I'm not theist and I don't accuse you of being religious. It's a concept. I find very interesting that all Humans can be in some way religious. That being said by one of the least religious persons in the World. I don't like Organised Religion, I don't like religious extremists, and I don't believe in God, because I can't say he exists without a proof. But I don't feel offended if someone says I'm religious. You are basing all your argumentation in semantics, while I base this concept in something more philosophical. If you say OMG, you are being religious, and there is no problem with that. Religion is one thing, and being religious is another. You need to follow all the rituals or system of beliefs to be considered adherent to a Religion, but you don't need to do all those things to be religious. Using your example, a guy who is talking about football is in that moment a football fan. I talk about football every day, because I love it and then I'm a huge football fan, but there are different levels. I'm a football extremist, while the other guy is just a bit interested in talking about football. The same happens with Religion.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
If you debate the exsistence of God you are debating ONE SUBJECT!!!!! A religion is a magnitude of belief systems that include the acceptance of god but as I have said before, Christians, Catholics and Muslims are all theists but the theism itself isn't their religion.sergeriver wrote:
Atheism itself isn't a Religion, but atheists are religious in some way. Don't get sick just for the meaning of the word. If you have the belief or you are sure that God doesn't exist and you debate about it, you are being religious. You don't need to pray or worship anything. In the same way when you are an anarchist and you express your opinion you are into politics. I'm not more religious than you, and I really don't understand why the word offends you that much.
You can only be religious if you follow a religion with it's thinking, teachings and rituals. If you say someone is "very religious" you mean they follow their scriptures very strictly. You can not talk about a mildly religious athiest or very religious athiest and thus you can not describe them as being religious at all.
Someone who doesn't like football may talk about one player but you would call him a football fan just because he's discussing it. You're saying that just because you know of somethings existence it automatically makes you part of it even when you reject it. Would you say an African tribe were religious if they had no contact with western civilisation and had not been told about "God"?
Atheism gets accused of being religious because its an easy way for theists to attack the practice. Servigeriver would be more accurate if he talked about the Illuminati which was/is (depending on what you believe) a group of people that actively rejected and wanted to abolish religion. Atheism was part of their ideology and you could describe that as a religion.
But, by no criterion by which a religion is judged can you describe the simple idea that a god doesn't exist as religion in itself. Nor can you describe the totally individual actions, morals and mannarisms of your average athiest (or thiest for that matter) as a religion and you can not describe everyday activities as "rituals" because you are not conforming to what those words actually mean.
You can critisise me for keep bring dictionary definitions in here, but you can not say "athiests are religious because they follow rituals in their daily lives" unless you know what 'atheist', 'religion' and 'rituals' means. You are wrong on all three, using them tenuously and you are being very metaphorical with your reasonings.
Black can be white metaphorically speaking but I prefer reality.
If being religious is defined as having faith in that which cannot be empirically determined, then yes, everyone is religious.
Yeah but it's not.Turquoise wrote:
If being religious is defined as having faith in that which cannot be empirically determined, then yes, everyone is religious.
Fair enough, but I don't understand what the concept is based on. I don't except the solitary subject on whether God exists or not can be described as "religion" because it simply isn't and I don't accept that just because someone has knowledge of something they must subscribe to it (think about the example I gave again and imagine the guy was criticising a player who he had never seen and hated football, you wouldn't call him a fan in fact you'd be quick to point out that he has no authority on the subject if you disagreed with him. I have been told by many Americans that I can't comment on gun control because I don't live there.)serviger wrote:
I'm not theist and I don't accuse you of being religious. It's a concept. I find very interesting that all Humans can be in some way religious. That being said by one of the least religious persons in the World. I don't like Organised Religion, I don't like religious extremists, and I don't believe in God, because I can't say he exists without a proof. But I don't feel offended if someone says I'm religious. You are basing all your argumentation in semantics, while I base this concept in something more philosophical. If you say OMG, you are being religious, and there is no problem with that. Religion is one thing, and being religious is another. You need to follow all the rituals or system of beliefs to be considered adherent to a Religion, but you don't need to do all those things to be religious. Using your example, a guy who is talking about football is in that moment a football fan. I talk about football every day, because I love it and then I'm a huge football fan, but there are different levels. I'm a football extremist, while the other guy is just a bit interested in talking about football. The same happens with Religion.
