Is it possible to NOT be religious to christians?

[Zocrates]

If you think atheism is a religion, then apparently that means a human being can't possibly not have a religion. Everyone, even the religionless, are religious, according to your definition.

I did not grow up religious, racist, sexist or any other -ist you can think of. I didn't have any dogmas or biased beliefs being thrown at me left and right by people telling me what and what not to think. Both of my parents had that growing up and didn't want to subject their children to the same, so they allowed us more freedom to find things out for ourselves and make our own decisions.

So I grew up in a world "without the concept of god". I had heard about "god" and religion, but it just seemed like some TV show I was missing out on, which was no big deal to me. I didn't see religion as something you "gotta have".

I know it seems hard to believe that someone could really care less about religion, but that's the way I came up.

So I could understand that you all would project how you came up on others, by thinking "everyone has to believe in something", when in reality.....no, you don't. No one has the answers, but most people want answers so badly that they run to a religion to give it to them, and others like myself are content not knowing the answers. I don't need a belief to make me feel complete at the end of the day.

To me, it seems more confusing to have a belief like christianity where you're basically taking all the answers given to you on faith, even though you have questions about some of them (like why men are at the head of women). It creates further confusion because then you just have to answer more questions.

My point with this post is to, one, show you a different perspective and, two, ask why you feel like labeling atheism as a religion as stated in your forum rules?

 

[heron]

To me, it seems more confusing to have a belief like christianity where you're basically taking all the answers given to you on faith, even though you have questions about some of them (like why men are at the head of women). It creates further confusion because then you just have to answer more questions.

I agree with you, but it's really a long process of weighing what we read and hear. We may feel one way about an issue one year, and change our perception of it the next. There aren't as many unquestionable theologies as it appears. It's a continual process of learning and experiencing.


I missed the discussion where someone said this, but many people mush the definitions of "religious" into one word:

WordNet - Cite This Source religious
adjective1. concerned with sacred matters or religion or the church; "religious texts"; "a member of a religious order"; "lords temporal and spiritual"; "spiritual leaders"; "spiritual songs" 2. having or showing belief in and reverence for a deity; "a religious man"; "religious attitude" [ant: irreligious] 3. of or relating to clergy bound by monastic vows; "the religious or regular clergy conducts the service" [ant: secular] 4. extremely scrupulous and conscientious; "religious in observing the rules of health"
When I have seen similar discussions, the atheists speak with more conviction than the spiritual people.

 

[ebia]

If you think atheism is a religion, then apparently that means a human being can't possibly not have a religion. Everyone, even the religionless, are religious, according to your definition.

I did not grow up religious, racist, sexist or any other -ist you can think of. I didn't have any dogmas or biased beliefs being thrown at me left and right by people telling me what and what not to think. Both of my parents had that growing up and didn't want to subject their children to the same, so they allowed us more freedom to find things out for ourselves and make our own decisions.

So I grew up in a world "without the concept of god". I had heard about "god" and religion, but it just seemed like some TV show I was missing out on, which was no big deal to me. I didn't see religion as something you "gotta have".

I know it seems hard to believe that someone could really care less about religion, but that's the way I came up.

So I could understand that you all would project how you came up on others, by thinking "everyone has to believe in something", when in reality.....no, you don't. No one has the answers, but most people want answers so badly that they run to a religion to give it to them, and others like myself are content not knowing the answers. I don't need a belief to make me feel complete at the end of the day.

To me, it seems more confusing to have a belief like christianity where you're basically taking all the answers given to you on faith, even though you have questions about some of them (like why men are at the head of women). It creates further confusion because then you just have to answer more questions.

My point with this post is to, one, show you a different perspective and, two, ask why you feel like labeling atheism as a religion as stated in your forum rules?

Depends how you define 'religion'. Atheism (in so far as its a single thing anyway) shares some of the attributes of a religion but not others.

 

[Zocrates]

I agree with you, but it's really a long process of weighing what we read and hear. We may feel one way about an issue one year, and change our perception of it the next. There aren't as many unquestionable theologies as it appears. It's a continual process of learning and experiencing.

