| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Robert the NOLA Atheist" |
| Date: |
15 Apr 2005 10:10:22 AM |
| Object: |
Defining religion vs Atheism |
I have been told repeatedly that Atheism is a religion. Knowing that
this is absurd since as an Atheist, I have no god belief and hence no
religion. So maybe the theist needs a definition to understand what
religion actually means. While many like to use Webster's to define
such things, I prefer the definition from Emile Durkheim.
"A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to
sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden --
beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community
called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
(1982, p. 129 [excerpt from The Elementary Forms of the Religious
Life])
I think that sums religion up pretty well. Since Atheists do not hold
any beliefs in "sacred" things, it is impossible for Atheism to be
considered a religion.
"[The Bill of Rights is] designed to protect individuals and minorities against the tyranny of the majority, but it's also designed to protect the people against bureaucracy, against the government." -- Judge Lawrence Tribe
.
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Defining religion vs Atheism |
15 Apr 2005 11:05:13 AM |
|
|
"Robert the NOLA Atheist" <nolarobert@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cvlv515ed6tdfc08335aagf25soi9hpov7@4ax.com...
I have been told repeatedly that Atheism is a religion. Knowing that
this is absurd since as an Atheist, I have no god belief and hence no
religion. So maybe the theist needs a definition to understand what
religion actually means. While many like to use Webster's to define
such things, I prefer the definition from Emile Durkheim.
"A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to
sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden --
beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community
called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
(1982, p. 129 [excerpt from The Elementary Forms of the Religious
Life])
I think that sums religion up pretty well. Since Atheists do not hold
any beliefs in "sacred" things, it is impossible for Atheism to be
considered a religion.
"[The Bill of Rights is] designed to protect individuals and minorities
against the tyranny of the majority, but it's also designed to protect the
people against bureaucracy, against the government." -- Judge Lawrence
Tribe
Here is a precedent setting legal definition of religious belief.
http://www.thc-ministry.org/unitedstatesvsmeyers.html
PUBLISH
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 9/6/96
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
______
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. ) No. 95-8079
)
DAVID MEYERS, )
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
______
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING
(D.C. No. 95-CR-58)
______
.........................
Keeping in mind that the threshold for establishing the
religious nature of his beliefs is low, the court considered the
following factors:
1. Ultimate Ideas: Religious beliefs often address
fundamental questions about life, purpose, and death. As
one court has put it, "a religion addresses fundamental
and ultimate questions having to do with deep and
imponderable matters." Africa, 662 F.2d at 1032. These
matters may include existential matters, such as man's
sense of being; teleological matters, such as man's
purpose in life; and cosmological matters, such as man's
place in the universe.
2. Metaphysical Beliefs: Religious beliefs often are
"metaphysical," that is, they address a reality which
transcends the physical and immediately apparent world.
Adherents to many religions believe that there is another
dimension, place, mode, or temporality, and they often
believe that these places are inhabited by spirits,
souls, forces, deities, and other sorts of inchoate or
intangible entities.
3. Moral or Ethical System: Religious beliefs often
prescribe a particular manner of acting, or way of life,
that is "moral" or "ethical." In other words, these
beliefs often describe certain acts in normative terms,
such as "right and wrong," "good and evil," or "just and
unjust." The beliefs then proscribe those acts that are
"wrong," "evil," or "unjust." A moral or ethical belief
structure also may create duties -- duties often imposed
(2) The district court "gleaned" many of these
factors from
the following cases: Africa v. Commonwealth of Pa., 662 F.2d 1025
(3rd Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 908 (1982); Malnak v.
Yogi, 592 F.2d 197 (3rd Cir. 1979);
-------------------------------------------
--
rb #2187
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Defining religion vs Atheism |
15 Apr 2005 12:55:52 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:10:22 -0500, Robert the NOLA Atheist
<nolarobert@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have been told repeatedly that Atheism is a religion. Knowing that
this is absurd since as an Atheist, I have no god belief and hence no
religion. So maybe the theist needs a definition to understand what
religion actually means. While many like to use Webster's to define
such things, I prefer the definition from Emile Durkheim.