A better example would be to ask "when I eat lasgane, am I Italian or an Englishman eating Italian food". Now, conceptually and metaphorically speaking you could come up with some reasons as to why I am Italian but in reality we both know I'm just a Brit eating continental food.
If you are basing it on individuals everyday activities and independent philosophies on life and comparing them to "rituals" I'd like your take on what the words means, even conceptually.
OMG - personally I use this purely as a mark of exlamation and nothing more and when I celebrate Christmas I see it as a good excuse to get the family together and get pissed (drunk). At no point does Jesus, God or any other religious connotations enter my mind. Some atheists around the World may not celebrate it at all and may refrain from ever saying OMG, Jesus Christ etc but many do and that is exactly why it isn't a religion because there are no rules. You quite rightly say that you don't have to follow all the rules to be religious but the fact is that there are rules, written down and preached, which makes Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Catholosism etc religions and Atheism not (I shouldn't even put it in the same sentence because they aren't comparable as I've already said.
You differentiated them by calling the recognised theist idioligies as "organised religion" as if being an athiest makes you a subscriber to an 'unorganised religion' but you cannot ignore the sematics here because they form the basis for the whole thing, even conceptually. "Organised Religion" is a tautology and "Unorganised Religion" is an oxymoron.
P.S I don't get offended if someone calls me religious the same way as I wouldn't be offended if someone called me French but that doesn't mean I wouldn't correct them though.
Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2007-04-28 14:12:00)
Again, I never said that Atheism is an organised religion, but the main belief of Atheism is the non existence of God. If your main belief does involve God, you are talking about religion. You don't need to follow "all the rules" to be religious. You celebrate Xmas just as an excuse to be with your family, I don't even celebrate Xmas, but I accept presents, lol.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Yeah but it's not.Turquoise wrote:
If being religious is defined as having faith in that which cannot be empirically determined, then yes, everyone is religious.Fair enough, but I don't understand what the concept is based on. I don't except the solitary subject on whether God exists or not can be described as "religion" because it simply isn't and I don't accept that just because someone has knowledge of something they must subscribe to it (think about the example I gave again and imagine the guy was criticising a player who he had never seen and hated football, you wouldn't call him a fan in fact you'd be quick to point out that he has no authority on the subject if you disagreed with him. I have been told by many Americans that I can't comment on gun control because I don't live there.)serviger wrote:
I'm not theist and I don't accuse you of being religious. It's a concept. I find very interesting that all Humans can be in some way religious. That being said by one of the least religious persons in the World. I don't like Organised Religion, I don't like religious extremists, and I don't believe in God, because I can't say he exists without a proof. But I don't feel offended if someone says I'm religious. You are basing all your argumentation in semantics, while I base this concept in something more philosophical. If you say OMG, you are being religious, and there is no problem with that. Religion is one thing, and being religious is another. You need to follow all the rituals or system of beliefs to be considered adherent to a Religion, but you don't need to do all those things to be religious. Using your example, a guy who is talking about football is in that moment a football fan. I talk about football every day, because I love it and then I'm a huge football fan, but there are different levels. I'm a football extremist, while the other guy is just a bit interested in talking about football. The same happens with Religion.
A better example would be to ask "when I eat lasgane, am I Italian or an Englishman eating Italian food". Now, conceptually and metaphorically speaking you could come up with some reasons as to why I am Italian but in reality we both know I'm just a Brit eating continental food.
If you are basing it on individuals everyday activities and independent philosophies on life and comparing them to "rituals" I'd like your take on what the words means, even conceptually.