I'm aware that no theology is exists that is in perfect harmony with its followers. If following a theology solves more problems than it creates, then go for it. But for me, it would only create more confusion that I'm follwing a theology that conflicts with the world I live in today (i.e. no one being born of a virgin).

I missed the discussion where someone said this, but many people mush the definitions of "religious" into one word:

WordNet - Cite This Source religious
adjective1. concerned with sacred matters or religion or the church; "religious texts"; "a member of a religious order"; "lords temporal and spiritual"; "spiritual leaders"; "spiritual songs" 2. having or showing belief in and reverence for a deity; "a religious man"; "religious attitude" [ant: irreligious] 3. of or relating to clergy bound by monastic vows; "the religious or regular clergy conducts the service" [ant: secular] 4. extremely scrupulous and conscientious; "religious in observing the rules of health"
When I have seen similar discussions, the atheists speak with more conviction than the spiritual people.

I assume you're talking about the last definition of "religious". That has nothing to do with theology. It only means that someone is overly methodical and consistent with their behavior.

By the definition of this message forum, the word secular is obsolete. No one can be secular or irreligious. Who would you consider to be a secular person?

 

[Zocrates]

Depends how you define 'religion'. Atheism (in so far as its a single thing anyway) shares some of the attributes of a religion but not others.

Like I said, who would you consider a secular person then?

If atheism is a religion, then I can start to name about a hundred gazillion religions that you adhere to as well. I'll start with a-santaclausism. You should probably add that one to your CF user profile then and make more for at least 50 more wacky religions.

I just find it amusing that, by definition, secular means "without religion"....and yet you're saying that that's a religion in itself.......interesting......

 

[Key]

If you think atheism is a religion, then apparently that means a human being can't possibly not have a religion. Everyone, even the religionless, are religious, according to your definition.

Religion less? Everyone has a creed, a life view, and even a world view. Now, each of these things may be personal, they may be cultural, or inspired by religion.

In the sense, of a "formal" way that many laymen might view it, Atheism is a religion, as it has rules, it has requirements of belief, it has things you need to accept on faith alone, and it has zealot adherents. In that sense, yes, it appears to be, and share many common traits with "religions".

I did not grow up religious, racist, sexist or any other -ist you can think of. I didn't have any dogmas or biased beliefs being thrown at me left and right by people telling me what and what not to think.

I would love to believe this, but unless you lived out in the country, with only your immediate family (who did not impose their beliefs and world views upon you), with out public schooling, internet, or TV. Then you might have a rally good stand, to say, your influence was "limited".. at the very best.

However.. everyday, with every book, magazine, newspaper, message board, you read, with every game you play, with every TV show you watch, with each and every person you talk to, you are being influenced.

Be they just support your view, or oppose your view, or just discussing anything at all, you are being influenced, your feelings of right and wrong are being molded by your surroundings, discussions with your significant other, family, and friends, all influence you.

How they influence you, and what influence they have, in what direction it points you into, that may be mutable, it is not a constant as everyone will be influenced the same identical way.

But, there is thought control, and molding your very way of thinking.

Both of my parents had that growing up and didn't want to subject their children to the same, so they allowed us more freedom to find things out for ourselves and make our own decisions.

That sounds wonderful.

So I grew up in a world "without the concept of god".

So by omission they have limited what you would and would not know, and what information you had to work with. it is good that they made you think, but also, they influenced that greatly, by what they gave you to work with.

I had heard about "god" and religion, but it just seemed like some TV show I was missing out on, which was no big deal to me. I didn't see religion as something you "gotta have".

Sounds fair...

I know it seems hard to believe that someone could really care less about religion, but that's the way I came up.

Quite easy to believe that.. to tell the truth...

So I could understand that you all would project how you came up on others, by thinking "everyone has to believe in something", when in reality.....no, you don't. No one has the answers, but most people want answers so badly that they run to a religion to give it to them, and others like myself are content not knowing the answers. I don't need a belief to make me feel complete at the end of the day.