"A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to
sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden --
beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community
called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
(1982, p. 129 [excerpt from The Elementary Forms of the Religious
Life])
I think that sums religion up pretty well. Since Atheists do not hold
any beliefs in "sacred" things, it is impossible for Atheism to be
considered a religion.
How are you defining sacred?
What about democracy and freedom?
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Defining religion vs Atheism |
15 Apr 2005 08:25:16 PM |
|
|
Robert the NOLA Atheist <nolarobert@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<cvlv515ed6tdfc08335aagf25soi9hpov7@4ax.com>...
I have been told repeatedly that Atheism is a religion. Knowing that
this is absurd since as an Atheist, I have no god belief and hence no
religion. So maybe the theist needs a definition to understand what
religion actually means. While many like to use Webster's to define
such things, I prefer the definition from Emile Durkheim.
Simply, a religion is worship of superstitious things among a group
that has officially declared their beliefs...in spirits and nonsense
like that.
Kenny
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Defining religion vs Atheism |
15 Apr 2005 10:53:43 AM |
|
|
Robert the NOLA Atheist wrote:
I have been told repeatedly that Atheism is a religion. Knowing that
this is absurd since as an Atheist, I have no god belief and hence no
religion. So maybe the theist needs a definition to understand what
religion actually means. While many like to use Webster's to define
such things, I prefer the definition from Emile Durkheim.
"A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to
sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden --
beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community
called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
(1982, p. 129 [excerpt from The Elementary Forms of the Religious
Life])
I think that sums religion up pretty well. Since Atheists do not hold
any beliefs in "sacred" things,
Does that include physical evidence, the scientific method and
rationalism? Sacred things are those venerated as absolutes and before
which all other things must bow and be accountable to.
it is impossible for Atheism to be
considered a religion.
Perhaps so according to the narrow definition of Durkheim, but in the
larger sense it is not at all impossible.
Denny
"[The Bill of Rights is] designed to protect individuals and minorities against the tyranny of the majority, but it's also designed to protect the people against bureaucracy, against the government." -- Judge Lawrence Tribe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Defining religion vs Atheism |
15 Apr 2005 08:48:18 PM |
|
|
"dgillesp" <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:425FE387.98F7587A@nospam.net...
Robert the NOLA Atheist wrote:
I have been told repeatedly that Atheism is a religion. Knowing that
this is absurd since as an Atheist, I have no god belief and hence no
religion. So maybe the theist needs a definition to understand what
religion actually means. While many like to use Webster's to define
such things, I prefer the definition from Emile Durkheim.
"A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to
sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden --
beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community
called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
(1982, p. 129 [excerpt from The Elementary Forms of the Religious
Life])
I think that sums religion up pretty well. Since Atheists do not hold
any beliefs in "sacred" things,
Does that include physical evidence, the scientific method and
rationalism? Sacred things are those venerated as absolutes and before
which all other things must bow and be accountable to.
I thought things referred to stuff, like the Holy Grail for instance.
it is impossible for Atheism to be
considered a religion.
Perhaps so according to the narrow definition of Durkheim, but in the
larger sense it is not at all impossible.
If you call your sense a larger sense then you can call atheism a religion.
Whatever floats your boat.
Denny
"[The Bill of Rights is] designed to protect individuals and minorities
against the tyranny of the majority, but it's also designed to protect
the people against bureaucracy, against the government." -- Judge
Lawrence Tribe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Defining religion vs Atheism |
15 Apr 2005 11:13:46 AM |
|
|
In <425FE387.98F7587A@nospam.net>, on 04/15/05
at 11:53 AM, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> said:
Robert the NOLA Atheist wrote:
I have been told repeatedly that Atheism is a religion. Knowing that
this is absurd since as an Atheist, I have no god belief and hence no
religion. So maybe the theist needs a definition to understand what
religion actually means. While many like to use Webster's to define
such things, I prefer the definition from Emile Durkheim.
