The "religion" of non-religion! A discussion!

Everybody already said what I wanted to say; primarily, nonreligion is not a religion. c.i.

0 Replies

Looks like I'm overdue with my two cents worth !

What Is missing from this discussion is the phrase "belief on which you base subsequent action".

If a person is "religious" he clearly may engage in certain rituals or thought processes which structure his existence. Atheists for the most part do not do this, but there is a variety of atheist (of which I may be one) who actively reacts against religious beliefs because he sees them as pernicious. In this "active sense" then "atheism" may have similar qualities to "religion"

0 Replies

That's what I said in the part that God spoke to me about...

But you can't call it a religion because it is in fact the absence of religion.

0 Replies

There is no such thing as "nonreligious"-ness.
As what ever an individual believes is their "religion"

the term "nonreligious" is used to
identify religious beliefs which are different
and usually disagreeable to the speaker

broadly defined "religion" is
a persons understanding of
their life and the world -of life-
of which individual life is part.
i.e. what is life.

thus I would argue that there is no
such thing as a non religious conscious person
as consciuosness is the result of a persons individual understanding -to some degree- of their existence and the world of which they and we are part; which is-the broad definition of religion.

0 Replies

Well I certainly hope everyone realizes I am not the one pushing this "non-religion religion" stuff. I'm just the reporter -- and one of the people who would like to debate Maliagar on the issue.

But the guest of honor has not yet shown up.

I'm sure he will. He is an excellent advocate for his positions -- and that takes some doing, because his positions are not easy to defend.

I thank everyone who has participates so far -- and I hope Maliagar gets here soon.

0 Replies

I use labels (I am an atheist, for instance) not to establish a tenant of faith, but because there has to be a means of identification for everything we know about. I don't have faith there is no God. I simply know it to be so. A lifetime of watching the slippery arguments of the religious and agnostic minds has produced nothing of substance to change that fact.

0 Replies

adon, WELCOM to A2K. Wink

c.i.

0 Replies

edgar, What's a "for instance athiest?" Wink

c.i.

0 Replies

You got me, C.I.

0 Replies

Morality is, IMO, that which promotes the wellfare of the species. Inbreeding, for example, has demonstrable ill effect, and thus is immoral. Likewise, murder, theft, adultry, slander, and all that negatively impact the social structure, endanger the species, and therefore are immoral. There is nothing Religious to it, as I see it. I believe Religion to be that aspect of humankind's social consciousness which seeks to account for that which is held unaccountable b experience and observation "There MUST be an answer ... a thing not indisputably, demonstrably, experientially the work of humankind, or explained thereby, must be the will and work of (the) god(s)."
It is my conjecture that what is known as Religion derives from the same instinct which provides for the recognition of and submission to authority. For millenia, there was no distinction between Religion and Authority; the two were symbiotic and codependent, essentially the same thing. Over the past millenium, humankind acquired more information gathering, storage, and processing capability than had been available in the previous dozen millenia and before. Not all that long ago, relatively, in our Eurocentric Judaeo-Christian Culture, it was a matter of legal, capital consideration that the earth was the center of the universe and that it, humankind, and all else was the creation of a divine being, and further that all legitimate authority proceded from that divine being. Any counter opinion was not only heresy but treason.
As society has evolved, the rational of morality has become more clearly understood; there are now known to be clear, observable, reproducible, evidentiary reasons to avoid certain behaviors, rather obviating the need for "Divine Revelation" of the ills of murder, theft, adultry, slander, and so forth., and the nature of and need for authority are better understood now than in the days of pyramid building. Religion indeed served a purpose, prior to humankind's recent intellectual develpment. That ancient purpose, however, no longer has application. Religion by its nature is internally validated, and exempt from reason, experiment, and evidentiary substantiation. Those who cling to Religion, to my mind, are intellectually lazy, preferring their philosophy be predigested and regurgitated to them as opposed to taking the effort to go out, hunt down, and chew their own. Religion is not The Answer, it is an avoidance, if not an outright rejection, of The Many Questions for which we have not yet discovered, and may never discover, The Answers. Some folks just can't accept that there may not be an answer available to us. Other folks insist upon seeking The Answers, and it is to them Humankind must look for the future. Its taken millenia, but we've pretty much gotten over things like slavery and human sacrifice. I suspect we'll get over Religion as well, though I imagine it will take us quite a while to do so.

0 Replies

I keep mentioning on threads like this that it is clear to me that atheism means
a-theism, that is, without theism, absent theism. Void of it. Empty of it. That doesn't preclude that the person could work up other beliefs. But the word alludes to a simple void.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

fishin,

Besides being creative with your reinvention of definitions what's the point?

Are you saying that anyone who has ever asserted something to be true is religious?

Just a minor point here Craven since I've been off all evening...

