NationStates Jolt Archive

Cuz I feel like posting this again, and because the last thread degenerated into namecalling.


Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,

pg. 969
religion: #4 A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

pg. 408
(1) faith: 2 b (1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) complete confidence 3 something that is believed esp with strong conviction; esp: a system of religious beliefs
(2) faith: BELIEVE, TRUST

pg. 70
atheism: 1 b the doctrine that there is no diety

pg. 333
doctrine: 2 b principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief


Thus:
Atheism is doctrine, or set of principles, and since there is no concrete proof, you must have faith in it.
Thus:
Atheism is principles that are held with faith.

I'm seeing a pattern here, but maybe that's just me...

All the dictionaries get it wrong: atheism has no religious doctrines. It is, by definition, the total absence of religion.

no, that would be agnosticism.

Atheism does have at least one doctrine...that there is no God.

So if the last thread degenerated into name calling, perhaps that's a hint to close the subject. Eh?

So if the last thread degenerated into name calling, perhaps that's a hint to close the subject. Eh?

Neh, I'm too stubborn.
Besides, I'm hoping all of those guys had their fill and will ignore this one. Though, that Contopon guy helped me a lot, despite his trying to argue against me.

no, that would be agnosticism.

Atheism does have at least one doctrine...that there is no God.

No, atheism is the LACK OF BELIEF in the existence of a god or gods. Lack of belief IS NOT THE SAME AS belief in lack.

no, that would be agnosticism.

Atheism does have at least one doctrine...that there is no God.

No, atheism is the LACK OF BELIEF in the existence of a god or gods. Lack of belief IS NOT THE SAME AS belief in lack.

incorrect. atheism is the belief that there is no God. AGNOSTICISM is the absence of belief, since it neither assumes nor denies the existence of God.

a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm) n.
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

ag·nos·ti·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nst-szm) n.
The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

disbelief and lack of belief are two very different things. it's a common misconception, it's okay. just please, people, try to get it right...just think how you would feel if i mixed up Christianity and Islam all the time, trying to tell you all that one was the other or they both were the same thing. you'd be pretty offended, and rightfully so. well, that's how i feel when people can't get the difference between atheism and agnosticism right.

no, that would be agnosticism.

Atheism does have at least one doctrine...that there is no God.

No, atheism is the LACK OF BELIEF in the existence of a god or gods. Lack of belief IS NOT THE SAME AS belief in lack.

incorrect. atheism is the belief that there is no God.

Incorrect. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods

atheism: atheos + ism

a + theos + ism

a: privative prefix from Greek, meaning lacking or without or no

theos: god or gods

-ism: suffix meaning having the belief in.

Can you put it together now?

AGNOSTICISM is the absence of belief, since it neither assumes nor denies the existence of God.

Agnosticism is about lacking KNOWLEDGE of some aspect of god (that's what the root GNOSIS means--knowledge). It's got nothing to do with belief in the existence in.

a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm) n.
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

ag·nos·ti·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nst-szm) n.
The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

disbelief and lack of belief are two very different things.

Actually, no. Disbelief and lack of belief are the SAME.

I don't really care what the dictionary says.. Or, what people might like to call me or not. I don't believe in god and I am part of no religion. Period!

no, that would be agnosticism.

Atheism does have at least one doctrine...that there is no God.

No, atheism is the LACK OF BELIEF in the existence of a god or gods. Lack of belief IS NOT THE SAME AS belief in lack.

incorrect. atheism is the belief that there is no God.

Incorrect. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods

atheism: atheos + ism

a + theos + ism

a: privative prefix from Greek, meaning lacking or without or no

theos: god or gods

-ism: suffix meaning having the belief in.

Can you put it together now?


the latin roots of words are often very different from their current correct usage. unfortunately, this is one of those cases. having just gotten my bachelors in (among other things) philosophy of religion, i am quite certain on these points. i would encourage you to consult a theology prof on the subject, or even an English teacher, since either would be able to explain this idea to you.


AGNOSTICISM is the absence of belief, since it neither assumes nor denies the existence of God.