"A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to
sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden --
beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community
called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
(1982, p. 129 [excerpt from The Elementary Forms of the Religious
Life])
I think that sums religion up pretty well. Since Atheists do not hold
any beliefs in "sacred" things,
Does that include physical evidence, the scientific method and
rationalism? Sacred things are those venerated as absolutes and before
which all other things must bow and be accountable to.
& science does this in what way, not your strawman version, what actual
way. It does not, science does not give a damn if you believe in it or
not. Physical evidence, same thing, it just is & whether you like it or
not, dos not change. AS to rationalism, never seen the claim forwarded
that it was the only possible way. So I suspect that as usual, you just
could not stand the idea of xianity [all theologies actually] being shown
up for the false concept it is.
it is impossible for Atheism to be
considered a religion.
Perhaps so according to the narrow definition of Durkheim, but in the
larger sense it is not at all impossible.
It is indeed possible, one needs a god to be a theist, & I lack one,
actually, all of them. Now, you can define the word god into meaningless,
which is the normal xian response, or you can try to define it in a
coherent method that gives it more importance than a fart in a whirlwind.
Lets try to define the xian gods shall we?
They are omni-incompetent [witness the world & the universe]
They are evil, & the senior god admits it created evil.
They can not be found
They interfere with humanity, & used to make personal appearances to
humans [Moses & the seventy elders comes to mind] One of them fails to
accurately mimic the Jewish messiah, as described by the senior god of the
pantheon.. If you don't kiss their *****, you will be tortured for eternity.
No one knows which god it is when it comes to being senior, él or bal, or
yahweh. [Its él Denny]
Your turn Denny.
Denny
walksalone who understands Denny's need to have atheists believe in
something that he can elevate to deity status, it does not make him look
so foolish if he can.
--
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
"[The Bill of Rights is] designed to protect individuals and minorities against the tyranny of the majority, but it's also designed to protect the people against bureaucracy, against the government." -- Judge Lawrence Tribe
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Defining religion vs Atheism |
15 Apr 2005 12:31:22 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In <425FE387.98F7587A@nospam.net>, on 04/15/05
at 11:53 AM, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> said:
Robert the NOLA Atheist wrote:
I have been told repeatedly that Atheism is a religion. Knowing that
this is absurd since as an Atheist, I have no god belief and hence no
religion. So maybe the theist needs a definition to understand what
religion actually means. While many like to use Webster's to define
such things, I prefer the definition from Emile Durkheim.
"A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to
sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden --
beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community
called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
(1982, p. 129 [excerpt from The Elementary Forms of the Religious
Life])
I think that sums religion up pretty well. Since Atheists do not hold
any beliefs in "sacred" things,
Does that include physical evidence, the scientific method and
rationalism? Sacred things are those venerated as absolutes and before
which all other things must bow and be accountable to.
& science does this in what way, not your strawman version, what actual
way. It does not, science does not give a damn if you believe in it or
not.
Doesn't matter whether science gives a damn or not. What does matter is
the commitment and confidence of its adherents--that's what gives it
absolute status in a relative world and as such is of a religious
nature.
Physical evidence, same thing, it just is & whether you like it or
not, dos not change.
Physical evidence is in the eye of the beholder as well as in the
evidence itself. "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we
are." (Anaïs Nin) Interpretation of evidence often varies with who is
doing the interpreting.
AS to rationalism, never seen the claim forwarded
that it was the only possible way.
So the irrationality itself may in some cases connect with the truth?
So I suspect that as usual, you just
could not stand the idea of xianity [all theologies actually] being shown
up for the false concept it is.
I bow to your omniscience.
it is impossible for Atheism to be
considered a religion.
Perhaps so according to the narrow definition of Durkheim, but in the
larger sense it is not at all impossible.
It is indeed possible, one needs a god to be a theist, & I lack one,
actually, all of them. Now, you can define the word god into meaningless,
which is the normal xian response, or you can try to define it in a
coherent method that gives it more importance than a fart in a whirlwind.
Lets try to define the xian gods shall we?
They are omni-incompetent [witness the world & the universe]
According one interpretation of the cosmos.
They are evil, & the senior god admits it created evil.