Ahh.. your Agnostic.. now.. why didn't you say so... that is so much different then Atheist.

To me, it seems more confusing to have a belief like christianity where you're basically taking all the answers given to you on faith, even though you have questions about some of them (like why men are at the head of women). It creates further confusion because then you just have to answer more questions.

Do I have to try?

Do I even have to care?

Why is it a bad answer to say "Because the Bible says so".. and why are you not content with that answer from us?

See.. we don't have to have the answer, nor do we need to provide one, just as I think, you do not feel the need to have an answer to all your own questions..

Does it equally amaze you, that I could just say "Because the bible says so" and you would (as you have in the past) have a hissy fit about that answer and have all kinds of negative things to say about my faith....

I could go on and on about this.. but think about it... just think about it.. you feel that it is ok to not have answers.... so why should I have to have answers... as well..?

My point with this post is to, one, show you a different perspective and, two, ask why you feel like labeling atheism as a religion as stated in your forum rules?

Because it is a matter of faith based belief, with creeds and dogmas, that are necessary to accept on faith alone, for you to hold to the following of Atheism.

Hope that helps...

God Bless

Key

 

[ebia]

Like I said, who would you consider a secular person then?

I'm not sure what you mean by that question. What exactly do you mean by the word secular in that context?

If atheism is a religion, then I can start to name about a hundred gazillion religions that you adhere to as well. I'll start with a-santaclausism. You should probably add that one to your CF user profile then and make more for at least 50 more wacky religions.

If we define religion, say, as "a belief or set of beliefs about the existance and nature of God" then atheism is a religion but anti-santaclaisism isn't. You can't say "if atheism is a religion then anytghing that shares any similaritiy with athesism is a religon". You need to figure out what defintion of religion we are using.

I just find it amusing that, by definition, secular means "without religion"....and yet you're saying that that's a religion in itself.......interesting......

I would say that's a pretty inadequate definition of 'secular'.

 

[heron]

I assume you're talking about the last definition of "religious". That has nothing to do with theology. It only means that someone is overly methodical and consistent with their behavior.

Actually, the way I commonly hear the word used, it does.

It refers to someone who is more caught up in the regiments of religion than the living, breathing, communal aspects of it. Following the law instead of the heart of the law.

 

[Catherineanne]

If you think atheism is a religion, then apparently that means a human being can't possibly not have a religion. Everyone, even the religionless, are religious, according to your definition.

I would not call atheism a religion, but I would certainly say that it is a faith.

It is possible for a human to exist without any kind of external faith system, but the price they would pay for this would be sociopathy, I think. Psychopaths and Narcissists exist like this, and they are not to be envied.

Therefore, I would say that faith or belief in something greater than oneself, whether science, humanity, life, family or whatever, is essential for any kind of meaning in life.

 

[Merlin]

My point with this post is to, one, show you a different perspective and, two, ask why you feel like labeling atheism as a religion as stated in your forum rules?

While the world likes to label Christianity as a religion, it really isn't.
It's God seeking out man, not man seeking God.
Atheism, is a faith.
It takes a great deal more faith to believe in creation by random chance than creation by design.

 

[Zocrates]

Religion less? Everyone has a creed, a life view, and even a world view. Now, each of these things may be personal, they may be cultural, or inspired by religion.

So again, am I to understand that there is no such word as "secular"?

In the sense, of a "formal" way that many laymen might view it, Atheism is a religion, as it has rules, it has requirements of belief, it has things you need to accept on faith alone, and it has zealot adherents. In that sense, yes, it appears to be, and share many common traits with "religions".

Atheism has no rules whatsoever. Where do you honestly get this from? Does a-santaclausism have rules as well?

However.. everyday, with every book, magazine, newspaper, message board, you read, with every game you play, with every TV show you watch, with each and every person you talk to, you are being influenced.

I'm a different type of learner than most people. Instead of learning by watching others and duplicating their behavior, I've learned more from watching people and seeing their mistakes and learning from them.