Agnosticism is about lacking KNOWLEDGE of some aspect of god (that's what the root GNOSIS means--knowledge). It's got nothing to do with belief in the existence in.


again, the roots of a word are very different than its meaning. agnosticism is not about lacking knowledge, but rather the belief that certain things are unknowable; it is a critical distinction, and philosophically it is directly and explicitly tied to the idea that belief of an unknowable is unfounded. once again, please consult a philosophy or theology instructor if you need more clarification.


disbelief and lack of belief are two very different things.

Actually, no. Disbelief and lack of belief are the SAME.

wow, no, they really really aren't. to say that i lack belief in something is different than saying i specifically believe it does not exist. i have a lack of belief in communism, in that i do not believe in its doctrines. however, if i were to disbelieve communism that would mean that i don't believe Communism exists. the words are critically different, though i can see why you would find them confusing, especially in terms of religion.

saying that one does not believe in God does not necessarily mean one believes there is NOT a God; one can simply not believe anything at all about the existence of God, since it is unknowable, which is the agnostic perspective. to believe that there IS NO GOD is a much different stance, and makes a truth assertion that an agnostic would have strong objections to.

no, that would be agnosticism.

Atheism does have at least one doctrine...that there is no God.

No, atheism is the LACK OF BELIEF in the existence of a god or gods. Lack of belief IS NOT THE SAME AS belief in lack.

incorrect. atheism is the belief that there is no God.

Incorrect. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods

atheism: atheos + ism

a + theos + ism

a: privative prefix from Greek, meaning lacking or without or no

theos: god or gods

-ism: suffix meaning having the belief in.

Can you put it together now?


the latin roots of words are often very different from their current correct usage.

Current correct usage....because you want it to be correct because you want a very narrow definition?

What I showed is what the definition actually is. A person can also state that there is no god and be an atheist because that person does not have the belief that there is a god. A definition should subsume the widest possible area and still have the concept. That is what lack of belief does.

unfortunately, this is one of those cases. having just gotten my bachelors in (among other things) philosophy of religion, i am quite certain on these points.

And being an atheist and having read all sorts of books on atheism, religion, & philosophy, I am quite certain on what the word means.

IOW: don't tell me what an atheist is.

i would encourage you to consult a theology prof on the subject, or even an English teacher, since either would be able to explain this idea to you.

I would encourage you to ask an atheist--such as myself.

Or read Michael Martin or George H. Smith.

Or even (ick) Bertrand Russell.


AGNOSTICISM is the absence of belief, since it neither assumes nor denies the existence of God.

Agnosticism is about lacking KNOWLEDGE of some aspect of god (that's what the root GNOSIS means--knowledge). It's got nothing to do with belief in the existence in.


again, the roots of a word are very different than its meaning. agnosticism is not about lacking knowledge,

Yes, it is. Or else you've gone and utterly denied the roots. Agnosticism is about lacking knowledge of something. You have to specifiy what that something is.

A person can be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist, but cannot be agnostic qua agnostic, since that person would lack all knowledge, and that is self-contradictory.

but rather the belief that certain things are unknowable;

That's a subset of not having knowledge.

it is a critical distinction, and philosophically it is directly and explicitly tied to the idea that belief of an unknowable is unfounded.

Of course, it makes one wonder how they know it's unknowable.

again, please consult a philosophy or theology instructor if you need more clarification.

The chutzpah of you to assume that I have no philosphical background astounds me. You're lucky I'm being nice and not as condescending as I normally am.


disbelief and lack of belief are two very different things.

Actually, no. Disbelief and lack of belief are the SAME.

wow, no, they really really aren't.

Wow, yes, they really are. To disbelieve is TO NOT BELIEVE. It can be active OR PASSIVE (hint: check the dictionary you love). Thus, disbelief can be active or passive.

saying that one does not believe in God does not necessarily mean one believes there is NOT a God; one can simply not believe anything at all about the existence of God,

Which makes the person an atheist, since that person DOES NOT HAVE THE BELIEF THAT THERE IS A GOD.

t is unknowable, which is the agnostic perspective. to believe that there IS NO GOD is a much different stance, and makes a truth assertion that an agnostic would have strong objections to.

