"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

[Sententia]

Seriously:

Atheism is not a religion, no.

Just as theism is not a religion.

They are both theological stances, just like pantheism, panentheism, polytheism...

All not religions...

BUT, in my view, every person does have a religion, whether they are theist, atheist, or whatever.

So you have your opinion... it is obviously false... even to you...

Its obvious not everyone has a religion... But your faith is that we do and we must... Even though many of us are running from the one forced upon us...

I was also once told if you see the word but to disregard everything before it... Advice you are proving with words and with your opinion.

 

[logician]

"
BUT, in my view, every person does have a religion, whether they are theist, atheist, or whatever."

A nihilist essentially believes in nothing, so I don't think one could say they are religious even by this viewpoint.

 

[lilithu]

So you have your opinion... it is obviously false... even to you...

Its obvious not everyone has a religion... But your faith is that we do and we must...

Dude, you clearly did not understand a thing I said.

 

[Sententia]

"
BUT, in my view, every person does have a religion, whether they are theist, atheist, or whatever."

A nihilist essentially believes in nothing, so I don't think one could say they are religious even by this viewpoint.

If your always going to try to find logic then maybe you should just call yourself...

haha

Dont expect any presents from santa.... 1+1=2... LOL.... what about very large vaules of 1? huh? hehe!

 

[Sententia]

Dude, you clearly did not understand a thing I said.

LOL

every person does have a religion, whether they are theist, atheist, or whatever.

Every eh? What is to misunderstand?

Every!

I visit relatives who cant speak their names...

Every...

Are you an idiot? What do I CLEARLY dont understand mate? Elaborate... You want to make generalizations which are obviously false and I seek to call you on them to expand your consciousness if only a little... I have friends that wont vote or register to do so but live in america as catholics and know nothing about catholic faith nor agree with it or protestant faith... in short their idiots and they still dont fall into your general categories but clearly Im wrong... right?

Expand!

I already said Im in a bad mood but please elaborate mate...

 

[lilithu]

Every!

I visit relatives who cant speak their names...

Every...

Is that seriously your argument, seriously?

Ok, fine, people who are infants, comatose, brain dead, and/or seriously mentally impaired might not have religions.

Happy now? :areyoucra

Are you an idiot?

Ok, end of conversation. Good bye.

 

[Sententia]

Is that seriously your argument, seriously?

Ok, fine, people who are infants, comatose, brain dead, and/or seriously mentally impaired might not have religions.

Happy now? :areyoucra


Ok, end of conversation. Good bye.

I think I made my point... You dont have an argument.. fine... Not everyone has a religion nor is one required...

When you generalize and say every you have to see you are wrong... I gave you a few obvious examples that you agreed with... but you have to understand there are ALL walks of life and no all life that exists with you will think or act like you do but most will still consider them life...

I cant control what you will think... I do not want to... I want you to be you... Even if its completely against me. I also want you to see reality if possible.... and if not... whatever... I tried...

 

[emiliano]

It's called a rebuttal, and it happens in every healthy debate. Religion set the standard of discourse low, so the standard of the rebuttal is equally low.

You wouldn't expect a lengthy essay by Mark Twain or Kurt Vonnegut in rebuttal to "REPENT OR BURN!" Just a simple "NO THANK YOU!" would suffice.

I think that it all depend on what kind of Christian church you went to learn about Christianity I have not heard many sermon with the “Repent or Burn theme on it ” and I don’t care much for those kind sermons I am more fond of the ones that reassures us and are base on hope, such as this one “Behold what manner of love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God. Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him” everyone who has this hope on him purifies himself, even as that One is pure” “as many as received Him, He gave to them authority to become the children of God” “now we are children of God” Where do you get your idea, Obama’s pastor?
It seems to me that you set the bar low, to the lowest common denominator and a "You're talking through your hat would suffice.

 

[Willamena]

"
BUT, in my view, every person does have a religion, whether they are theist, atheist, or whatever."

A nihilist essentially believes in nothing, so I don't think one could say they are religious even by this viewpoint.

Unless "belief in nothing" was their religion.

Do you believe in nothing?

 

[Magic Man]

I think I made my point... You dont have an argument.. fine... Not everyone has a religion nor is one required...

When you generalize and say every you have to see you are wrong... I gave you a few obvious examples that you agreed with... but you have to understand there are ALL walks of life and no all life that exists with you will think or act like you do but most will still consider them life...

I cant control what you will think... I do not want to... I want you to be you... Even if its completely against me. I also want you to see reality if possible.... and if not... whatever... I tried...

I think Lilithu was using religion in a different way than you are thinking. I disagree with using it the way she did, but asking her instead of attacking might be a better way to approach it. She said that atheists have a religion. Might that not make you curious as to what she could mean? That's the point where I assume she means something other than the normal "Christianity, Hinduism..." stuff.

 

[lilithu]

Many philosophers of religion, however, have adopted an analogously broader definition of religion, namely, that of Tillich. He defines religion as "ultimate concern" which he describes as "an abstract translation of the great commandment: `You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your mind, and with all your strength.'"

An ultimate concern is unconditional, total, infinite, and transcends all preliminary concerns. "Our ultimate concern is that which determines our being or not-being." Furthermore, "every human being exists in the power of an ultimate concern, whether or not he is fully conscious of it, whether or not he admits it to himself or others." This means that all people have a religion, that which functions in their lives in the same way as the traditional religions, namely, interpreting their experience and ordering and guiding their lives.

It has been objected that Tillich's definition of religion makes everyone into a religious person. Tillich, however, is perfectly aware that many people are not religious in the traditional sense of being adherents of one of the world religions.