Based on faulty translation which the RSV corrects, "I form light and
create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am the LORD, who do all
these things." Isa 45.7 You better stick to the old King James to
uphold your point of view.
They can not be found
But He can find you.
They interfere with humanity, & used to make personal appearances to
humans [Moses & the seventy elders comes to mind] One of them fails to
accurately mimic the Jewish messiah, as described by the senior god of the
pantheon..
Revelation is a progressive process. The true nature of God is
clarified and revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Whatever
you find in the Bible that fails to measure up to his life, death and
resurrection is sub Christian. There is but one God: as the Father
above us, the Son with us, and the Spirit in his Church.
If you don't kiss their *****, you will be tortured for eternity.
Hell is the biblical language of consequences both here and hereafter.
I assume you believe there are consequences to our thoughts, attitudes,
and actions if only in this life.
No one knows which god it is when it comes to being senior, él or bal, or
yahweh. [Its él Denny]
No "senior" exists. "the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is
one, *equal* in glory, coeternal in majesty... and yet there are not
three eternal beings, but one who is eternal... And in this Trinity, no
one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three
persons are in themselves coeternal and coequal..." Athanasian Creed,
4th century
Your turn Denny.
Denny
walksalone who understands Denny's need to have atheists believe in
something that he can elevate to deity status, it does not make him look
so foolish if he can.
Your ah... kind and em-pathetic attempt to determine where I'm coming
from is most amusing, er... amazing.
Denny
--
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
"[The Bill of Rights is] designed to protect individuals and minorities against the tyranny of the majority, but it's also designed to protect the people against bureaucracy, against the government." -- Judge Lawrence Tribe
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Defining religion vs Atheism |
15 Apr 2005 12:50:22 PM |
|
|
In <425FFA6A.D4278746@nospam.net>, on 04/15/05
at 01:31 PM, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> elected to show his version
of the sidestep fandango, fancy footwork & like his mythology, flashy
without meaning to anyone else.
walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc wrote:
In <425FE387.98F7587A@nospam.net>, on 04/15/05
at 11:53 AM, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> said:
Robert the NOLA Atheist wrote:
I have been told repeatedly that Atheism is a religion. Knowing that
this is absurd since as an Atheist, I have no god belief and hence no
religion. So maybe the theist needs a definition to understand what
religion actually means. While many like to use Webster's to define
such things, I prefer the definition from Emile Durkheim.
"A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to
sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden --
beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community
called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
(1982, p. 129 [excerpt from The Elementary Forms of the Religious
Life])
I think that sums religion up pretty well. Since Atheists do not hold
any beliefs in "sacred" things,
Does that include physical evidence, the scientific method and
rationalism? Sacred things are those venerated as absolutes and before
which all other things must bow and be accountable to.
& science does this in what way, not your strawman version, what actual
way. It does not, science does not give a damn if you believe in it or
not.
Doesn't matter whether science gives a damn or not. What does matter is
But it does, for that was your claim, as to itsadherents, define that
anyway you want, science still does not give a damn.
the commitment and confidence of its adherents--that's what gives it
absolute status in a relative world and as such is of a religious nature.
Now there is a phoney a call as I've seen yet, you mean to tell me, that
if SCIENCE [SBT folks, its a Denny thing] which includes just about every
discipline you can imagine, speaks with a unified voice, & its adherents
never question it. Denny, you've always been a bit of a joke, but that is
absurd. Were that to be the case, there would be no more research, the
books would be closed. I don't know of anyone that, other than people like
you, does not expect science to do anything but change. Its not a sacred
cow Denny, its a horse, we are supposed to work it & feed it, not lament
about it displacing your gods by closing off the gaps they hide in.
Physical evidence, same thing, it just is & whether you like it or > not,
dos not change.
Physical evidence is in the eye of the beholder as well as in the
Care to try again, physical evidence can be tested, your claims for a
sacred cow are more like fresh cow *****, useless until it has been aged, &
destructive till then.
evidence itself. "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we
are." (Anaïs Nin) Interpretation of evidence often varies with who is
doing the interpreting.