OMG - personally I use this purely as a mark of exlamation and nothing more and when I celebrate Christmas I see it as a good excuse to get the family together and get pissed (drunk). At no point does Jesus, God or any other religious connotations enter my mind. Some atheists around the World may not celebrate it at all and may refrain from ever saying OMG, Jesus Christ etc but many do and that is exactly why it isn't a religion because there are no rules. You quite rightly say that you don't have to follow all the rules to be religious but the fact is that there are rules, written down and preached, which makes Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Catholosism etc religions and Atheism not (I shouldn't even put it in the same sentence because they aren't comparable as I've already said.
You differentiated them by calling the recognised theist idioligies as "organised religion" as if being an athiest makes you a subscriber to an 'unorganised religion' but you cannot ignore the sematics here because they form the basis for the whole thing, even conceptually. "Organised Religion" is a tautology and "Unorganised Religion" is an oxymoron.
P.S I don't get offended if someone calls me religious the same way as I wouldn't be offended if someone called me French but that doesn't mean I wouldn't correct them though.
You are not Italian for eating Italian food. But that analogy does not fit here. Religion is a major part of Humans lives, even if you don't believe in anything. If you have to fill an application for a job and you have to tell your religion, what would you write there? Atheist. Because Atheism has to do with Religion.
velocitychaos wrote:
Zen
No yo implied it was an "unorganised religion". Religion by definition must be organised and thus atheism can not be an oxymoron but OK, I understand you a little better now. The problem with this is you are calling a negative a positive. Atheism isn't a proactive thing. Let me repost a snippet from the about.com article I posted earlier,sergeriver wrote:
Again, I never said that Atheism is an organised religion, but the main belief of Atheism is the non existence of God. If your main belief does involve God, you are talking about religion.
As I asked before, would you consider someone who has never encountered civilisation and had no concept of god, religious?about.com wrote:
Atheism is not an "Ism":
When people talk about "isms," they are referring to some "distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice" like liberalism, communism, conservatism, or pacifism. Atheism has the suffix "ism," so it belongs in this group, right? Wrong: the suffix "ism" also means a "state, condition, attribute, or quality" like pauperism, astigmatism, heroism, anachronism, or metabolism. Is astigmatism a theory? Is metabolism a doctrine? Is anachronism a practice? Not every word that ends in "ism" is a system of beliefs or an "ism" in the way people usually mean it. Failure to realize this can be behind other errors here.
Agreed, but if someone follows all the rules you would say they were fundamentally religious, it therefore follows that if you do not follow any of the rules (or you partake in them but not for the religious intentions, which isn’t “following” IMO just basic shared human behaviour) then you are not religious at all.sergeriver wrote:
You don't need to follow "all the rules" to be religious. You celebrate Xmas just as an excuse to be with your family, I don't even celebrate Xmas, but I accept presents, lol.
I have answered this earlier.sergeriver wrote:
You are not Italian for eating Italian food. But that analogy does not fit here. Religion is a major part of Humans lives, even if you don't believe in anything. If you have to fill an application for a job and you have to tell your religion, what would you write there? Atheist. Because Atheism has to do with Religion.
=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, on the Census I last signed, under religion, it had them all listed and atheism wasn't one of them. I ticked "no religion".
Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2007-04-28 15:15:28)
That prior stated (posted) "emotional & denial" crap, not worthy of a reasoned response.
Anyways,
This thread is absurd. Everyone knows the thread premise - is bogus reasoning. It is simple word-play and the substitution of a meaning that does not transfer.
We all have some beliefs, a personal philosophy, etc, things that make up: a worldview. But a personal outlook on life (or your worldview) does not a religion make (in that sense, or rather the semantic context meaning of the word use: religious). But, you can call me religious any time you like, in some context that might be true. Because I am religious (as a synonym for passionate or devoted) about certain things - even certain things I don't really believe in. Saying someone practices devotion to their job "religiously" is as common an expression of speech as saying, "I feel blue", but I am not really blue, I am feeling "under the weather", oh wait, but I am not really under a weather pattern either, that is just another expression, life's realities has made me somewhat depressed is what I really meant by the expression. Just as everyone knows to be "religious" as an expression of speech connotes (infers): practices with devotion.