So we could continue to define religion in the traditional way. But that would obscure the fact to which Tillich's definition bears witness, namely, that religion or being religious is an essential dimension of human existence. John Dewey makes a similar point when he asserts that there is a religious attitude, outlook, and function, and that "whatever introduces genuine perspective is religious." Moreover, one of the volumes in the World Spirituality series deals with secular spiritualities.

from: Some problems in contemporary Christian spirituality | Anglican Theological Review | Find Articles at BNET

I don't normally just cut and paste large blocks of text. But I'm doing it here to show that I'm not just making this stuff up. The definition of religion to which I adhere is a well known, albeit not universal, way of looking at it.

As a UU and an existentialist, it's the one that makes the most sense to me.

While it's true that religion is commonly associated with dogma and ritual, those things do NOT define religion, given that there are numerous exceptions. The way that many people who are suspicious of organized religion use the word "religion," I find that they tend to label the things that they don't like/disapprove of as "religion" and the things the like/approve of as "philosophy." And that kind of definition, imo, is problematic.

So some people say that they're religious as a point of pride, implying they're better than others. And other people say they are not religious as a point of pride, implying they're better than others. That's what I see with the bus ads, and with numerous threads here.

I'm saying that everyone has a religion. What is most important is what your religion is. What do you believe in? What do you stand for? What is your ultimate concern? Because that is what is going to determine how you behave in this world, not any label of theist or atheist, or Christian or Pagan, etc.

 

[Alceste]

So some people say that they're religious as a point of pride, implying they're better than others. And other people say they are not religious as a point of pride, implying they're better than others. That's what I see with the bus ads, and with numerous threads here.

I'm saying that everyone has a religion. What is most important is what your religion is. What do you believe in? What do you stand for? What is your ultimate concern? Because that is what is going to determine how you behave in this world, not any label of theist or atheist, or Christian or Pagan, etc.

And some people say they're not religious because they're not, and to claim otherwise would be dishonest.

Why should I define "religiousness" the way you do, or the way some Anglican theologian does? I prefer to go by the dictionary. I find most discussions are simpler that way.

[SIZE=-1]A religion is a set of beliefs and practices often organized around supernatural and moral claims, and often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious

[/SIZE]

 

[lilithu]

Why should I define "religiousness" the way you do, or the way some Anglican theologian does? I prefer to go by the dictionary. I find most discussions are simpler that way.

Because the dictionary definition is woefully inaccurate.

And not that you care, but the Anglican theologian was merely referencing Paul Tillich, who was not Anglican. He was one of the greatest theologians of the 20th century, and an existentialist.

 

[Magic Man]

Because the dictionary definition is woefully inaccurate.

I have to disagree. It might not fit your view of the topic, but the dictionary definition of "religion" is quite accurate for the way that most people use it.

 

[challupa]

As much as I agree that pride is definitely projected from either the standpoint of being religious or not being religious, I have to question the statement that everyone has a religion. I tend to agree that the dictionary has a good description of religion as we currently understand it.

However, I do believe you have brought up some key points when you ask "What do you believe in? What do you stand for? What is your ultimate concern? Because that is what is going to determine how you behave in this world, not any label of theist or atheist, or Christian or Pagan, etc."

I agree with that because it is our beliefs that determine how we will ultimately behave in the world. That is why if we want to change the world we live in we need to re-evaluate what we believe and decide whether it is in the best interest of the world we live in or, do our beliefs cause problems. I think that needs to be done across the whole spectrum of beliefs. I might also add, that all atheists if they think that their beliefs are in no way colored by religion, they really need to think again. The influence of religion is so intertwined in the secular world by thousands of centuries of programming, that we cannot possibly not be influenced by that.

So atheist ads on buses are not different in that context from religious ones, because both are trying to sell their points of view. However, it is my opinion that any ad that tries to reduce fear in this world is a step in the right direction. Instilling a fear of hell and eternal damnation into people the way religions do, is not conducive for a healthy society. It just makes people inflexible, intolerant and full of shame and guilt when they can't achieve the many rules religions have conceived. We certainly can see the effects of those things in our world!!

 

[Sunstone]

I'm unsure most people really have an ultimate concern. At least not in practice --- though I'm sure many people might think they do.

 

[lilithu]

I have to disagree. It might not fit your view of the topic, but the dictionary definition of "religion" is quite accurate for the way that most people use it.

Please name the set of beliefs and practices that make up Judaism.

(After that, I'll ask about Hinduism... etc.)

 

[lilithu]

I'm unsure most people really have an ultimate concern. At least not in practice --- though I'm sure many people might think they do.

I think everyone has an ultimate concern, even tho many people think they don't.

For some people, their ultimate concern is their family... or getting and keeping money... or even something like their football team winning the Super Bowl.

People may think that I'm being glib, but I'm not. It is what we value most that determines how we approach life and the choices we make. It is with us every day.

To define religion as a set of rituals and rote beliefs - separate from everyday life - that is a glib view of religion.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Except for Storm, none of Dawkins' critics on this thread answered my question:

I'm curious to know if any of Dawkins' critics on this thread have actually read anything Dawkins has written, or heard him speak, and if they can point to anything specifically that bothered them.

Well, have you? Can you?

(And thank you Storm for your response )

 

[Sunstone]

I think everyone has an ultimate concern, even tho many people think they don't.

I guess it would come down to he says, she says, except isn't the burden of proof on you -- since you're the one asserting the claim, without evidence, that everyone has an ultimate concern. Or, did you mean that as some kind of axiom?