Rather like you trying to report what a scientist says then, it has to be
dumbed down to the level it can be comprehended by people like you? No
Denny, physical evidence does not care how stupid the examiner is, it
remains the same. You call bad good & good bad, but that does not make it
so.
AS to rationalism, never seen the claim forwarded
that it was the only possible way.
So the irrationality itself may in some cases connect with the truth?
DIFINO, nor would I care, but your claim is that it is worshipped & held
sacred, care to try answering that part, or will you just do the Denny
sidestep & pretend you have provided an answer? Rhetorical question BTW.
So I suspect that as usual, you just
could not stand the idea of xianity [all theologies actually] being shown
up for the false concept it is.
I bow to your omniscience.
*****, for you know there is a claim I have never made. Yet you pretend
that I have. Just because most of the world sees through your myth does
not require omni-sentience. Or omniscience, of which I am unaware of any
such word being in common usage.
it is impossible for Atheism to be
considered a religion.
Perhaps so according to the narrow definition of Durkheim, but in the
larger sense it is not at all impossible.
It is indeed possible, one needs a god to be a theist, & I lack one,
actually, all of them. Now, you can define the word god into meaningless,
which is the normal xian response, or you can try to define it in a
coherent method that gives it more importance than a fart in a whirlwind.
Lets try to define the xian gods shall we?
They are omni-incompetent [witness the world & the universe]
According one interpretation of the cosmos.
& your definition is?
They are evil, & the senior god admits it created evil.
Based on faulty translation which the RSV corrects, "I form light and
Not really, allow me:
45:3 And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of
secret places, that thou mayest know that I am the Lord, who call thee by
thy name, even the God of Israel. 45:4 For the sake of Jacob My servant,
and Israel Mine elect, I have called thee by thy name, I have surnamed
thee, though thou hast not known Me. 45:5 I am the Lord, and there is
none else, beside Me there is no God; I have girded thee, though thou hast
not known Me; 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and
from the west, that there is none beside Me; I am the Lord; and there is
none else; 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and
create evil; I am the Lord, that doeth all these things. 45:8 Drop down,
ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness; let the
earth open, that they may bring forth salvation, and let her cause
righteousness to spring up together; I the Lord have created it. 45:9 Woe
unto him that striveth with his Maker, as a potsherd with the potsherds of
the earth! Shall the clay say to him that fashioned it: 'What makest
thou?' Or: 'Thy work, it hath no hands'? 45:10 Woe unto him that saith
unto his father. 'Wherefore begettest thou?' Or to a woman: 'Wherefore
travailest thou?'
create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am the LORD, who do all
Yes, I am aware of the continiual dumbing down & changing the words to
make yahweh not seem the ***** he is supposed to be.
these things." Isa 45.7 You better stick to the old King James to
uphold your point of view.
What I quoted from, precedes the KJV, you were saying. Maybe its time you
read the Tanakh to find out what has been changed to make your myth more
palatable & make it where it would not gag a goat.
They can not be found
But He can find you.
& this is defining your gods how, making a claim that has been never
backed by fact is not what this is about Denny, & your gods have yet to
find me. Now people like you that need these gods, those people find them,
but the inverse does not happen here.
They interfere with humanity, & used to make personal appearances to
humans [Moses & the seventy elders comes to mind] One of them fails to
accurately mimic the Jewish messiah, as described by the senior god of the
pantheon..
Revelation is a progressive process. The true nature of God is clarified
Revelation is an artificial concept designed to cover the missing parts of
the xian myth, in this case. It is also used by Mormons, & some Shik
Gurus. I suspect it is active in Islam as well. Now why is that Denny,
your gods could not get it right the first time? Well, omni-incompetent
entitys are like that you know.
and revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Whatever you find
Except for one glaring fact there Denny, there is no historical Jesus
Christ. Until you get past that you are just pissing upwind because it
gives you a warm feeling. Now, if you ever get past that, you will have to
justify that person's failure to do anything a messiah is supposed to do.
