belief in parts of it. The intrinsic value of different religions or skeptics is inherently less.

AFAIK, I haven't been making any value judgements, what I've said was meant to be descriptive, what is rather than what ought.

So your primary objection is against things that aren't monocultures, finding that atheism somehow makes people stand out even though they might fully embrace their culture.

I have no objection, I just don't see atheism as a neutral and inert position, but a belief that comes into contact with other incompatible beliefs.

In a society with no racism, not being a racist has no consequences. In a society which contains racists, not being racist can have consequences.

Were there no theisms, atheism would have no consequences, where there are theisms, and where they have played a fundamentally important role in the development of societies past and present, it can certainly have significant consequences.

Zhendema? What time period are we talking about and what "god" of the Three Teachings do you think the traditional Chinese society had, Confucius, Buddha or even Lao Tze?

Wasn't talking about a literal god. In some societies there is a 'real' god who acted as the philosophical source of social order, not having a god meant something else must play this role.

This is why it is hard to compare atheism and its effects across diverse societies. In one society it may be pretty meaningless and in another it is a rejection of the entire social order. It is comparing apples to oranges.

If you want to compare apples to apples, you need to look at what the social equivalent of atheism would be i.e what stance would challenge the social order.

Why is this even a problem? People tend to follow the morals of their culture and atheists tend to follow the laws of their countries. We see that the amount of atheists jailed is less than various religions by adherents. An apologetic should find this a problem.

Who said it was a problem?

It's just another example of a potential consequence of atheism.

But you can't see how an atheist or actually a person who believes in any other religion than the main religion of a country might see all this as insignificant. When I was at an age barely able to read I certainly didn't think about cultural narratives even though it was certain I lacked God-belief. So this, what you are driving at, was completely meaningless to me when I was an atheist from the get-go. As I or other non-believers had no problems with laws or with the dominant culture you could say that this ivory tower speculation you like to say others engage in, is something you should ask yourself about.

I'm not sure you understand my position.

Most Western atheists are opposed to a role for religion (generally meaning Christianity given demographics) in politics. Do you think that this belief is completely independent from their atheism? Most don't pray either, again independent from their atheism or a consequence of it?

I wasn't raised in a religious household but went to a Christian school when I was 5. Every morning we had an assembly sung some songs and prayed. It was all good samaritan, be kind to people, love thy neighbour sort of Christianity, basically good advice for children.

Sometimes I prayed at home, simply because that's what we did at school, sort of like doing maths or playing the recorder. Once I asked my mum about God/Jesus and she said some people believe and others don't. I decided I was one who didn't so I stopped praying at home and in school it no longer had any meaning for me. I still quite liked some of the songs and stories though, but saw them differently.

I was probably 5 or 6, had no idea what atheism was at that point (and wouldn't for many more years) yet it had a tangible consequence for my thought and behaviour.

I see the 'no consequences' approach as being ivory tower speculation because it thinks at the atomised level of the word abstracted from all context, rather than at the level of a concept that exists in a broader cultural environment. It goes against my personal experience, my experiences of interacting with other atheists, and mountains of historical evidence from Marx to Hebert to Nietzsche to Freud to Comte to Russell.

 

[Jumi]

Most people in the West are aware of the religious demand for no sex before marriage - most atheists reject this purely because they see it as having no moral authority as they don't believe in its source.

Some have knee-jerk reactions. I find it hard to imagine that someone would want sex before marriage, just because they are in opposition to a religious demand!

And this "no sex before marriage" was never taught as a Christian idea during the near decade of religious education I have. Indeed during the forced Christian camp I went through I was taught that one should see to it that they do not marry someone for eternity if they don't "match" sexually. Frankly it would have made more people question the religion if it was part of Christianity here. It was a common thing to ask, if people were getting married that when's the child due...

Do you know how the religion was interwoven with political power/social structure?

There were runesingers who told traditional tales often with moral advice, such as never having a spouse with much difference in age, to not shout while in a boat, not to bother someone who is working. There were women whose function was to cry for the dead. There were shaman like people who others went to advice. The ones that still hold related religions have some kind of priests. Their purpose is to come during communal festivals to bless foods using traditional song, at other times they work just like the others, with no special power.

IIRC, this really only started when Christian Orthodoxy became interwoven with political power. Heresies were seen as weakening the power and the legitimacy of the polity. In the pre-modern world, rival sources of power were seen as dangerous (and often were). This created a striving for orthodoxy which led to further oppressions.

Also possibly a reason why Romans persecuted Christians at times, their refusal to accept the dominant cultural practices were seen as a public undermining of official power.

Agreed.

There were some repression of Buddhism, especially Tang Dynasty 9th C.

Also repression of foreign religions at one time or other.