Just a question: is there a middle between on and off? Have and lack?

oh ---- not this thread again :x

Cuz I feel like posting this again, and because the last thread degenerated into namecalling.


Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,

pg. 969
religion: #4 A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

pg. 408
(1) faith: 2 b (1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) complete confidence 3 something that is believed esp with strong conviction; esp: a system of religious beliefs
(2) faith: BELIEVE, TRUST

pg. 70
atheism: 1 b the doctrine that there is no diety

pg. 333
doctrine: 2 b principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief


Thus:
Atheism is doctrine, or set of principles, and since there is no concrete proof, you must have faith in it.
Thus:
Atheism is principles that are held with faith.

I'm seeing a pattern here, but maybe that's just me...


Wow...i must say Im impressed..iv never thought of it like that!

Some religions such as Shinto dont even have g_ds.

Does that mean they are in fact not religions or are they actually religious atheists?

Cuz I feel like posting this again, and because the last thread degenerated into namecalling.


Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,

pg. 969
religion: #4 A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

pg. 408
(1) faith: 2 b (1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) complete confidence 3 something that is believed esp with strong conviction; esp: a system of religious beliefs
(2) faith: BELIEVE, TRUST

pg. 70
atheism: 1 b the doctrine that there is no diety

pg. 333
doctrine: 2 b principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief


Thus:
Atheism is doctrine, or set of principles, and since there is no concrete proof, you must have faith in it.
Thus:
Atheism is principles that are held with faith.

I'm seeing a pattern here, but maybe that's just me...


Wow...i must say Im impressed..iv never thought of it like that!

actually listen to the others rebuttals before deciding anything...

Surely the basis for the meaning of 'religion' is just that you share 'strong' beliefs with others,and perhaps even dedicate your life to it... Buddhism isnt based on a God,its just based on one man and his beliefs that others through time have shared,and thats classed as a religion..

Im a protestant and quite religious, but i was just wondering.. how do you tell the difference between a cult and a religion?!

Cuz I feel like posting this again, and because the last thread degenerated into namecalling.


Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,

pg. 969
religion: #4 A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

pg. 408
(1) faith: 2 b (1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) complete confidence 3 something that is believed esp with strong conviction; esp: a system of religious beliefs
(2) faith: BELIEVE, TRUST

pg. 70
atheism: 1 b the doctrine that there is no diety

pg. 333
doctrine: 2 b principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief


Thus:
Atheism is doctrine, or set of principles, and since there is no concrete proof, you must have faith in it.
Thus:
Atheism is principles that are held with faith.

I'm seeing a pattern here, but maybe that's just me...


Wow...i must say Im impressed..iv never thought of it like that!

actually listen to the others rebuttals before deciding anything...



ok... im sorry..

but it is an interesting way to think about it

Surely the basis for the meaning of 'religion' is just that you share 'strong' beliefs with others,and perhaps even dedicate your life to it... Buddhism isnt based on a God,its just based on one man and his beliefs that others through time have shared,and thats classed as a religion..

Im a protestant and quite religious, but i was just wondering.. how do you tell the difference between a cult and a religion?!

I dont think there is any difference between a cult and a religion.

So,at what point does a cult actually 'become' a religion? Is it just a case of 'how many people' join it?

So,at what point does a cult actually 'become' a religion? Is it just a case of 'how many people' join it?

A cult and a religion are the same, the only difference being the negative implications of the word cult. Even mass membership does not neccesarily mean that a cult is accepted. After all, look at the Falun Gong in China, millions of members and they are still a cult. If you wanted to look at government acceptence then the grant of tax free status would be the only measure of whether a group is a religion or not.

Some religions such as Shinto dont even have g_ds.

Does that mean they are in fact not religions or are they actually religious atheists?

*cough*
Pg. 1062
Shinto- the indigenous belief of Japan consisting chiefly in the cultic devotion to deities of natural forces and veneration of the Emperor as a descendent of the sun-goddess.

But even if they didn't believe in gods, it would still be a religion.

Wow...i must say Im impressed..iv never thought of it like that!

