Let's chat about the atheist religion II

Ok, lets look at the discussion in your intro thread:
Post 1: Your OP references that you got a theology degree. This begin some polite discussion about everyone's religion and your degree.

Post 7: Rush_Is_Right makes a post attacking religion for their desire for money.

Post 29: Sleep Monster voices agreement with Rush_Is_Right critiquing organized religion for their desire for donations but also empathizing with believers who can't go to church because of covid.

Post 57: You then respond to Sleep Monster, who you had been previously having a civil conversation with, defending the donation practices of your church and saying that maybe his church has the problem he pointed out. Keep in mind that his post wasn't directed at you, and you chose to get into his conversation.

Post 58: Sleep monster correct you and says he is an atheist. He says that not all churches can be right, Occham's razor, and disbelief in his short explanation of his atheism.

Post 59: You start attacking Sleep Monster and atheists. You call Sleep Monster religious even though he told you he is an atheist and claimed that this is the reason he is in this discussion. You also claimed that he is his own God.

Post 60: Sleep Monster is offended by you claiming he is his own God if atheism is true, when atheists don't even believe in God. He is also offended that you called him religious when he is an atheist.

You were the first one to really attack sleep monster for being an atheist and calling him religious and his own God. He may have voiced some disagreement with religious views, but there was a discussion of religion going on, and he was responding to another atheist, and to you who started that dialog.

 

yes

 

So atheists are religious, agnostics are religious, believers in a god are religious?

So I wonder what would it take for a person to be non-religious? Is it even possible?

 

Wow, holy strawman

 

Its all circumstantial. Yeh Im agnostic and I freely admit that I am quite religious. Any ideology, philosophy, or belief can suffice as a functional element of a religion, like baking a cake, add the right ingredients and toss in the oven, you got a cake, does not matter if its vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, its a cake.


The idea of secularism as denoting a fixed, unchanging category of life predicated upon separate and clearly demarcated “secular” and “religious” spheres raises a number of issues. One of these is that the very concept of the “secular” is itself bound up with the binary opposite notion of the “religious.” Both terms emerged in Western Europe during the Middle Ages: the term “religion” (deriving from the Latin “religio”) being initially used as a referent to the communal life of Christian monks, the term “secular” (from the Latin “saeculum”) referring to the world beyond these monastic communities. From the outset the two terms were constructed as opposites, with the “secular” being defined primarily in terms of what it was not—in this case: those things, places, and ideas that were distinct from the sphere of religious authority (e.g., see Taylor, 2007).

A related problem is that the concept of “religion” is itself ambiguous and contested. In many ways this too is linked to the historical and geographical context in which the term arose and developed, being used initially to describe a specifically Western European form of Christianity. Alongside this, the sheer diversity of religious beliefs and behaviors makes it extremely difficult to produce a coherent and accepted definition of what “religion” actually is. Not all scholars are in agreement on whether religion involves particular types of beliefs, such as the existence of a god or gods (which many folk religions do not possess), certain types of practices, such as membership in a particular institution and attendance at a place of worship (which is far less relevant for religions such as Buddhism and Confucianism), or a commitment to follow a divinely inspired moral code (early hunter-gatherer societies, for example, had typically amoral forms of religion) (on these points see Boyer, 2004).
https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/...0228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-898

 

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I agree with you, it all depends on one's definition of religion. In my mind, a religious person would be one who devotes considerable thought to his beliefs/faith every day and routinely engages in particular activities that would reinforce/coincide with those beliefs.

A person who didn't do these things would not be religious in my mind, based on my definition of "religious." For example, an agnostic who hardly even thought about the issue of god/no god for weeks or months at a time would not be considered a "religious" person.

 

With the exception to this board I rarely think about G/god(s). I am none the less very religious.

At best I rarely agree with scrotumus maximus, but they got this one as close to right as can be had considering all the variables that had to be taken into consideration.

Having a deity is entirely or can be entirely different and even unconnected to religion. In fact you can believe in a deity and not have any religious affiliation based upon that deity.

It far more complex than simply thinking about a deity or the usual (most often incorrect) ways it is used out here in pissing contests.

The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons.

Religion legal definition of religion

 

I appreciate that and thanks for supplying the SC definition. I hope you don't find it rude, but what is it that makes you a religious person? Is it thinking deeply about the universe and our origins? Altered states of consciousness? Systematically gathering with others of a like mind and professing your beliefs? Oh, just so you understand, I find it perfectly reasonable that an agnostic (or even an atheist) could be religious, so not disagreeing with you on that - just interested in what it is that makes you religious.