I "reinvented" words? Well, since you are the expert perhaps you should contact Merriam-Webster and have them rewrite their dictionary. I didn't "reinvent" any of those definitions. The definitions I listed are direct cut and pastes.

Now if you and Monger chose to ignore standard definitions listed in a pretty darn widely recognized reference source that's your choice but don't go accusing others of making them up.

Quote:

The arguments you pose are simply a way of naming people "religious" who don't want to be and who reject religion.

No, not quite but it's a nice try on your part. Atheist's do not reject "religion" at all. They reject "theism". As someone who taught English one would think you would quickly recognize that the two are exact opposites just as "Typical" and "Atypical" are. "Religion" however, covers the entire spectrum of Athiests, Agnostics and Theists.

Quote:

It's just a way for theists to fight the stigma of the word and has no basis. It's like finding out that someone doesn't like being called something and then calling them that.

Wrong again, what it is is ignorance on the part of people who refer to themselves as "Athiests" but don't know what the definition of the word is or take shortcuts and limit the use of the word "religion" when what they really mean is "organized religion". A poor choice of words by people who claim to be "atheists" doesn't excuse them from being exactly what they are.

0 Replies

If the dictionary so supposes the dictionary is a ass.

0 Replies

I do not BELIEVE "There is no god", rather, I do not BELIEVE either that there is one or not. I don't know. There may be. There may not be. What I do BELIEVE is that no concrete, substantiated, incontravertible evidence has ever been produced by either side of the argument. I do not EXPECT the situation to change much in the foreseeable future. I have FAITH in that assessment.

0 Replies

I've always understood that an athiest is one who *does not* believe in the possibility of a god, and an agnostic as one who does not know because there is no proof one way or the other. An agnostic neither denies the possibility of a god nor the impossibility of one.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Just a minor point here Craven since I've been off all evening...

I "reinvented" words? Well, since you are the expert perhaps you should contact Merriam-Webster and have them rewrite their dictionary. I didn't "reinvent" any of those definitions. The definitions I listed are direct cut and pastes.

I know, it's number 4 in mw. Where you syretch is in that you label disbelief belief in order to treat it on the same level as belief. nonbelief and godbelief are equated and you are therefore equating non with god.

That sounds nice if you believe in god, but use the toothfairy and the value of that equation become more apparent.

Caveat: yes, I think the point you were trying to make has merit in that both can be a lifestyle, but I stringly disagree with your choice of labels.

fishin' wrote:

Quote:
The arguments you pose are simply a way of naming people "religious" who don't want to be and who reject religion.

No, not quite but it's a nice try on your part. Atheist's do not reject "religion" at all. They reject "theism".

I am an atheist. I reject religion. And here you are telling me that not only am I religious but you purport to know that I do not reject religion?

In the understatement of the week: that is a very unfair argument.

fishin' wrote:

As someone who taught English one would think you would quickly recognize that the two are exact opposites just as "Typical" and "Atypical" are. "Religion" however, covers the entire spectrum of Athiests, Agnostics and Theists.

You contend that religion covers atheists. It's not like the English language is on your side.

At best it is based on multiple grey areas of definitions. At worst it is calling religionlessness religion.

fishin' wrote:

Quote:
It's just a way for theists to fight the stigma of the word and has no basis. It's like finding out that someone doesn't like being called something and then calling them that.

Wrong again, what it is is ignorance on the part of people who refer to themselves as "Athiests" but don't know what the definition of the word is or take shortcuts and limit the use of the word "religion" when what they really mean is "organized religion". A poor choice of words by people who claim to be "atheists" doesn't excuse them from being exactly what they are.

Fishin, this is not about a poor choice of words, this is about a set of beliefs, opinions and lifestyles. As an atheist I reject religion, and no it's not just "organized" religion that I reject.

Again, you purport to know too much about me. This is an excercise in futility. You seek to have the only label maker and to know what atheists such as myself think.

When faced with that kind of situation I can only leave you to your opinion. I reject religion. Yet you tell me that atheists do not reject religion "at all" then later say that we just reject "organized" religion.

I think you are trying to quote dictionary definitions without stating it as such.

Yes, the word atheism means to reject theism. But no, you are wrong with your labels. You claim that "Atheist's do not reject "religion" at all".

I am an atheist. I reject religion. Rejection of theism and the rejection of religion are not mutually exclusive.

It's like saying a happy man can't be an athlete because "happy" means "Enjoying, showing, or marked by pleasure, satisfaction, or joy".

0 Replies

What Craven said.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I know, it's number 4 in mw. Where you play fast and lose is in that you label disbelief belief in order to treat it on the same level as belief. nonbelief and godbelief are equated and you are terefore equating non with god.

The word "disbelief" means "to reject something as not true". In this case the "belief" or "disbelief" concerns itself with the existance of a supreme being. There is absolutely no such thing as a "nonbelief".