Thank you.
And shut TAR. I actually did a good job on the last thread (even if it was a bit hard to follow), until people started resorting to namecalling. After that, there's no point in arguing because they don't want to argue, they want to prove they're smarter. I think I did a good job. And even you have to admit that half of them did a far worse job than me.

bump

And, i would like to add that despite the removal of Forum 7, the server still sucks.

Is thiesim a relegion? No, but some relegions (such as Christianity) can be said to be theistic. Thiesim, like athiesm is an aspect of relegion, not a relegion. Now Secular Humanism can arguably be called a relegion, but I would say that it is more of a philosophy. Like confucianism

Here is the short and simple truth.

You can argue that atheism is a lack of religion or that it is a religion in itself. It doesnt matter.

What matters is that atheists do no believe in the existence of a higher power.

Please stop trying to use the english language to bash each other over the head about it. It doesnt help anything. It weakens our bonds.

Let the subject of religion be dropped.
Faith is a touchy subject. Not everyone can is ready to hear certain truths.
That goes for ANY religious beliefs (or the lack thereof), and its not our jobs to make them hear what they arent ready to receive.

Correct me if I'm wrong. An atheist is someone who asserts that God (or any type of deity) does not exist. A total rejection of the supernatural.

An agnostic is someone who is open to the possibility that God may or may not exist. Someone who is either unable or unwilling to make a definitive decision either way.

That seems a reasonable set of definitions without having to go into the latin roots or consult language and philosophy professors.

I think it is misleading to call atheism a religion for the same reason that it is misleading to call theism (believe in a god or gods) a religion. There are many different religions that all fall under the heading "theism." To call them all A religion would be pretty inaccurate, I think we can agree. Theism is just a position ON the existence of a deity, a position that the majority of religious persuasions accept.

Likewise, there are a number of schools of thought that fall under the heading of "atheistic." Secular Humanism is one, Unitarian Universalism is (partially) another, nihilism yet a third... these are all religions that take atheism as a tenet.

Some people are just theistic, or atheistic, but may not attach themselves to any particular religious group or creed. In a way, this is a subset of agnosticism. They believe that a god does or doesn't exist, but they don't claim to know what moral implications that has.

It is also deceptive in the conventional use of the word religion. When we refer to a religion, we usually refer to a cohesive group, with a whole set of beliefs shared by all members. Most usually, it is a formalized or semi-formalized organization, who likely participate in their beliefs together (say in services, or rites, or ceremonies). Atheism is not a formalized or semi-formalized group. While many individual atheistic groups exist in the world, they are not part of a cohesive whole, nor do they necessarily share common beliefs (except, of course, for one). ...And usually, atheist groups are formed in response to external religious pressure.

Correct me if I'm wrong. An atheist is someone who asserts that God (or any type of deity) does not exist. A total rejection of the supernatural.

An agnostic is someone who is open to the possibility that God may or may not exist. Someone who is either unable or unwilling to make a definitive decision either way.

That seems a reasonable set of definitions without having to go into the latin roots or consult language and philosophy professors.It is not a reasonable set of definitions. I am an athiest and I awknoledge the possibility of the supernatural, it is just that prior experience and all that I have been able to learn about how the world works leads me to observe that such things do not have an effect on the universe, which can still be best explained through good science. If God (or for that matter underwaer gnomes) exists he should speak up or be rendered irrelevant.

Correct me if I'm wrong. An atheist is someone who asserts that God (or any type of deity) does not exist. A total rejection of the supernatural.

You are wrong. An atheist is someone who lacks the belief that there is a god.

An agnostic is someone who is open to the possibility that God may or may not exist. Someone who is either unable or unwilling to make a definitive decision either way.

An "agnostic" technically lacks all knowledge, which is self-contradictory. In the sense of god wrt agnosticism, a person can be either agnostic atheist or agnostic theist.

Correct me if I'm wrong. An atheist is someone who asserts that God (or any type of deity) does not exist. A total rejection of the supernatural.

An agnostic is someone who is open to the possibility that God may or may not exist. Someone who is either unable or unwilling to make a definitive decision either way.