I'm not influenced by people's behavior as much as others around me because I don't feel the need to act like others. Sure, you can't help but be influenced by others to an extent, but personally, I'm not one of those types that cared what "everyone else was doing" and allowe my peers to influence my behavior.

Be they just support your view, or oppose your view, or just discussing anything at all, you are being influenced, your feelings of right and wrong are being molded by your surroundings, discussions with your significant other, family, and friends, all influence you.

You are right. But my only point in bringing up how I came up was to try and explain to you that I'm not some typical human being that holds firm to some dogma. I'm open to any belief, but it's got to make sense. I'm not going to be naive when listening to someone's belief and I'm not going to believe something just because it gives me warm fuzzies.

So by omission they have limited what you would and would not know, and what information you had to work with. it is good that they made you think, but also, they influenced that greatly, by what they gave you to work with.

We went to church on occasion with the grandparents just to get us exposed to it. They didn't omit anything. They did not shelter us from outside beliefs as you may think and like so many other parents do with their kids.

Ahh.. your Agnostic.. now.. why didn't you say so... that is so much different then Atheist.

If that makes you feel better to label me something else, then go right ahead but the problem with that is that now you have a ton of other beliefs that you automatically believe about me "as an agnotic" that will inevitably be incorrect. So labeling me doesn't accomplish anything.

Before assuming anything about me, why not ask first. I have not done that with you. I have asked you questions as to what you personally believe since I understand that no two christians believe the same thing. You, on the other hand, have grouped us all into a big bowl of atheist soup and assumed that we believe X, Y, and Z. The least you could do is preface your statements by saying "some atheists" or "most atheists" as I do when I say "some christians", when I talk about my experience with christians.

Why is it a bad answer to say "Because the Bible says so".. and why are you not content with that answer from us?

Surely you know the answer to this question. It's the same reason why you are not content when a muslim says "because the Koran says so". It can't possibly be that hard to understand where I'm coming from by now, since you know what it's like to not believe in another's religion. Just because you don't believe in islam, does that mean you have any set of "rules" you follow? No, so then why is it taht I have "rules" as someone that does not believe in christianity?

Does it equally amaze you, that I could just say "Because the bible says so" and you would (as you have in the past) have a hissy fit about that answer and have all kinds of negative things to say about my faith....

I challenge you to find where I said one negative thing about your religion other than saying I don't believe in it. I think I have been very respectful about our discussion and lately, you have turned in the other direction. I have thrown no hissy fits, or said any of the disparaging things that you have brought to the table in recent posts. If this is the way you roll, then I guess I'll have to deal with it, but I just expected more coming from christians....because despite our differing views, I respect a good number of christians for their treatment of their fellow man. I just wish I could get the same respect in turn, since I have been nothing but respectful in our discussions thus far.

I could go on and on about this.. but think about it... just think about it.. you feel that it is ok to not have answers.... so why should I have to have answers... as well..?

I don't demand that you have answers as well. You claim to have answers, which is why I ask you for these answers that you have.

Because it is a matter of faith based belief, with creeds and dogmas, that are necessary to accept on faith alone, for you to hold to the following of Atheism.

I thought I was an agnostic now? I don't "follow" anything, and I don't knwo what else I can say to get you understand that I don't follow any belief. Do you "follow" a-santanclausism or a-unicornism? If so, then I will, for the sake of argument, say I "follow" atheism or agnisticism. But if that's the case, like I said before, you probably need to make room in your "religion" section of your profile, because I could come up with a ton of different creeds you adhere to.

 

[hedgehog51]

If you are content not knowing the answers why are you on this forum asking questions?

In Christ

 

[Jerrell]

Religion was the last thing Jesus had on his mind. Jesus taught a Faith, not a religion. Christianity, filled with religious folks became religious...but true Christianity is based on faith not religion.

Religion is one of the worse things that has ever happened. It results in Zealots.

 

[Key]

So again, am I to understand that there is no such word as "secular"?

Sure, secular means not part of a "religious institution", that does not mean you do not have creeds and world views, beliefs, and dogmas.