This is where comparing different 'religions' becomes difficult though. By focusing on where it is more tolerant 'belief' it makes it seem more open minded.

Well we are after all talking about one thing.

Confucianism was very restrictive, in some ways the ultimate monoculture. The purpose of education was to indoctrinate people into the Confucian culture and their status in society was decided by how well they progressed within this culture. All individual worth was bestowed or revoked by the state. There was no space for heterodoxy as this was a direct challenge to the legitimacy of every important member of society from the bottom to the top..

Not too much to disagree with here. There's a lot of good ideas there. Everyone becomes part of the whole.

As an off topic aside, I've seen interesting argument that make the case that Chinese society was so successful in creating stability, that this is why they didn't have an industrial of scientific revolution despite being far more advanced than Europe for the majority of their history. The state only valued practical science and there was no room for an emerging industrial class to drive industrialisation

It makes sense, they also managed to "tame" the Mongols, so they ended up learning from the Confucians.

I have no objection, I just don't see atheism as a neutral and inert position, but a belief that comes into contact with other incompatible beliefs.

In a society with no racism, not being a racist has no consequences. In a society which contains racists, not being racist can have consequences.

Were there no theisms, atheism would have no consequences, where there are theisms, and where they have played a fundamentally important role in the development of societies past and present, it can certainly have significant consequences.

Consequences from interaction. Someone who is not racist will spend time thinking about their not-racism's consequences about as much as an atheist will think about their. It will depend on what information and experiences they will be subjected to. Perhaps they will become active politically if they are part of the small group of people who are thus motivated or just keep to themselves. Their not-racism is quite equivalent to the not-theism of the atheists.

Wasn't talking about a literal god. In some societies there is a 'real' god who acted as the philosophical source of social order, not having a god meant something else must play this role.

So atheism or theism there had little consequence.

If you want to compare apples to apples, you need to look at what the social equivalent of atheism would be i.e what stance would challenge the social order.

You're thinking that every atheist out there is out to challenge the social order? Really?

Most Western atheists are opposed to a role for religion (generally meaning Christianity given demographics) in politics. Do you think that this belief is completely independent from their atheism? Most don't pray either, again independent from their atheism or a consequence of it?

I think you're looking at this from an American view. Here the State Church has even priests who are practically atheists. There are rainbow events for LGBTs, there's heavy metal mass for the metalheads...

Skip to 14:20->18:00 if you want to see what kind of Christian priests are in Scandinavia compared to US. I tried to link the time, but it doesn't work here. The Danish accent may be hard to follow, sorry for that.

I wasn't raised in a religious household but went to a Christian school when I was 5. Every morning we had an assembly sung some songs and prayed. It was all good samaritan, be kind to people, love thy neighbour sort of Christianity, basically good advice for children.

Sometimes I prayed at home, simply because that's what we did at school, sort of like doing maths or playing the recorder. Once I asked my mum about God/Jesus and she said some people believe and others don't. I decided I was one who didn't so I stopped praying at home and in school it no longer had any meaning for me. I still quite liked some of the songs and stories though, but saw them differently.

I was probably 5 or 6, had no idea what atheism was at that point (and wouldn't for many more years) yet it had a tangible consequence for my thought and behaviour.

Here, instead of good moral advice, it was more about listening to sermons, symbolism that goes way over the heads of kids, church history and theology. Then came the scare about Satanism, so it started to be about how horrible various types of games or music are.

I see the 'no consequences' approach as being ivory tower speculation because it thinks at the atomised level of the word abstracted from all context, rather than at the level of a concept that exists in a broader cultural environment. It goes against my personal experience, my experiences of interacting with other atheists, and mountains of historical evidence from Marx to Hebert to Nietzsche to Freud to Comte to Russell.

So how consequential is your atheism in your daily life? What kind of activities do you do because of your atheism?

 

[shunyadragon]

Buddhism is of course a religion.

Of course?!?!? Many Buddhists, Jews and Christians do not consider their belief a 'religion.'

 

[Underhill]

I gave a reference where this is possible. Claiming impossibility is the weakest possible argument.

I am not claiming impossibility. Just pointing out that most people (consensus being the basis for most definitions) would say one cannot be an atheist and a religious person.

The word religion is a hot potato with everyone qualifying it in one way or another so they can deny that what they believe is not a religion, and . . . ah, what other people believe is religion. Your example is classic 'Buddhism is not a religion in the classical sense. I doubt that this vague 'classical sense' can be defined differently depending who wants to justify that what they believe is not 'religion.'

The thing with most hardcore Buddhist is that they are not big on conflict and debate. So I've heard them compare it to religion, heard them call it a moral code to live by and heard them talk about a path to enlightenment depending on who they are talking to. The point is that even the followers of Buddhism do not get hung up on the definition. Why should we?