That seems a reasonable set of definitions without having to go into the latin roots or consult language and philosophy professors.

you are quite correct. BAAWA's definitions of the two do not correspond to the dictionary or the definitions used by the School of Theology at my university, nor do they match to those used by American Atheist, Free Thought, or Agnostics Unknown (to name a few). you're right on the money, and that's coming from somebody who has been both an atheist and an agnostic in her time :).

Correct me if I'm wrong. An atheist is someone who asserts that God (or any type of deity) does not exist. A total rejection of the supernatural.

An agnostic is someone who is open to the possibility that God may or may not exist. Someone who is either unable or unwilling to make a definitive decision either way.

That seems a reasonable set of definitions without having to go into the latin roots or consult language and philosophy professors.It is not a reasonable set of definitions. I am an athiest and I awknoledge the possibility of the supernatural, it is just that prior experience and all that I have been able to learn about how the world works leads me to observe that such things do not have an effect on the universe, which can still be best explained through good science. If God (or for that matter underwaer gnomes) exists he should speak up or be rendered irrelevant.

just so you know, the beliefs you have described are called "agnosticism" if you want to be precise about the terminology. i don't like to try to tell anybody what they believe or what to call themselves, but you are only an atheists if you believe that God DOES NOT exist; if you believe that you don't know and don't care, that's agnostic. if you believe there is someting out there, but we don't know its form and so don't know if or how we should worship it, that's agnostic. atheist is if you believe there IS NOT a supernatural creator force or component to the universe; agnostic is if you believe there may (or may not) be, but you don't base your life on it either way.

i used to refer to myself as "atheist" while holding what were actually agnostic beliefs, and when a philosophy professor pointed that out to me i was angry. i insisted i was so an atheist, and that he didn't have the right to tell me what i believed, but when i cooled down i realized he was just trying to explain that i was using the wrong word for what i was, not that i was wrong in my beliefs. i held the same misconception about agnosticism that most people do, which is that it's wishy-washy and indefinite, and that there is no such thing as a strong belief in agnosticism. that's what stopped me and made me argue against being called agnostic. well, that, and the fact that i had taken so much crap for being atheist that i had a chip on my shoulder about anybody questioning it.

Atheism is doctrine, or set of principles, and since there is no concrete proof, you must have faith in it.
Thus:
Atheism is principles that are held with faith.

I'm seeing a pattern here, but maybe that's just me...

So we want to argue whether Atheism is a religion. After reading this long string of factoids and arguments about syntax and word and root meanings I have to ask, what's the point?

The only reason I can think of is that Rhyno D wants to be able to say that rules of separation of church and state should be applied to atheism. I don't know Rhyno so that's strictly a guess. That would be an interesting discussion but this seems like a not-completely-honest way of broaching the subject.

Atheism is doctrine, or set of principles, and since there is no concrete proof, you must have faith in it.
Thus:
Atheism is principles that are held with faith.

I'm seeing a pattern here, but maybe that's just me...

So we want to argue whether Atheism is a religion. After reading this long string of factoids and arguments about syntax and word and root meanings I have to ask, what's the point?

The only reason I can think of is that Rhyno D wants to be able to say that rules of separation of church and state should be applied to atheism. I don't know Rhyno so that's strictly a guess. That would be an interesting discussion but this seems like a not-completely-honest way of broaching the subject.

i can't speak to the intentions of the thread founder, but i personally feel it is as important a subject as people discussing why Judaism and Christianity are different; educating people about the distinctions between the two is part of developing understanding and respect for the beliefs of other people, and understanding helps people be more accepting.

that's the point for me, though i would also be interested to debate what you brought up. the only problem is that people won't be able to understand the difference between "atheist" and "secular," which is always the problem with religion/state debates. people think that anything that ISN'T religion is atheism, anything that doesn't have God must be an atheist thing, when actually it's no such thing. oh well, que sera sera.

Atheism is doctrine, or set of principles, and since there is no concrete proof, you must have faith in it.
Thus:
Atheism is principles that are held with faith.

I'm seeing a pattern here, but maybe that's just me...

So we want to argue whether Atheism is a religion. After reading this long string of factoids and arguments about syntax and word and root meanings I have to ask, what's the point?