You yourself, have told us a few of your dogmas, about how you feel what is moral is best for humanity, how you do not take anything as absolute truth, that science will provide answers, etc, etc, etc.

These are creeds, dogmas, and beliefs.

Are they "religious" maybe not, but they are in some cases matters of Faith.. IE: Nothing is Absolute Truth, is a matter of Faith, for there may very well be, absolute Truths, you just have a "faith" that there is not.

The major difference between the two, is mutability.

You could just change any creed you wanted to, as you went on in life, the creeds and beliefs you held so dear at say 24, may mean nothing to you when you reach the age of 56. In this case, the Secular, with it's very unstable foundation and mutability, is vastly different then say Christianity.

Now.. Religions... they can be across the board, Christinaity is just one of the many religions, it is not the model, or all of what Religions are, now, it seems you tend to use the ideal that following what Christ taught, and being Religious as the same thing.

They are not.

Just as I could follow Plato, and not be Religious, but I would adhere to the teachings of Plato.

There is a lot you are missing, and a lot you do not seem to grasp, there is also an amazing amount of things that you try to simplify, that are not simple things.

This is were much of your confusion comes from, is the simplification of complex things, there is a lot lost in "translation" from what is, and what you simplify them to.

Atheism has no rules whatsoever.

Can you be a Christian and an Atheist at the same time?

Where do you honestly get this from? Does a-santaclausism have rules as well?

Sigh

Man.. I miss the Invisible pink unicorns...

I'm a different type of learner than most people. Instead of learning by watching others and duplicating their behavior, I've learned more from watching people and seeing their mistakes and learning from them.

Cute ideal, cute claim, and you might even believe it.

I'm not influenced by people's behavior as much as others around me because I don't feel the need to act like others. Sure, you can't help but be influenced by others to an extent, but personally, I'm not one of those types that cared what "everyone else was doing" and allowe my peers to influence my behavior.

This is a long discussion, but in the simple format, be you go against the flow, or with it, you still are affected by the flow.

You can not "rage against the system" is there is no system to rage against.

Just as you rage against "religious" this is a "flow" for you, going against "Them" (the "Them" being us Christians).

It's all about influence.

You are right. But my only point in bringing up how I came up was to try and explain to you that I'm not some typical human being that holds firm to some dogma. I'm open to any belief, but it's got to make sense. I'm not going to be naive when listening to someone's belief and I'm not going to believe something just because it gives me warm fuzzies.

ok.

We went to church on occasion with the grandparents just to get us exposed to it. They didn't omit anything. They did not shelter us from outside beliefs as you may think and like so many other parents do with their kids.

That would be your view of things.

If that makes you feel better to label me something else, then go right ahead but the problem with that is that now you have a ton of other beliefs that you automatically believe about me "as an agnotic" that will inevitably be incorrect. So labeling me doesn't accomplish anything.

It removes misconceptions. IE: I would want to know a basis for yoru stand point, and unless I have that, IE: You would say I am a Christian, this is a Basis for a stand point. a Necessary starting block.

Before assuming anything about me, why not ask first. I have not done that with you. I have asked you questions as to what you personally believe since I understand that no two christians believe the same thing. You, on the other hand, have grouped us all into a big bowl of atheist soup and assumed that we believe X, Y, and Z. The least you could do is preface your statements by saying "some atheists" or "most atheists" as I do when I say "some christians", when I talk about my experience with christians.

There are some uniform beliefs. IE: An Atheist does not believe in God, as such, by that Creed, they need to accept some things. Even if they do not "think about" such things.

Just as Christian needs to accept somethings, to be a Christian, even if they never gave a lick of thought to it.

It is the matter, of life in General, and following a Creed.

Allow me to explain, lets take Santa Clause, Ok, we don't believe in this "elf" but we would need to accept somethings along with that, like.. Reindeer do not fly, an Sleigh can not travel faster then the speed of light while being pulled by flying reindeer, That there is no magical factory in the north pole that has tons of elves making tons of toys for good little boys and girls, etc.

