How do you choose to believe?

[Ana the Ist]

Don't be so outraged. If there is no belief in a god, all the rest that constitutes a religion can still remain, and in the case of most people (and as another atheist poster pointed out) it does. Something else that's of ultimate value to the person is substituted, that's all.

I read his comment...and it didn't say anything of religion. He simply said that people place value in things...if not religion, then something else.

Just because someone might place value in something doesn't make it a religion. If that were the case, religion would be a meaningless word.

Don't kid yourself either...nobody's outraged. You made a nonsensical statement and I called it as such.

 

[Albion]

I read his comment...and it didn't say anything of religion. He simply said that people place value in things...if not religion, then something else.

Which is close to the point I was making. You don't want to be associated with the word religion for various reasons, but when we look closely, the difference is mainly in the terminology, not what happens.

Incidentally, there are also many Christians and churchgoers who are adamantly against being called members of any religion.

 

[Chriliman]

You would also have to assume that all atheists adhere to a similar set of values that could be classified as 'atheist' values, if you want to claim that a religion is based on shared values not a shared belief in the supernatural.
Otherwise you could claim that being a Packers fan, say, is a religion. ..there's ritual, getting together to share experiences, etc.

They do all adhere to a specific value. That value is the lack of belief in God. They all agree to lack belief in God. Isn't that agreeing that it is correct and right to lack belief in God? If not, then why do they all agree to lack belief in God?

Atheism is as much a religion as theism. The only difference is that theist all agree to believe in God and atheists all agree to lack belief in God.

If you tell me it's true that you don't know if God exists and I agree and say the same thing, then we both agree to accept the truth that we don't know.

We all have no choice but to accept something as true(believe). It's when we come across the truth and accept that truth, that our lives are changed for the better and we find true understanding of our reality.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Which is close to the point I was making. You don't want to be associated with the word religion for various reasons, but when we look closely, the difference is mainly in the terminology, not what happens.

Incidentally, there are also many Christians and churchgoers who are adamantly against being called members of any religion.

Well they're mistaken aren't they? Christianity fits the definition of religion just as well as any other religions.

The only reason I don't want to be associated with any religion...is I don't have any religion. I'm an atheist. I didn't realize this was so difficult to figure out.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the difference is mainly in the terminology, not what happens." You're either a member of a particular religion or you aren't...again, this shouldn't be all that difficult to understand.

 

[Ana the Ist]

They do all adhere to a specific value. That value is the lack of belief in God. They all agree to lack belief in God. Isn't that agreeing that it is correct and right to lack belief in God? If not, then why do they all agree to lack belief in God?

Atheism is as much a religion as theism. The only difference is that theist all agree to believe in God and atheists all agree to lack belief in God.

If you tell me it's true that you don't know if God exists and I agree and say the same thing, then we both agree to accept the truth that we don't know.

We all have no choice but to accept something as true(believe). It's when we come across the truth and accept that truth, that our lives are changed for the better and we find true understanding of our reality.

There's no "agreement"...we aren't some big group that gets together and tries to decide whether or not to believe in god lol. Every atheist comes to be an atheist in his/her own way. It's not as if my atheism somehow depends upon the atheism of other atheists....I was an atheist before I knew what the term "atheist" meant...and that was long before I ever knew another atheist.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

They do all adhere to a specific value. That value is the lack of belief in God. They all agree to lack belief in God. Isn't that agreeing that it is correct and right to lack belief in God? If not, then why do they all agree to lack belief in God?

Atheism is as much a religion as theism. The only difference is that theist all agree to believe in God and atheists all agree to lack belief in God.

If you tell me it's true that you don't know if God exists and I agree and say the same thing, then we both agree to accept the truth that we don't know.

We all have no choice but to accept something as true(believe). It's when we come across the truth and accept that truth, that our lives are changed for the better and we find true understanding of our reality.

Is one belief enough to make a religion? Am I a member of the church of bananas are yucky, or Prince is underrated as a guitarist?

 

[Chriliman]

Is one belief enough to make a religion? Am I a member of the church of bananas are yucky, or Prince is underrated as a guitarist?

In regards to the existence of God. Agreeing to lack belief in God is more significant than agreeing that bananas are yucky, considering wars are not waged over the existence of one yucky banana over another yucky banana. God is very significant to many people, bananas aren't' necessarily as significant as God. Do you see my point?

 

[Chriliman]

There's no "agreement"...we aren't some big group that gets together and tries to decide whether or not to believe in god lol. Every atheist comes to be an atheist in his/her own way. It's not as if my atheism somehow depends upon the atheism of other atheists....I was an atheist before I knew what the term "atheist" meant...and that was long before I ever knew another atheist.

After talking with many atheists, it has come to my knowledge that they mostly agree to lack belief in God. Do you disagree with this assessment?

 

[durangodawood]

Oh brother. Are we still trying to make not believing in god(s) into a religion?