Quote:

That sounds nice if you believe in god, but use the toothfairy and the value of that equation become more apparent.

Except that the entire basis of "religion" is based on the belief or disbelief of whether or not there is a God or gods.

Quote:

I am an atheist. I reject religion. And here you are telling me that not only am I religious but you purport to know that I do not reject religion?

In the understatement of the week: that is a very unfair argument.

You contend that religion covers atheists. It's not like the English language is on your side.

At best it is based on multiple grey areas of definitions. At worst it is calling religionlessness religion.

Fishin, this is not about a poor choice of words, this is about a set of beliefs, opinions and lifestyles. As an atheist I reject religion, and no it's not just "organized" religion that I reject.

No Craven, this is EXACTLY about a poor choice of words. Thusfar the best you've come up with is some off the wall analogies that make absolutely no sense. The english language is very much on my side. I don't have to "purport" to know what you think. My point here throughout has been that the label of "Atheist" is being misused, not what any given individual, you or anyone else, believes.

Quote:

Again, you purport to know too much about me. This is an excercise in futility. You seek to have the only label maker and to know what atheists such as myself think.

I don't purport to know anything about you nor do I have to. I also didn't create the labels or apply them to anyone. I use the labels as they are already defined.

Quote:

When faced with that kind of situation I can only leave you to your opinion. I reject religion. Yet you tell me that atheists do not reject religion "at all" then later say that we just reject "organized" religion.

I think you are trying to quote dictionary definitions without stating it as such.

Now that's pretty funny in light of the fact that I have very clearly labeled every single one of my definitions as coming straight from the dictionary!

Quote:

Yes, the word atheism means to reject theism. But no, you are wrong with your labels. You claim that "Atheist's do not reject "religion" at all".

Atheism is more than just a rejection of theism. It is a belief that the the basis of theism is false.

Quote:

I am an atheist. I reject religion. Rejection of theism and the rejection of religion are not mutually exclusive.

It's like saying a happy man can't be an athlete because "happy" means "Enjoying, showing, or marked by pleasure, satisfaction, or joy".

Again, another analogy that has nothing to do with anything. The relationship of Atheism to religion is the same as being human is to being a primate. Your position thusfar has been the equeal of saying that you are human but not a primate and claiming that defies the very definitions of the words.

It's a simple binary test here. All anyone has to do is answer two question with an absolute "Yes" or "No" response (i.e. a "maybe" response would fall under "No"):
1. Do you believe in the exististance of a supreme being?
2. Do you believe that there is no supreme being?

If your answers come up "Yes, No" you are a theist.
If your answers come up "No, Yes" you are an atheist.
If your answers come up "No, No" you are an agnostic.

The earlier comments about a "lack of belief that there is a God" are used by people who answer question number 1 but skip question 2. Since there are 3 possibilites only answering one question always leaves the possibility of two remaining results. You have to answer both questions to limit the result to one.

But one way or another all 3 answers come under the definition of the word "religion" just as humans, apes and chimps all come under the word "primates". If, as you state, you reject religion then you would be "irreligious", not an athiest.

0 Replies

It is ridiculous to assert that an atheist is religious. There are those who profess to be atheists, and then make a religion of their "faith" in science--which does not by definition make an atheist a religioius person. I am atheist by the simple definition that i am without god. I don't make a religion of it, it does not define me, I don't assert transcendent truths from that, and i care not one whit what others think of that or of me. My connection to the world which i inhabit is not defined by my lack of any belief in a god. Definitions here are awfuly blurred--not in any sense of dictionary definition, but in the sense of defining what people believe or don't believe, and whether or not they act upon that belief or lack thereof. The evidence thereof is to be found in this recent, specious definition of Fishin's about what constitutes being religious.

0 Replies

Fishin,

Your test does nothing to illustrate the leap to labeling religiouslessness religious. It's an absurd patchwork of definitions in which you assert that there is no escaping religion.

I still contend that it's just a play on words. You are simply constructing a framework wherein all humans are deemed religious.

That both reduces the meaning of religious to an irrelevant state (as you are pretty much saying everyone is religious) as well as brands those who reject religion as religious.

Almost every person here has noted that the lack of religion can become, in itself, a defining aspect of one's life. The best example I can ever come up with of this is in Dean Koontz's short story "Twilight of the Dawn". It's a story of an atheist who is more zealous than religious people.

But as has been said many times, it is, indeed, ridiculous to equate disbelief with belief simple because of your ability to reverse the meaning and because the word has an opposite.

You pose this as a simple issue of "binary" logic but what is left out entirely in your puzzle is the subsequent leap one would have to make. Through your puzzle one is determined to be theist, atheist or agnostic. It does nothing to help your leap of characterizing nonbelievers as believers simply through wordplay.

"I don't believe"

"you therefore believe it's not true. you are a believer"

0 Replies

The "religion" of non-religion! A discussion!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know