& come back for seconds, not even in the job description. Being a direct
off spring of yahweh, automatic disqualification.
in the Bible that fails to measure up to his life, death and resurrection
is sub Christian. There is but one God: as the Father above us, the Son
with us, and the Spirit in his Church.
IOW, you are talking out your ***** & fall back on dogma, as if my karma has
not ran over your dogma before. Denny, get this through your constipated
mind, just because you feel better thinking you have an answer does not
make that answer correct. Now, back to defining your gods, if you can.
If you don't kiss their *****, you will be tortured for eternity.
Hell is the biblical language of consequences both here and hereafter. I
Hell is a concept imported from the Grek. Next:
assume you believe there are consequences to our thoughts, attitudes, and
actions if only in this life.
For once, you are close enough for an eight inch artillery round with a
SQD fuse set on airburst. But make that actions only. Still, for you, ne
out of three is a record.
No one knows which god it is when it comes to being senior, él or bal, or
yahweh. [Its él Denny]
No "senior" exists. "the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is
But it does, & your stolen OT provides the imnformation. But wait, that's
part of the myth you can not accept, so you wring your hands & ***** & moan
it away. But it does not go away Denny, él is the first of the Canannite &
proto Jewish gods.
one, *equal* in glory, coeternal in majesty... and yet there are not
A heresy, & you know which one. But still, it makes as much sense as any
other god claim.
three eternal beings, but one who is eternal... And in this Trinity, no
one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three
persons are in themselves coeternal and coequal..." Athanasian Creed,
4th century
Well yes, they had to do something, so they made a declaration, & enforced
it with the sword, now why should the truth ned the sword to back it up?
Ever hear of Alexandria, did they believe the bishops Constantine called
together to settle the argument?
Your turn Denny.
Still your turn Denny
walksalone who understands Denny's need to have atheists believe in
something that he can elevate to deity status, it does not make him look
so foolish if he can.
Your ah... kind and em-pathetic attempt to determine where I'm coming
from is most amusing, er... amazing.
Its based on your posting history Denny. Care to show where it is wrong, &
how? Other than by flapping your gums that is.
walksalone who understands the problem for Denny, to provide any
intelligent reply, Denny would have to think beyond the altar, & he has
forgotten how it would appear.
The following quote can be held to those advertising their gods as well.
--
Let advertisers spend the same amount of money improving their product
that they do on advertising and they wouldn't have to advertise it.
Will Rogers
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Defining religion vs Atheism |
15 Apr 2005 01:37:20 PM |
|
|
dgillesp wrote:
walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc wrote:
In <425FE387.98F7587A@nospam.net>, on 04/15/05
at 11:53 AM, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> said:
Robert the NOLA Atheist wrote:
I have been told repeatedly that Atheism is a religion. Knowing
that
this is absurd since as an Atheist, I have no god belief and
hence no
religion. So maybe the theist needs a definition to understand
what
religion actually means. While many like to use Webster's to
define
such things, I prefer the definition from Emile Durkheim.
"A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices
relative to
sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden --
beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral
community
called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
(1982, p. 129 [excerpt from The Elementary Forms of the
Religious
Life])
I think that sums religion up pretty well. Since Atheists do
not hold
any beliefs in "sacred" things,
Does that include physical evidence, the scientific method and
rationalism? Sacred things are those venerated as absolutes and
before
which all other things must bow and be accountable to.
& science does this in what way, not your strawman version, what
actual
way. It does not, science does not give a damn if you believe in it
or
not.
Doesn't matter whether science gives a damn or not. What does matter
is
the commitment and confidence of its adherents--that's what gives it
absolute status in a relative world and as such is of a religious
nature.
Physical evidence, same thing, it just is & whether you like it or
not, dos not change.
Physical evidence is in the eye of the beholder as well as in the
evidence itself. "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we
are." (Ana=EFs Nin) Interpretation of evidence often varies with who
is
doing the interpreting.
You idiot. Just because the interpretations differ does not mean that
the *evidence* being interpreted is differing.
AS to rationalism, never seen the claim forwarded
that it was the only possible way.
So the irrationality itself may in some cases connect with the truth?