What a lame religion that would be, with
no positive beliefs
no social functions
no shared value system
no symbols, art, music
no guidance regarding meaning of life
etc
etc

 

[Chriliman]

Oh brother. Are we still trying to make not believing in god(s) into a religion?

What a lame religion that would be, with
no positive beliefs
no social functions
no shared value system
no symbols, art, music
no guidance regarding meaning of life
etc
etc

Can religion be defined as a set of beliefs? If so then religion isn't necessarily a bad thing if one is willing to honestly assess their beliefs within a certain religion. Religion can be thought of as a means to finding truth, but the truth is not necessarily equal to any particular man-made religion.

 

[durangodawood]

Can religion be defined as a set of beliefs?

A set of beliefs is totally insufficient for a "religion". There's a lot more to it.

 

[Chriliman]

A set of beliefs is totally insufficient for a "religion". There's a lot more to it.

I disagree. I think a religion can be defined as a set of beliefs that are agreed upon by people within that religion. A religion can either include the belief in God or include the lack of belief in God. As long as either claim is agreed upon by the people making the claims, then it can be defined as a religion. We don't need to make this more complicated than it needs to be.

 

[durangodawood]

I disagree. I think a religion can be defined as a set of beliefs that are agreed upon by people within that religion. A religion can either include the belief in God or include the lack of belief in God. As long as either claim is agreed upon by the people making the claims, then it can be defined as a religion. We don't need to make this more complicated than it needs to be.

Then you are off on your own, defining "religion" as it suits you, but unable to use the word in meaningful conversation with the rest of the world. This is a bad way to have a discussion. You can see what the rest of world means by religion by exploring any online encyclopedia type reference.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Only if one dilutes the word "religious" to the point where it signifies nothing more than the basic human tendency to form values. Given the supernatural baggage that comes along with the word "religious," it would be irresponsible to call the mere act of valuing "religion." That some acquire values through religion does not imply that all values must, as a rule, originate from within religion or that the mere act of valuing is itself intrinsically religious.

No, once again, valuing is a human activity, not a religious activity per se.

Religion is also a human activity. Restricting religion to the point where no matter how religiously one follows a belief system it is not religious unless one includes a deity that is a sentient being seems a way of avoiding dealing with the religiosity of people that act, speak and believe in something with consummate faith but just don't believe in a sentient being or beings called god(s) that one can interact with as if interacting with another human. Unless one is randomly assigning the trait good or evil to things or just doesn't think in moral terms at all one is almost invariably comparing action, people things etc. to some standard they have faith is correct. The basis for that standard could not be labeled anything other than supernatural as it does not occur in nature and is completely subjective yet treated by the one ascribing to it as if it were an objective measure. To make a value judgement, to say more than this or that is enjoyable or pleasurable or expedient or convenient etc. for me personally but that this or that is good or evil or lacking in either characteristic one must have in mind some standard for which one can measure those qualities and that does not occur in nature. It is a standard based upon the supernatural as the one that ascribes to the standard will do so strictly on faith in whatever they hold more important than individual whim or instinctual behavior . As no objective measure of benevolence and malevolence exists in nature, morality must be based upon something that is beyond nature or above nature. That something then must be supernatural.

 

[Albion]

Well they're mistaken aren't they?

Not according to the meaning that they attach to the word, which may be somewhat similar to the aversion some atheists feel for it.

Christianity fits the definition of religion just as well as any other religions.

That's what most Christians would say, but I was just illustrating how much it bothers some people.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the difference is mainly in the terminology, not what happens." You're either a member of a particular religion or you aren't

Ah, but that isn't the issue--being a "member" of "a particular religion." It's whether or not one's intellectual orientation amounts to a religion.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not according to the meaning that they attach to the word, which may be somewhat similar to the aversion some atheists feel for it.


That's what most Christians would say, but I was just illustrating how much it bothers some people.


Ah, but that isn't the issue--being a "member" of "a particular religion." It's whether or not one's intellectual orientation amounts to a religion.

Here, this ought to help...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Let me know if you have questions.

 

[Albion]

Let me know if you have questions.

My question is: "Why does this bother you or make you feel threatened?"

 

[durangodawood]

....It's whether or not one's intellectual orientation amounts to a religion.

Intellectual orientation is not sufficient to make a religion. There's more to religion than that, by any normal definition.

 

[durangodawood]

My question is: "Why does this bother you or make you feel threatened?"

It bothers me because it boils down to an accusation of hypocrisy. "You profess disdain for religion, but you are religious too!"

If you were correct, youd have a point. But you arent, by any normal understanding of what religion is in human life. Being wrong is bad enough. Being wrong and performing veiled ad-homs of "hypocrisy!" is a bit over the top.

 

[Albion]

Intellectual orientation is not sufficient to make a religion. There's more to religion than that, by any normal definition.

Agreed. I would have done better to have used another term, considering that there is indeed more to religion than just an orientation, that's right.