The only reason I can think of is that Rhyno D wants to be able to say that rules of separation of church and state should be applied to atheism. I don't know Rhyno so that's strictly a guess. That would be an interesting discussion but this seems like a not-completely-honest way of broaching the subject.

i can't speak to the intentions of the thread founder, but i personally feel it is as important a subject as people discussing why Judaism and Christianity are different; educating people about the distinctions between the two is part of developing understanding and respect for the beliefs of other people, and understanding helps people be more accepting.

that's the point for me, though i would also be interested to debate what you brought up. the only problem is that people won't be able to understand the difference between "atheist" and "secular," which is always the problem with religion/state debates. people think that anything that ISN'T religion is atheism, anything that doesn't have God must be an atheist thing, when actually it's no such thing. oh well, que sera sera.

Right. When the discussion wandered away from Rhyno D's original post of "Atheism is a religion" to "understanding atheism vs. agnosticism" it became interesting. The arguments of what makes atheism atheism and agnosticism agnosticism were interesting, almost funny. It reminded me a bit of the complicated theological reasoning needed to understand the differences between different Prostestant sects and the fighting that those discussions always bring.

But yes, a debate about classifying atheism/secularism as a religion for consitutional purposes would go nowhere.

Atheism is doctrine, or set of principles, and since there is no concrete proof, you must have faith in it.
Thus:
Atheism is principles that are held with faith.

I'm seeing a pattern here, but maybe that's just me...

So we want to argue whether Atheism is a religion. After reading this long string of factoids and arguments about syntax and word and root meanings I have to ask, what's the point?

The only reason I can think of is that Rhyno D wants to be able to say that rules of separation of church and state should be applied to atheism. I don't know Rhyno so that's strictly a guess. That would be an interesting discussion but this seems like a not-completely-honest way of broaching the subject.

Well, yes and no...Yes, I do like the idea of it being officially recognized, forcing them to teach Creation with Big Bang.

But, separation of church and state is
1) not in the constitution.
2) not implied in the constitution.
3) impossible anyway, so it doesn't matter.
(wanna argue that? Make a thread and 'gram me the url)


Ok, some guy said that he's an atheist, but he believes that there could be a God. Big deal, you're still an atheist, not agnostic. You think there could be, but not really. If you really don't believe either way, you're agnostic. There is no sitting on the fence here, you're either one or the other.

And, as already stated, atheism isn't only a lack of belief in God. That would be agnosticism. There is also a belief in lack. You cannot state conclusively that something does not exist without saying "This thing does not exist." (<-Common sense, right?) If I don't know if something exists, it could still exist, or it couldn't. If I say it does or it doesn't, it can only be one or the other.
One way to put it is that agnostics can't be wrong, because God does, or doesn't exist. There's nothing else to be. Theists and atheists, on the other hand, can be wrong, because they're only picking one side, not both.

Correct me if I'm wrong. An atheist is someone who asserts that God (or any type of deity) does not exist. A total rejection of the supernatural.

An agnostic is someone who is open to the possibility that God may or may not exist. Someone who is either unable or unwilling to make a definitive decision either way.

That seems a reasonable set of definitions without having to go into the latin roots or consult language and philosophy professors.

you are quite correct. BAAWA's definitions of the two do not correspond to the dictionary

Actually, it does. Disbelief is used, which is the same as lack of belief.

or the definitions used by the School of Theology at my university,

That's because your school of theology is wrong.

nor do they match to those used by American Atheist,

Yeah, it does. At one time I was a member of AA. I know.

Free Thought, or Agnostics Unknown (to name a few). you're right on the money, and that's coming from somebody who has been both an atheist and an agnostic in her time :).

You still haven't grasped the nature of definition, have you.

I HATE THIS FRIGGING SERVER!

I STILL HATE THIS FRIGGING SERVER!

Some religions such as Shinto dont even have g_ds.

Does that mean they are in fact not religions or are they actually religious atheists?

*cough*
Pg. 1062
Shinto- the indigenous belief of Japan consisting chiefly in the cultic devotion to deities of natural forces and veneration of the Emperor as a descendent of the sun-goddess.