So I suspect that as usual, you just
could not stand the idea of xianity [all theologies actually] being
shown
up for the false concept it is.
I bow to your omniscience.
it is impossible for Atheism to be
considered a religion.
Perhaps so according to the narrow definition of Durkheim, but in
the
larger sense it is not at all impossible.
It is indeed possible, one needs a god to be a theist, & I lack
one,
actually, all of them. Now, you can define the word god into
meaningless,
which is the normal xian response, or you can try to define it in a
coherent method that gives it more importance than a fart in a
whirlwind.
Lets try to define the xian gods shall we?
They are omni-incompetent [witness the world & the universe]
According one interpretation of the cosmos.
They are evil, & the senior god admits it created evil.
Based on faulty translation which the RSV corrects, "I form light
and
create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am the LORD, who do
all
these things." Isa 45.7 You better stick to the old King James to
uphold your point of view.
They can not be found
But He can find you.
They interfere with humanity, & used to make personal appearances
to
humans [Moses & the seventy elders comes to mind] One of them fails
to
accurately mimic the Jewish messiah, as described by the senior god
of the
pantheon..
Revelation is a progressive process. The true nature of God is
clarified and revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Whatever
you find in the Bible that fails to measure up to his life, death and
resurrection is sub Christian. There is but one God: as the Father
above us, the Son with us, and the Spirit in his Church.
If you don't kiss their *****, you will be tortured for eternity.
Hell is the biblical language of consequences both here and
hereafter.
I assume you believe there are consequences to our thoughts,
attitudes,
and actions if only in this life.
No one knows which god it is when it comes to being senior, =E9l or
bal, or
yahweh. [Its =E9l Denny]
No "senior" exists. "the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
is
one, *equal* in glory, coeternal in majesty... and yet there are not
three eternal beings, but one who is eternal... And in this Trinity,
no
one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three
persons are in themselves coeternal and coequal..." Athanasian
Creed,
4th century
Your turn Denny.
Denny
walksalone who understands Denny's need to have atheists believe in
something that he can elevate to deity status, it does not make him
look
so foolish if he can.
Your ah... kind and em-pathetic attempt to determine where I'm coming
from is most amusing, er... amazing.
Denny
--
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit
atrocities"
-Voltaire
"[The Bill of Rights is] designed to protect individuals and
minorities against the tyranny of the majority, but it's also designed
to protect the people against bureaucracy, against the government." --
Judge Lawrence Tribe
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Defining religion vs Atheism |
15 Apr 2005 04:52:54 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:13:46 -0500,
walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc wrote:
Does that include physical evidence, the scientific method and
rationalism?
There is a world of difference between holding sacred things, and holding things
to be sacred.
Does a thing have to he "held sacred", to be tried and trusted?
You see, I think it would be more correct to say that, "physical evidence, the
scientific method and rationalism", are the "tried and trusted" tools of the
scientist.
However, speaking for my self, and as an engineer, who has spent most of his
working life, in the field. Literally.
I DO reserve as sacred, my right to distrust everything I know, if it fails to
make sense.
Sacred things are those venerated as absolutes and before
which all other things must bow and be accountable to.
Not so. A thing does not have to be sacred, to be venerated.
Are the great, venerated men of science, art, philosophy, etc, "sacred"?
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Defining religion vs Atheism |
15 Apr 2005 12:57:51 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:53:43 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
Robert the NOLA Atheist wrote:
I have been told repeatedly that Atheism is a religion. Knowing that
this is absurd since as an Atheist, I have no god belief and hence no
religion. So maybe the theist needs a definition to understand what
religion actually means. While many like to use Webster's to define
such things, I prefer the definition from Emile Durkheim.
"A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to
sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden --
beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community
called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
(1982, p. 129 [excerpt from The Elementary Forms of the Religious
Life])
I think that sums religion up pretty well. Since Atheists do not hold
any beliefs in "sacred" things,
Does that include physical evidence, the scientific method and
rationalism? Sacred things are those venerated as absolutes and before
which all other things must bow and be accountable to.
it is impossible for Atheism to be
considered a religion.