In the grand scheme, I feel that:

an atheist may or may not be religious,
an agnostic may or may not be religious,
and a theist may or may not be religious.

 

so how do you feel about someone murdering you or your family, stealing everything you own, and taking your wife and raping your daughter?

 

There you go projecting OR is it you no habla Ingles?

 

If I was murdered, there wouldn't be much left to feel, but the other things you mention would be truly awful and would certainly change one's outlook on life, perhaps even to seek higher powers, but I'm left somewhat confused on your reply. If you took my question as rude or prying into your personal business, I apologize. I certainly had no ill intent.

 

Neither of those articles substantiate your bogus allegation. What is even more amusing is that you obviously have no idea that the 2nd facile article is nothing more than an attempt to sell engineering software.

Furthermore a great many of the biblical MYTHS about the pyramids have been DEBUNKED by Nova episodes.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/who-built-the-pyramids/

 

Kindly refrain from PROJECTING your own foolishness and dishonesty onto others!

I factually debunked ALL of your BOGUS allegations about atheists and you responded with PUERILE ad homs in VIOLATION of PF Rules.

No wonder you don't want to engage in debating because your responses indicate that you have neither the relevant subject matter knowledge nor the skills to do so.

Sad!

 

not at all.
your assessment of the situations proposed is something no material science can do for you.

case in point

 

nice word play! Tasty salad Im sure.
of course it does not MAKE atheism a religion!
it IDENTIFIES the core belief of atheism as a religion.
Yes theists have the right to be free from the ATHEIST RELIGION as much as atheists have the right to be free from theist religion.
Their is no SUBSTANTIAL as in material difference between religion in law and religion in the theist or atheist camp.
If you think you can invent one by all means feel free to make your case.

 

Champ, you've not debunked a damn thing. All you've demonstrated is a lack of respect for your fellow man and your abject ignorance. I've broken no rules here unless PF has some specific rule about not using critical thinking skills to question why you are so threatened by ONE God. That's against the rules? You mean the rules here are set up so that a Christian could never question the motives of atheists? That would mean that the system is set up so that atheists could never lose one of those phony, pretend "debates" and this board would be rigged - and you accuse ME of dishonesty?

 

As I understand the rules here, posters are not allowed to change or derail the topic. That is exactly what happened on this thread. Derideo_Te has attempted to change the topic several times now and complains that I responded to him / her in the same spirit to which I was addressed. That is like the pot what calls the kettle black. If the rules are applied so as to favor atheists over Christians, any pretend "debate" here would have no more credibility than a WWE tv wrestling match. Rules can be interpreted many ways and the level of latitude can be applied differently. If someone here wants HONEST discourse, I challenge you right here and right now to petition the mods to remove any post wherein you think I insulted someone, but be HONEST. Remove all the posts that were intended to change the OP. Then let's have an honest discussion. Otherwise, there is no "debate." The board would be a sham; a way to make atheists come out the winner no matter the issue. They would lose, but still "win." My instincts not to be drawn into the daily "debate" - the only thing that atheists want to talk about was a good move on my part.

If you interpret the rules literally and objectively, the atheists were the first to break the rules by attempting to change the subject. So, why would the mods interpret the rules to favor them and discriminate against me? Derideo_Te wants to "debate" me on a subject that I see no point in "debating" over. And maybe y'all are right. If the atheists favorite topic is the only one we can consider and we cannot have any other discussion, I don't belong here. If they are dissatisfied with my responses, then they should obey the rules. If they don't obey them, all I ask is for the latitude to respond in the same spirit I'm being addressed in... nothing less and nothing more.

 

You have been shown several times that is not true but you persist in repeating it, do you think that will somehow make it true?

 

Please spare the tales of persecution, it will not wash.

 

Yes, that was rather a pathetic little rant.

What I find ironic is that the OP indirectly made this thread about me by including something that I had posted in another thread and then accuses me of derailing the thread that he made about me!

LOL!

 

Yes I got a rant last night, I wondered if perhaps it was too much Holy Spirit.
It is a strange place this forum.

 

You have shown nothing of the sort.

 

Persecution? Your side is the one crying foul while being looked at instead of defended against. What, exactly, are you afraid of? Do you really need a brother atheist to hold your hand when you cannot defend an untenable position? What excuse do you have for derailing a thread if not other than to throw political weight around out of fear of the truth?

 

Everything is not about you. Then, again, if the shoe fits, wear it. How can you try to lecture me about rules while you break them with impunity? Do you own this board by any chance?

 

I certainly have and anyone looking at this thread can go back and see it, you cannot change what is recorded in the thread.