 

[Martin]

Faith that there is no god(s). Telling others that there are no gods, as many on here love to do. Pushing theories such as abiogenesis as truth.

In atheism I only see the belief that there is no god. I don't think that expressing that view could be considered a "practice". Unless there are atheists praying to Richard Dawkins or something.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not claiming impossibility. Just pointing out that most people (consensus being the basis for most definitions) would say one cannot be an atheist and a religious person.

Disagree. The Consensus of Jehovah Witnesses is that they are neither a religion nor a church,

Consensus tends to lead to mediocrity.

The thing with most hardcore Buddhist is that they are not big on conflict and debate. So I've heard them compare it to religion, heard them call it a moral code to live by and heard them talk about a path to enlightenment depending on who they are talking to. The point is that even the followers of Buddhism do not get hung up on the definition. Why should we?

Than why are you hung up on a narrow interpretation of the definition?

 

[shunyadragon]

In atheism I only see the belief that there is no god. I don't think that expressing that view could be considered a "practice". Unless there are atheists praying to Richard Dawkins or something.

Some religions see the belief if god(s)some no God(s), Expressing one's religious belief in "practice" is not necessary in any religion.

 

[Augustus]

I find it hard to imagine that someone would want sex before marriage, just because they are in opposition to a religious demand!

The rejecting of a proscription based on your evaluation of its legitimacy doesn't require you to do the opposite. You can do the same, but for different reasons.

This doesn't change the fact that you reject anything 'because God said so' out of hand.

There were runesingers who told traditional tales often with moral advice, such as never having a spouse with much difference in age, to not shout while in a boat, not to bother someone who is working. There were women whose function was to cry for the dead. There were shaman like people who others went to advice. The ones that still hold related religions have some kind of priests. Their purpose is to come during communal festivals to bless foods using traditional song, at other times they work just like the others, with no special power.

Thanks

Well we are after all talking about one thing.

My argument is that atheism can have consequences. The analogy was that saying atheism can have no consequences is like saying rejecting the foundations of Confucian society can have no consequences.

Consequences from interaction.

This was my point of my rejection for ivory tower abstraction. We live in a society and survive via interaction.

Saying something only has effects via interaction is like saying things only have effects in the real world.

You're thinking that every atheist out there is out to challenge the social order? Really?

I've not once said that. Remember my argument is that atheism can have consequences, and I'm making my points via specific examples.

Certain historical regimes drew their legitimacy, at least in part, from theistic religion. God's deputy, the Caliph, would be an obvious example.

An atheist in such a regime is thus implicitly rejecting the legitimacy of the social order. This is highly consequential.

Do you agree with this?

I think you're looking at this from an American view. Here the State Church has even priests who are practically atheists. There are rainbow events for LGBTs, there's heavy metal mass for the metalheads...

I've never been to America

From my experience, most atheists don't believe that religion has any role in politics and should not be considered to have special status. From my experience also, their atheism plays at least some role in this view.

As long as some atheists consider it relevant, it's enough to make my point though.

So how consequential is your atheism in your daily life? What kind of activities do you do because of your atheism?

Often it relates to what I could do, but choose not to. When the call to prayer goes off at 4.30am, I don't feel much compulsion to get out of bed. Or go to the Church on Sundays. or to the Temple either.

It influences how I view aspects of society, history, politics, philosophy, science, etc. It is highly relevant for my worldview. Again, it is hard to isolate it from other beliefs and treat them as independent and non-interlinked.

It was something that I thought about extensively regarding having children when I was in a long term relationship with a Muslim woman and later with a Christian woman.

I'm not sure I hold too many single beliefs of more consequence. Certainly well above average anyway.

 

[Jumi]

Of course?!?!? Many Buddhists, Jews and Christians do not consider their belief a 'religion.'

Yes. I thought it was quite clear from my post that it fits the definitions of a religion. For the many Buddhists who don't believe they are following a religion, we can compare that with their actions and beliefs.

 

[ajay0]

Atheism is a conceptual reaction to theism. Both atheism and theism are just mere concepts.

The theist believes and the atheist is a disbeliever.

Believing or disbelieving is different from knowing or not knowing clearly for oneself. The true intellectual position I would say is of agnosticism, which is ‘I do not know’, but not many have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

I have seen hardcore atheists turn to theists and vice versa. Both are a pair of opposites that keep cycling around endlessly in the circle of their conceptual framework, not ready to even acknowledge or suspect that the truth might perhaps be non-conceptual, due to their repetitive, habitual and conditioned mental activity as in a groove of a record , attached to mental concepts and ideas.