All these are "byproduct" beliefs, and we would all have to adhere to them, if we were "anti-Santa-Clause-ist".. even if we never gave a lick of thought to it.

However, if you were to accept, that maybe one of those things were true, then why not all of them? it becomes a package deal.

Can you accept flaying reindeer, and not give pause to the fact that maybe Santa is real? It is a trade mark of his ya know.

Now, I hope I have explained this to you..

Surely you know the answer to this question. It's the same reason why you are not content when a muslim says "because the Koran says so".

I have read the Koran..

It did not have what I required to take the belief of their God serious.

If you say the same of the Bible, then say it, move on, have a great life.

What more do you want? You want me to try and convince you? Not gonna happen.

It can't possibly be that hard to understand where I'm coming from by now, since you know what it's like to not believe in another's religion. Just because you don't believe in islam, does that mean you have any set of "rules" you follow? No, so then why is it taht I have "rules" as someone that does not believe in christianity?

Yah, it does.. when I reject Islam, I need to reject a specific list of things.

In my case, I also accept a specific list of things when I embraced following Christ.

Just as you would have to reject a specific list of things to reject Christianity, and accept some things, to embrace being an agnostic.

There are some uniform things involved, and some things, that are just personal.

Like for example, all Christians follow Christ. if you don't follow Christ, well, your not a Christian. It's quite simple.. really.

All Agnostics, should have the belief that they do not know the complete answers. If you believe that you do know the complete answers, then your not really an agnostic, now are you?

I challenge you to find where I said one negative thing about your religion other than saying I don't believe in it. I think I have been very respectful about our discussion and lately, you have turned in the other direction.

You mean other then entire topics where all you did was belittle peoples beliefs and make a mockery of their faith?

Like this ENTIRE TOPIC... for example?

You have been nothing but stellar, other then things like that.. really you have...

I have thrown no hissy fits, or said any of the disparaging things that you have brought to the table in recent posts. If this is the way you roll, then I guess I'll have to deal with it, but I just expected more coming from christians....because despite our differing views, I respect a good number of christians for their treatment of their fellow man. I just wish I could get the same respect in turn, since I have been nothing but respectful in our discussions thus far.

Respect is a funny thing.. see I gave it to you at the outset, you know, I was under the impression that you were a real seeker, and really had questions, where you really wanted to learn.

You have corrected that misconception of mine.. in glowing lights.

Now you back pedal and go "Oh I have done nothing but be respectful why are you so mean" sorry that does not work, it's a pathetic play at an emotional appeal, to tell the truth.

You have shown your true colors, and if I respond in kind after seeing them. I gave you the chance, and fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me (unlike president Bush, I know the quote).

Your under the impression that as a Christian. I am suppose to "take it" sorry, you do not know scripture then if that is your belief.

Answer a fool to their folly or they will be wise in their own eyes.

So spare me this.. "I have been wronged" you have brought my responses to you, on yourself. You have no one to blame for my actions to you, then yourself.

I don't demand that you have answers as well. You claim to have answers, which is why I ask you for these answers that you have.

Meh..

I thought I was an agnostic now? I don't "follow" anything, and I don't knwo what else I can say to get you understand that I don't follow any belief. Do you "follow" a-santanclausism or a-unicornism?

I really.. really miss the Invisible pink unicorns.. and Santa has been done to death in GA, you might.. want to try something else in the future when you move on to GA.

If so, then I will, for the sake of argument, say I "follow" atheism or agnisticism.

Explained above, in detail. You have not grasped it by now, then that is your choice.

You DO have creeds and dogmatic beliefs, you DO have Things you adhere to, regardless of what you believe. It is a Religious belief in the manner that it is about your religious outlook on life.

Anti-Santa, has nothing to do with my "religious" outlook, as it does not affect how I view, accept, or reject any religious belief.

If you can not grasp this, then I am sorry, that is your own limits, it is not for a lack of effort on my part.

But if that's the case, like I said before, you probably need to make room in your "religion" section of your profile, because I could come up with a ton of different creeds you adhere to.

Explained, answered, more then a few times.

