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

Setanta - odd as it sounds, to think of anything being defined by a lack - but is there not a sense in which our connection to the world IS defined by a belief that there is no god? (Or that there is, of course.)

The world in which a god is held to be is a very different one from a world in which no god is held to be - our perceived relation to life and death, for instance, is different - our basis for a moral philosiphy is different - our sense of the human condition is different - our search for meaning is differently angled .... do you see what I mean?

Fishin' - can you tell me what you mean by this?

" The relationship of Atheism to religion is the same as being human is to being a primate."

Yes, but that is a connection to the world of human construct, of the world as defined only through the beliefs of others. My relation to the physical world has nothing to do with any of that. Certainly my ability to express that connection in a successfully communicative way is governed by the conventions and limitations of language. I would say that it is one's relation to society which will be defined by such a lack of belief.

If you have come to this conclusion then you failed to read the last line of my previous post and have made incorrect assumptions about what I have asserted.

Someone who rejects religion is "irreligious" and there are plenty of people in the world that fit that category.

It's a simple heirachy of beliefs.

There is either "religion" or the "irreligious".

Within the "religion" group you have subclassifications of "Theist", "Atheist" and "Agnostic".

You could further break down the "theist" sub-group "Jewish", "Muslim", "Christian", "Wiccan" etc..

Then you could continue to break down each of those sub-sub-categories even farther.

Setanta - do you think we can have any relationship to any part of the world that is NOT a human construct?

I am not being (deliberately) a pain in the bum - I think this is interesting.

There are people who maintain their religion even after they've quit believing in a supreme being. A crisis of faith, it's called.

There is a difference between believing or not believing in a supreme being (Theism - Atheism)... and following or or not following a specific religion, mostly because religion implies a fellowship or community of like-minded believers.

Because many of us have grown up in a Christian culture, it is hard to separate the god from the religion, but there is at least one 'religion' -- Daoism -- that doesn't believe in a supreme being at all.

I do agree that an athiest does not have a religion. But he (or she) has to create some sort of mental constuct of what-life-is-all-about which could be said to take the place of following an organized religion.

Well, to the extent that such a construct would be my own, as opposed to being fitted into a social category, i do see an important distinction. I've got hemorrhoid cream, Boss, don't worry about it . . .

Jack: "i believe there are unicorns on the dark side of the moon"
Jill: "whatever makes you happy, Jack"

Well, there is, of course, the question of to what extent our constructs can really be our own, but I shall let it lie - you're worrying me with that cream, Setanta - there's dinky little rubber band gun thingies for that sort of thing.....

I just wanted you to be assured that you weren't a pain in the ass, Lil' Wabbit. Yes, i understand the tired old wrangles about the extent to which our ability to perceive is truly our own, but rather imbibed with our mother's milk. I consider that to be superficial only, as it entails not our ability to perceive, but our ability to communicate what we've perceived.

Hmmmmm...... but I agree, 'tis quibblish....

My own dictionary cut-and-paste job for Fishin':

irreligious
adj. Hostile or indifferent to religion; ungodly.

atheistic
adj. Rejecting any belief in gods.

(Note that they both mention god.)

...
If definition 1 of "athiest" in M-W says "one who denies the existence of God," going by that is good enough for me. Just because another definition exists doesn't mean that's how I'm using the word atheist.

A bunch of atheiststs debating semantics is about as useful as a bunch of religionists frothing over hermanuetics. Sophistry is sophistry, pedantry is pedantry, with or without a god.
Of relevance here might be Lugwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. The introduction, by Bertrand Russell, is itself a masterpiece of critical thought.

However, casting prudence aside, I'll wade into the fray with a bit of hermanuetic sophistry of my own, however pedantic that might be. I would posit that to be irreligious is, in the conventions and within the limitations of the English Language, to be contemptuous, disrespectful, and dismissive of religion. To be areligious is to be without religion or religious influence. One may not be at once dismissive, contemptuous, and disrespectful of a thing and be at the same time uninfluenced by the occasion of that contempt, disrespect, and dismissiveness, as those attributes clearly are influences on the individual in question. IRreligiousness may by a stretch be considered a form of Religion, whereas Areligiousness is by definition a lack of religion, an absence of it and/or its influence.

You got my vote, Boss -- just don't expect no campaign contributions . . .

Timber, I disagree with Set. What you want me to contribute? LOL c.i.

Yes, I think quibbling about the meaning of religion so as to include atheists is an angels on the head of a pin thing - fun in its own way, but productive of little, and it annoys the pin - the reality of how the words function and convey sense in the world is that atheism is not a religion.

I don't think anyone has denied that some atheists more or less MAKE a religion of it, in the sense of being dogmatic and behaving like missionaries.

I wonder if the newly ex-religious atheists are more like this sometimes - like new ex-smokers.

Well, somebody could make a beer run ... you got the time for that?

Goin' back some here, I take issue with fishin's attempt to reduce the question of theism to binary logic. One may believe, one may disbelieve, and both are belief sets, yes, rendering the individual in some form or other a believer. However, calling for a conclusion based on binary logic falls to the flaw that beyond "Yes", "No", and "Maybe" (whether assigned a positive or negative value), there is "Insufficient Data", wich is none of those three.

So if there was some seemingly incontrovertible miracle that you witnessed, then you'd change your beliefs?

Judeo-Christian religions are based on miracles. Without the miracles, there would be no original believers.