 

[Jumi]

This doesn't change the fact that you reject anything 'because God said so' out of hand.

I can't recall doing anything like that when I was an atheist.

My argument is that atheism can have consequences. The analogy was that saying atheism can have no consequences is like saying rejecting the foundations of Confucian society can have no consequences.

Perhaps I was lucky that it was never an issue in this country.

Certain historical regimes drew their legitimacy, at least in part, from theistic religion. God's deputy, the Caliph, would be an obvious example.

An atheist in such a regime is thus implicitly rejecting the legitimacy of the social order. This is highly consequential.

Do you agree with this?

If the person did not keep to themselves, they would be asking for trouble. I assume most atheists were like this.

I've never been to America

Your perspective didn't sound like anything from most of Europe, so I was guessing.

From my experience, most atheists don't believe that religion has any role in politics and should not be considered to have special status. From my experience also, their atheism plays at least some role in this view.

People probably take politics the way it works in democratic societies. If you're not active, chances are politics will turn on you and take away freedom to do something you like for some reason you don't agree with. Probably the abortion debate is most polarizing at that. Evolution is hardly a matter of debate here, but seems big in the US.

As long as some atheists consider it relevant, it's enough to make my point though.

And what of atheists who think religion should play a role in politics? There's a rather infamous local low-brow atheist who is against Islam and has tirades against other atheists, LGBT, liberal Christianity and "cultural marxism." Well actually he's in "exile", government is trying to extradite him from Monaco. He's good buddies with fundamentalists, who somehow ignore he's an atheist.

Often it relates to what I could do, but choose not to. When the call to prayer goes off at 4.30am, I don't feel much compulsion to get out of bed. Or go to the Church on Sundays. or to the Temple either.

Even though I'm now monotheist I don't feel compulsion to go to Church either, even though the bells tolled some hours ago. That's because it's not my religion and I don't agree with the theology. I don't think they present a path to God at all there. If someone gets there, it's by no help of that church.

It influences how I view aspects of society, history, politics, philosophy, science, etc. It is highly relevant for my worldview. Again, it is hard to isolate it from other beliefs and treat them as independent and non-interlinked.

As a former atheist and now monotheist, there are certain things that have changed. I feel I've more connection to some people from religions that consider themselves monotheist even though we probably don't agree about God. I don't feel any different about atheists though than I did when I was atheist, though it's easier to note when people see theism as a monolithic entity.

I'm not sure I hold too many single beliefs of more consequence. Certainly well above average anyway.

I think a lot of it is due to the environment where you live. If you were Scandinavian it would probably be something of little consequence, unless you didn't like paying money to the church. I think being a vocal theist would have more consequences, since people tend to keep their beliefs and mostly politics a private matter.

 

[Underhill]

Disagree. The Consensus of Jehovah Witnesses is that they are neither a religion nor a church,

Consensus tends to lead to mediocrity.

I would agree if we are talking about "common sense" or old wives tales. But language, by definition, is determined by those who speak it.

Than why are you hung up on a narrow interpretation of the definition?

I have very few hang ups. It's a discussion. My point is that even those we consider "religious" aren't really strictly religious in the traditional sense. Calling atheist religious is like calling astronomers astrologers. They may both be looking at the stars, but one is doing so rationally while the other is using the stars to justify gibberish.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes. I thought it was quite clear from my post that it fits the definitions of a religion. For the many Buddhists who don't believe they are following a religion, we can compare that with their actions and beliefs.

Many Buddhists do not have any particular actions related to their belief, and some sort of beliefs are common to virtually every person that have ever existed.

 

[shunyadragon]

I would agree if we are talking about "common sense" or old wives tales. But language, by definition, is determined by those who speak it.

True so what?!?!?!? There are many words in the every language that are not simplistically and narrowly defined to fit what one believes how they should be.

I have very few hang ups. It's a discussion. My point is that even those we consider "religious" aren't really strictly religious in the traditional sense. Calling atheist religious is like calling astronomers astrologers. They may both be looking at the stars, but one is doing so rationally while the other is using the stars to justify gibberish.

This is a common theme of believing one's belief is superior in one way or the other, therefore what other people believe is religion, but 'my belief' is not.

 

[Jumi]

Many Buddhists do not have any particular actions related to their belief, and some sort of beliefs are common to virtually every person that have ever existed.

I think we agree on more things than you realize. I too, took a few of their ideas back when I was an atheist, along with some from other religions that made sense to me.

 

[Underhill]

True so what?!?!?!? There are many words in the every language that are not simplistically and narrowly defined to fit what one believes how they should be.

This is a common theme of believing one's belief is superior in one way or the other, therefore what other people believe is religion, but 'my belief' is not.

Right, except in this case I am right.