The example has been shot down, because it has been used too much before. It they do not call it PRATT in GA, and bother to give you an answer, you will be lucky.

God Bless

Key

 

[Jerrell]

Yall sure do type alot of stuff....

 

[Zocrates]

Are they "religious" maybe not, but they are in some cases matters of Faith.. IE: Nothing is Absolute Truth, is a matter of Faith, for there may very well be, absolute Truths, you just have a "faith" that there is not.

I'm as sure as I can possibly be about most of my beliefs, like that I exist and am typing this message right now, given my knowledge of this world.

No one can possibly say that they can know nothing to be absolutely true, because that in itself is claiming to know an absolute truth: that they cannot know anything as absolute truth. This is getting more into a discussion about logic, but when it comes to things that are not proven with near perfect certainty (like gravity), I will never claim to know something to be 100% true.

There is a lot you are missing, and a lot you do not seem to grasp, there is also an amazing amount of things that you try to simplify, that are not simple things.

This is were much of your confusion comes from, is the simplification of complex things, there is a lot lost in "translation" from what is, and what you simplify them to.

Yes, I prefer to keep my life simple and not overcrowd it with extra dogma that hasn't been proven to be true.....it has only not been proven to be false. I hold to no such dogma.

Can you be a Christian and an Atheist at the same time?

Huh? If you're black, then you're obviously not white, right? Does that mean that blacks have "rules" to be black. Here we go wth this semantic mumbo jumbo again. You're trying to make atheism out to be some religion with rules when atheism is simply a term used to describe a person who does not believe in god, and if you believe in god, you then cannot be named an atheist.

The actual dictionary definition of atheism isn't a "rule". It's a definition.....if you don't fit that term, you can't use it to describe yourself. It's not a rule atheists have made up like you have to dip your head under water in order to be an atheist. This semantic garbage gets us nowhere.

Allow me to explain, lets take Santa Clause, Ok, we don't believe in this "elf" but we would need to accept somethings along with that, like.. Reindeer do not fly, an Sleigh can not travel faster then the speed of light while being pulled by flying reindeer, That there is no magical factory in the north pole that has tons of elves making tons of toys for good little boys and girls, etc.

All these are "byproduct" beliefs, and we would all have to adhere to them, if we were "anti-Santa-Clause-ist".. even if we never gave a lick of thought to it.

You are right, you would be perfectly correct to assume certain things about atheists. You can assume that they don't believe in god and don't believe in everything associated with holy scripture (jesus, heaven, jihads).

This doesn't say anything about what we DO believe.....it only says something about what we DON'T believe. I think you can find out more about a person by what they DO believe than what they DON'T believe, since the list of things they don't believe are infinite. What good does it do to find out what someone doesn't believe?

I think you're mixing up what we don't believe with what we do believe. The only things you can assume we don't believe in are things exclusive to religion. Things like a having a moral compass and treating others with respect and love isn't exclusive to christianity, so you cannot assume we do not have or do these things.

 

[Gukkor]

Huh? If you're black, then you're obviously not white, right? Does that mean that blacks have "rules" to be black. Here we go wth this semantic mumbo jumbo again. You're trying to make atheism out to be some religion with rules when atheism is simply a term used to describe a person who does not believe in god, and if you believe in god, you then cannot be named an atheist.

The actual dictionary definition of atheism isn't a "rule". It's a definition.....if you don't fit that term, you can't use it to describe yourself. It's not a rule atheists have made up like you have to dip your head under water in order to be an atheist. This semantic garbage gets us nowhere.

You're right, and as I see it, Christianity is little different in that regard. Sure, you must follow certain "rules" to be considered part of a certain denomination or congregation, but to be a Christian on a basic level, you simply have to fit the definition of the term.

It's similar to the difference between simply being an atheist and being a member of an organization composed of atheists.

 

[WarEagle]

If you think atheism is a religion, then apparently that means a human being can't possibly not have a religion. Everyone, even the religionless, are religious, according to your definition.

Everyone is religious, even the unreligious. They just worship a different god.