Perhaps so according to the narrow definition of Durkheim, but in the
larger sense it is not at all impossible.
Not in the context it is discussed where religion is part of a belief
in gods. You might be able to use the word in a looser sense but
it would be irrelevant.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Defining religion vs Atheism |
15 Apr 2005 11:13:42 AM |
|
|
dgillesp wrote:
<snip>
it is impossible for Atheism to be
considered a religion.
Perhaps so according to the narrow definition of Durkheim, but in the
larger sense it is not at all impossible.
Denny
Please define "...larger sense...".
Steve
(Pentylzic)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Defining religion vs Atheism |
15 Apr 2005 08:26:55 PM |
|
|
Robert the NOLA Atheist wrote:
I have been told repeatedly that Atheism is a religion. Knowing that
this is absurd since as an Atheist, I have no god belief and hence no
religion. So maybe the theist needs a definition to understand what
religion actually means. While many like to use Webster's to define
such things, I prefer the definition from Emile Durkheim.
"A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to
sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden --
beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community
called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
(1982, p. 129 [excerpt from The Elementary Forms of the Religious
Life])
I think that sums religion up pretty well. Since Atheists do not hold
any beliefs in "sacred" things, it is impossible for Atheism to be
considered a religion.
"[The Bill of Rights is] designed to protect individuals and minorities
against the tyranny of the majority, but it's also designed to protect the
people against bureaucracy, against the government." -- Judge Lawrence
Tribe
I just like to remind the "Atheism is a religion" goofies that if indeed
Atheism is a religion, its the only true religion. And if then Atheism is
the only true religion, all other religions are false religions.
After all, I can prove to these goofies their god cannot possibly exist.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Defining religion vs Atheism |
15 Apr 2005 02:10:25 PM |
|
|
on 15 Apr 2005 in alt.atheism, Robert the NOLA Atheist dropped trou,
farted, whirled, then shouted:
I have been told repeatedly that Atheism is a religion. Knowing that
this is absurd since as an Atheist, I have no god belief and hence no
religion. So maybe the theist needs a definition to understand what
religion actually means. While many like to use Webster's to define
such things, I prefer the definition from Emile Durkheim.
"A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to
sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden --
beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community
called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
(1982, p. 129 [excerpt from The Elementary Forms of the Religious
Life])
I think that sums religion up pretty well. Since Atheists do not hold
any beliefs in "sacred" things, it is impossible for Atheism to be
considered a religion.
Where the Christian goes wrong is in the assumption that his belief system
is more than a belief system. When he thinks the whole thing is real, then
atheism becomes the "belief" that he is wrong. It's the only way they have
to rationalize our existence without coming to the conclusion that they
might be the ones that are wrong.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: Defining religion vs Atheism |
16 Apr 2005 03:00:59 AM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in message news:<Xns96397BD11B0B4vicman@127.0.0.1>...
on 15 Apr 2005 in alt.atheism, Robert the NOLA Atheist dropped trou,
farted, whirled, then shouted:
I have been told repeatedly that Atheism is a religion. Knowing that
this is absurd since as an Atheist, I have no god belief and hence no
religion. So maybe the theist needs a definition to understand what
religion actually means. While many like to use Webster's to define
such things, I prefer the definition from Emile Durkheim.
"A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to
sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden --
beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community
called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
(1982, p. 129 [excerpt from The Elementary Forms of the Religious
Life])
I think that sums religion up pretty well. Since Atheists do not hold
any beliefs in "sacred" things, it is impossible for Atheism to be
considered a religion.
Where the Christian goes wrong is in the assumption that his belief system
is more than a belief system. When he thinks the whole thing is real, then
atheism becomes the "belief" that he is wrong. It's the only way they have
to rationalize our existence without coming to the conclusion that they
might be the ones that are wrong.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Well put Vic. The christian often delves deeper into the irrational
state when a rational person attempts to explain the logic relating to
the critically flawed christian beliefs. It's often a waste of time to
discuss things with them, because they're prepared to throw
rationality and logic out the door.
Kenny
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