Worldview is not a synonym for religious (in any context). Attempting to redefine worldview as being like a religion thus "religious" is pointless, unnecessary and absurd (IMO: on the absurd part, truly absurd).
Take for example any Christian person (a male let us say), who has faith, he is religious (and of course this degree of being religious varies from individual to individual) but he also works in a secular world, and his involvement with the world outside of his faith is filled with many roles (and many might be the same as mine: father, businessman, husband, co-worker, friend, caretaker, etc). Any of these roles, for instance being a father, and the concern for the health of his children (as in acceptance of medical science) may influence his beliefs (and thus alter his worldview).
His (and my) worldview is affected by our state of mind, as well, by our relationships with our respective wives. Our worldview is subject to being altered, from time to time (by experience & learning). Faith is part of a worldview, but it is not the entirety of it, not by a long shot. I am a former Catholic, who does not attend Church, but my children are baptized, because some traditions and certain symbolic meanings are still held by me as cherished values. I am not religious though (in the context I do not practice a religion). Simply because Christ as meaning & message still influences my overall worldview does not make my worldview a personal religion.
It is more than probable that we (him and I) share many things in common in our respective worldviews. But such commonality in belief (in worldviews) does not mean we are both religious or that we share religious views.
A worldview is not a part, but rather the sum total of influences - and not what the original post in this thread has stated. We are not all religious, in the context [the Thread] proponents have argued for, but rather we all have a complexity (made of many things including: faith, direct personal experience, human interpersonal experiences, practical knowledge, impractical knowledge, common forms of human psychology, etc) called (and already defined for quite some time as): a worldview.
Anyways,
This thread is absurd. Everyone knows the thread premise - is bogus reasoning. It is simple word-play and the substitution of a meaning that does not transfer.
We all have some beliefs, a personal philosophy, etc, things that make up: a worldview. But a personal outlook on life (or your worldview) does not a religion make (in that sense, or rather the semantic context meaning of the word use: religious). But, you can call me religious any time you like, in some context that might be true. Because I am religious (as a synonym for passionate or devoted) about certain things - even certain things I don't really believe in. Saying someone practices devotion to their job "religiously" is as common an expression of speech as saying, "I feel blue", but I am not really blue, I am feeling "under the weather", oh wait, but I am not really under a weather pattern either, that is just another expression, life's realities has made me somewhat depressed is what I really meant by the expression. Just as everyone knows to be "religious" as an expression of speech connotes (infers): practices with devotion.
Worldview is not a synonym for religious (in any context). Attempting to redefine worldview as being like a religion thus "religious" is pointless, unnecessary and absurd (IMO: on the absurd part, truly absurd).
Take for example any Christian person (a male let us say), who has faith, he is religious (and of course this degree of being religious varies from individual to individual) but he also works in a secular world, and his involvement with the world outside of his faith is filled with many roles (and many might be the same as mine: father, businessman, husband, co-worker, friend, caretaker, etc). Any of these roles, for instance being a father, and the concern for the health of his children (as in acceptance of medical science) may influence his beliefs (and thus alter his worldview).
His (and my) worldview is affected by our state of mind, as well, by our relationships with our respective wives. Our worldview is subject to being altered, from time to time (by experience & learning). Faith is part of a worldview, but it is not the entirety of it, not by a long shot. I am a former Catholic, who does not attend Church, but my children are baptized, because some traditions and certain symbolic meanings are still held by me as cherished values. I am not religious though (in the context I do not practice a religion). Simply because Christ as meaning & message still influences my overall worldview does not make my worldview a personal religion.
It is more than probable that we (him and I) share many things in common in our respective worldviews. But such commonality in belief (in worldviews) does not mean we are both religious or that we share religious views.
A worldview is not a part, but rather the sum total of influences - and not what the original post in this thread has stated. We are not all religious, in the context [the Thread] proponents have argued for, but rather we all have a complexity (made of many things including: faith, direct personal experience, human interpersonal experiences, practical knowledge, impractical knowledge, common forms of human psychology, etc) called (and already defined for quite some time as): a worldview.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-30 07:11:44)