But even if they didn't believe in gods, it would still be a religion.

Wow...i must say Im impressed..iv never thought of it like that!

Thank you.
And shut TAR. I actually did a good job on the last thread (even if it was a bit hard to follow), until people started resorting to namecalling. After that, there's no point in arguing because they don't want to argue, they want to prove they're smarter. I think I did a good job. And even you have to admit that half of them did a far worse job than me.

You're quite mistaken about shinto, i practice shinto as my native religion and it has almost no links with gods, the entire relegion focuses around the lores of the land, although some could classify amaterasu as a god, she is protrayed as an hero rather than a god, neither are there any dieties that we worship, shinto is much more like an philosphy rather than the judeo-christian institutions of the west

&& - An athiest (such as I) has god on his mind every moment, the denial of god itself means that he must conceptualize god, to know of the object that doesn't exist, that means that the atheist at the very least, is "religious" if that means that they are thinking about god, much more so than some christian men who flaunt the codes and gods of their own religion. As for my case i firmly believe god doesn't exist. I think about god alot because i try to identify what god is , and then negate it's existance, but im still religious as a follower of shinto..

Well, yes and no...Yes, I do like the idea of it being officially recognized, forcing them to teach Creation with Big Bang.

Of course, you ignore the fact that government recognition of atheism as a religion would have absolutely no bearing on what you just said. The Big Bang is not an atheist theory, it is a scientific one. And if you think those two are the same, think again. Creation, on the other hand *is* religion and is not science. Besides, most schools these days do mention that there is a belief that a god or gods created the universe. They don't teach any particular story because to do so would be to show favortism towards a particular religion.

But, separation of church and state is
1) not in the constitution.

Maybe not those exact words, but it is there.

2) not implied in the constitution.

Ok, so you can't read either.

3) impossible anyway, so it doesn't matter.

What a silly thing to say.

One interesting point, however, is the fact that if atheism is not a religion, belief in it is not constitutionally protected. So it's actually ok to keep those commie atheists out of government. ((I don't really believe this by the way for all of you people out there who don't understand sarcasm.))

dp

Some religions such as Shinto dont even have g_ds.

Does that mean they are in fact not religions or are they actually religious atheists?

*cough*
Pg. 1062
Shinto- the indigenous belief of Japan consisting chiefly in the cultic devotion to deities of natural forces and veneration of the Emperor as a descendent of the sun-goddess.

But even if they didn't believe in gods, it would still be a religion.

Wow...i must say Im impressed..iv never thought of it like that!

Thank you.
And shut TAR. I actually did a good job on the last thread (even if it was a bit hard to follow), until people started resorting to namecalling. After that, there's no point in arguing because they don't want to argue, they want to prove they're smarter. I think I did a good job. And even you have to admit that half of them did a far worse job than me.

You're quite mistaken about shinto, i practice shinto as my native religion and it has almost no links with gods, the entire relegion focuses around the lores of the land, although some could classify amaterasu as a god, she is protrayed as an hero rather than a god, neither are there any dieties that we worship, shinto is much more like an philosphy rather than the judeo-christian institutions of the west

Eh, I'm just tellin' ya what webster has to say. And, no offense to you, but I'm gonna go with webster on this one.

&& - An athiest (such as I) has god on his mind every moment, the denial of god itself means that he must conceptualize god, to know of the object that doesn't exist, that means that the atheist at the very least, is "religious" if that means that they are thinking about god, much more so than some christian men who flaunt the codes and gods of their own religion. As for my case i firmly believe god doesn't exist. I think about god alot because i try to identify what god is , and then negate it's existance, but im still religious as a follower of shinto..

That's a point. In the last thread, i think it was Tuesday Heights who said that in denying something, you acknowledge its existance. ie: In saying that God does not exist, you admit that there must be the possibility, because if there wasn't, you wouldn't bother to argue against it.

Bump

Rhyno D, your argument is beyond ludicrous. What are you saying?

'Atheists and religious people both have beliefs! Weeeeeeeee!'

How stupid.

Everything functions upon a system of values.

The major difference is indoctrination, which exists with religion and not with atheism.