Atheistic Religions

[Orias]

'super'latives confuse you?

I'm not joking.
If you believe in spiritual life.....Someone is at the top.

Even if you aren't spiritual, someone is at the top

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yup...

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Yup...

Doesn't have to work like that. There can be ghosts without a god.

 

[LuisDantas]

And none of these focus upon...a greater life form?....spiritual life form?

Greater as in better than the current situation? I suppose so.

Spiritual? What makes a life form spiritual as opposed to a non-spiritual one?

But you had just claimed something else, namely that religion needs belief in a supreme being. And that is simply not correct, unless you are willing to restrict your definition of religion to a very unreasonable degree.

Even in the (comparatively few) religions that do indeed demand belief in a supreme god of some kind, it turns out that such a belief is anything but central to most believers. And really, it couldn't possibly be otherwise. Belief is, after all, just belief. It has little practical value, and next to no religious use.

 

[LuisDantas]

Supernatural....as in greater than you?
Supernatural...is in spiritual?

Actually, that definition is flawed as well. Supernatural is not a very useful concept either. And from a religious perspective it is usually more trouble than it is worth anyway.

Religion is what you do....about what you believe.

BINGO. And most important of all, about what you decide to do with your own convictions. How seriously you question them, how fully you take responsibility for them, the whole package.

If you believe in something greater than yourself.....
that belief system will include some hierarchy....and an Almighty....
a supreme being.

No no no. You took a seriously wrong swerve here.

First, what do you mean by belief in something "greater" than oneself? Surely you don't mean the physical size, and neither do you mean human organizations. So what do you mean?

Hierarchies are a fact of life, and they don't really have much specifically to do with religious beliefs or practices far as I can tell. So again, what do you mean here?

Is it an appeal to submission to God will? If so, I will pass. I don't find the idea appealing or even religiously sound.

As for an Almighty Supreme being... you really think honestly about it you will see that it is basically an useless idea as far as religion goes. It appeals to some people's aesthetical sense, but it doesn't really clarify or explain anything. Most important of all, belief in such a being has very definitely, very clearly shown to be worthless in a religious sense.

People may take religion seriously and be good people regardless of whether or not they believe in God. They most certainly don't become good religious people because they believe in God, however. In fact, there are very strong indications that such a belief is religiously poisonous more often than not. All it takes to realize that is having a measure of moral courage and the desire to notice things as they are.

 

[linwood]

Supernatural....as in greater than you?
Supernatural...is in spiritual?

Religion is what you do....about what you believe.

If you believe in something greater than yourself.....
that belief system will include some hierarchy....and an Almighty....
a supreme being.

I believe in many things greater than myself.

None of them a supreme being some not beings at all.

 

[Thief]

So let's rewrite Webster's so non-believers can have the last word.

 

[linwood]

So let's rewrite Webster's so non-believers can have the last word.

Websters has been rewritten many many times because it was incorrect.

However I don`t believe it`s necessary this time as Websters defintion seems right to me if not inclusive enough.

re·li·gion noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices


Religion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

By the definition above no god is necessary for religion.

 

[linwood]

This one is much better...

Religion &#8211;noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

Religion | Define Religion at Dictionary.com

 

[Thief]

This one is much better...

No it isn't....(see how that works?)

Back to post #31.

 

[linwood]

No it isn't....(see how that works?)

Back to post #31.

The only thing I can do about post #31 is tell you that it is not the definition Websters has for religion.

I don`t know where it came from but it didn`t come from a current copy of Websters dictionary.

Not that it matters anyway as the dictionary debate is usually something I try to avoid.
Granted, I`ve failed miserably in this thread.

 

[LuisDantas]

So let's rewrite Webster's so non-believers can have the last word.

Oh please, spare us the cheap victimization.

What about giving people who care about religion the last word on what religion is supposed to be instead?

 

[Thief]

Oh please, spare us the cheap victimization.

What about giving people who care about religion the last word on what religion is supposed to be instead?

Coming from a non-believer?

And again you assume to much of me.

As faith I have....I speak of it.

Or perhaps..as per title...you think atheism is a religion?
Wasn't there a thread about atheism as a belief?
As I recall...that didn't go well either.....for lack of definition.

 

[Thief]

The only thing I can do about post #31 is tell you that it is not the definition Websters has for religion.

A lie....I have my copy right here in hand.

I don`t know where it came from but it didn`t come from a current copy of Websters dictionary.

Not that it matters anyway as the dictionary debate is usually something I try to avoid.
Granted, I`ve failed miserably in this thread.

That definition doesn't fit your discussion is not a point of failure.

Failure is a line you should draw...somewhere else.

 

[LuisDantas]

Coming from a non-believer?

Believer in God, you mean? Sure, why not.

Are you perhaps implying that atheists shouldn't care about religion? Sorry, but that is not your call to make.

And again you assume to much of me.

As faith I have....I speak of it.

Or perhaps..as per title...you think atheism is a religion?
Wasn't there a thread about atheism as a belief?
As I recall...that didn't go well either.....for lack of definition.

Well, it was an honest attempt at being generous. Let's move on.

You should read those threads a bit more. Atheism is not a religion, as said time and again. Nor is it particularly related to religion, be it pro or against.

A few religions claim to be incompatible with Atheism, but that is just fear speaking, really.

As for lack of definition, that is really fault of the concept of God itself. It was built to be ill-defined, so yes, it is not really possible to define either atheism or theism clearly, because god itself is such a vague, barely useful concept.

 

[linwood]

A lie....I have my copy right here in hand.

It is not a lie.
Please read for comprehension.

I said the definition "is not the definition Websters HAS for religion"
I went on to say the definition didn`t come from a "current" copy of Websters.

Both of these statements are true.

So now to proceed with an event never before attempted I will now challenge your copy of Websters (old/outdated) with my copy of Websters (New/improved)!!


Not really.

That definition doesn't fit your discussion is not a point of failure.

Failure is a line you should draw...somewhere else.

Actually, as I`ve said before the dictionary changes it`s definitions often when it realizes it was wrong.

This is apparently the case with the differences between the old definition of religion and the new definition of religion.

For what other reason would they change it?

 

[Thief]

Believer in God, you mean? Sure, why not.

Are you perhaps implying that atheists shouldn't care about religion? Sorry, but that is not your call to make.

I don't need authority to make a call.

Well, it was an honest attempt at being generous. Let's move on.

Not so fast.

You should read those threads a bit more. Atheism is not a religion, as said time and again. Nor is it particularly related to religion, be it pro or against.

And this won't work on me....

A few religions claim to be incompatible with Atheism, but that is just fear speaking, really.

As for lack of definition, that is really fault of the concept of God itself. It was built to be ill-defined, so yes, it is not really possible to define either atheism or theism clearly, because god itself is such a vague, barely useful concept.

Your post will render this discussion useless.

First the definition needs to affirmed...nothing wishy washy.

You believe...or you don't.
Then we discuss what you believe...or not.

Then religion...what you do, about what you believe.
See post #31.

 

[LuisDantas]

You don't get to decide whether I am qualified to understand what religion is about, Thief. That I am an Atheist is of no real consequence. Religion has little to do with belief in God.

 

[Orias]

Doesn't have to work like that. There can be ghosts without a god.

There can be a god without God as well.

 

[Thief]

You don't get to decide whether I am qualified to understand what religion is about, Thief. That I am an Atheist is of no real consequence. Religion has little to do with belief in God.

So you think religion can be aimed at something...your equal...or less?
Really?