It is so easy to rattle your cage. I like how you always try to change the premise of something to get it to fit neatly into your world. If one definition is wrong then another is just as wrong. All definitions of religion should be taken into consideration. Arguments should be directed to both meanings of the word, your meaning is no better than the definition that I put forth. It is only equal to it.

I think you're using a very selective definition of atheism. Atheism can refer anyone in any cultural context that doesn't believe in a god(monotheism) or gods(polytheism), of any kind. I understand we are seeped in this "western" context of christianity, but does that really mean a "self proclaimed atheist" in some other religious region is standing in direct opposition to Christianity? I don't think so. Atheist aren't making a counter claim regardless of the dichotomy of the labels. Atheism/theism concerns belief, as opposed to gnosticism/agnosticism which is an epistemological term concerning knowledge. To me, everyone is agnostic because I think no one living knows for certain if there is a god. Christians believe they are gnostic because they see the bible as evidence. Atheists have no belief in god/s due to their perceived lack of evidence. This is the default position since no claim is being made. Theism, no matter the form, makes the claim for god/s or the supernatural. Without evidence there is no reason to believe this claim, but note I did not say that it was warranted to believe that god/s cannot exist. Atheism is not a belief structure.

If the thoughts of God and religion were none existent then so to shall be the viewpoint of an Atheist.

This is the basis for atheist blowback. There isn't a word for the lack of belief in Santa Claus. Atheists are a much derided minority, especially in the south where I live. There are still states that do not allow us to serve in government openly. Minorities when threatened band together. Modern atheism is a reaction, nothing more. If theism disappears, the illusion of an atheist collective will disappear.

Then we finally realize we were all Pantheists anyway as our ideas of god merges with our ideas of the universe. I think some of the upcoming breakthroughs in quantum mechanics will pretty much assure this.

Atheists, self-proclaimed, choose the term of atheist to disassociate themselves from religion.

That's not necessarily true. I choose the term to disassociate myself from theism, which is not synonymous with religion.

I never said any of those things are negative, you did. It doesn't surprise me to have someone deem work as a negative, this is the going trend.

As far you not worshiping anything, I don't believe that. The truth is in front of you, try accepting it. ""We must accept the truth, even if it changes our point of view." –Unknown" I took it straight off your profile. Hypocrite.

They are your gods if they are the center of your life.

Tell me how they are not your gods. This ought to be good.

American Heritage defines Religion as;

#4 A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

How true this is. Religion doesn't have to be based upon God, it can be based upon a god. Albert Einstein once was asked what his religion was and his answer is as follows;

"My work is my religion, I work religiously."

Whatever is the center of your life is your religion. One's god can be almost anything. For some that god is alcohol, gambling, drugs, work, sex, computer games, etc. If you worship it, it is your god.

the position of the Atheist, in contradiction of the Christian, contradicts only the Christian definition of God.

The atheist is being referred to here as if they have a unified body of beliefs.

no Atheist can contradict a viewpoint that does not exist.

I agree with that. However I do not agree that atheism is necessarily a contradicting of theism, it is in many cases be a mere lack of theism. If an atheist is not specifically anti-theist then at some point they are quite likely to find for themselves a way to be just as narrow and close minded (worshipful and thereby necessarily ignorant) as the typical theist.

Thank you for the challenge

atypican

I never made the claim that atheism was a religion. In fact I agree with you that it is not. Religion entails far more than one statement.

It is surprising, the things we think are obvious, only to discover that they are to so many far from.

atypican

Christianity is the mother of Atheism

According to my opinion, the religious habit of worship is beginning to be overcome and human dignity is on the rise. Authoritative relationships are less welcome and associative and negotiative ones are more sought out. Theism IMO need not necessarily be related to professed belief in deities, it can exist anywhere an individual authority is over trusted (worshipped) I will explain more if provoked.

A lot of it depends upon your definition of religious, which is rightly different for different people.

Why is it good for people to have different definitions of religious? I am convinced that to address and improve some of the most pressing world conditions we need to openly challenge the worst ideas into oblivion. (why I am passionate about debates like these) If we don't take advantage of our ability do this with words then we will stay in the same horrendous blood stained rut we have been in for so long.

Sorry for leaving your comment unanswered for so long.

thanks for posting to this debate.

atypican

My thinking is that you need not "identify with a particular religious sect" in order to still have formed (perhaps inarticulately but at least internally) your own working belief system. If we look at the various individualized beliefs systems worldwide that we can draw from for help forming our own, then religion takes on somewhat of a broader definition for us. We can be very religious without stunting our growth by thinking we can find all the qualities we are looking for in one place. (read worship)

If I could influence your quest I would say not to look for "a religion" but to look for a way to express religion that fits who you are and desire to become. Think of what you would be comfortable teaching to your own children when they ask you the questions that if you leave unanswered will most certainly be answered by someone else with possibly less pure motives.

I left your response unanswered for 109 days! how rude!

Here's a quote that makes my point more succinctly:

"Say not I have found the truth, say I have found a truth." ~Kahlil Gibran

regards

atypican

You have religion or science.

I think I am in good company with people who don't view them as mutually exclusive or as having irreconcilable differences.

Atheists can mean that they have no beliefs what so ever.

My provocative opening statement is directed to people who make that ridiculous claim(and others just like it). Y'all have shown up as the majority, as I strongly suspected. lol

you believe everyone should believe in religion

I believe people should view religion for what it is. They should object when they notice something objectionable. They should also praise activity they deem praiseworthy.

If we want to discover the nature of a given religious sect, we must discover their particular brand of intolerance.

you look like a cocky jerk who dosn't know when to quit.

well who would ever be convinced to change tactics by someone like that? I better give up now. :)

i do not lie about my religion.

Here (possibly accidentally) you declare that you are not without your own religion. So as yet you are not included in my description.

some silly decease which you call religion.

So my religion is a silly disease. You came to a quick conclusion there. Is that a habit?

I think people who believe in a god are deluded to a certain extent.

I think all people are deluded to a certain extent

The fact is that i would rather believe in myself than an uncertain profit.

So certainty is important to you.

I understand perfectly what religion is, I've already said what.

yes your rhetoric is brimming with the same sort of perfected certainty theists enjoy

If you are truly religious then you will believe that the world is only 4000 years old.

That statement is evidence to me that you do not understand what religion is. I will elaborate if you press me.

when in true scientific fact it is actually over millions of years

There's that precious certainty of yours again. Just to let you know the scientific method can produce theories. Theories, like beliefs and opinions are open to be reformed in light of newly gathered information. To paraphrase Einstein no amount of experimentation can ever absolutely prove a theory right, yet even a single experiment can prove it wrong.

now, are you going to tell me if the world is 4000 years or millions of years.

if you say 4000 then your trying to convince everyone that black is white.

I am not going to claim that I have certainty about the age of earth. I am not going to claim perfect understanding. Seems too much like theism to me.

religion often closes the minds of people,

I would say that certain educational and indoctrination methods discourage inquiry. These mind stunting traditions are dangerous whether the offending institution is termed religious secular or scientific.

gives people sinical views to a perfect planet. one which we should believe in instead of a celestial like teapot in space. there is sooo much to this planet than delusion, if you could only see it. if only.

i will not accuse you as yet, but i ask you now, do you want to die on this planet as a firm believer of imagination and closed mind synopsis' of where you may end up

nonsense alert

yet you accuse me

I must have missed that, I guess if the shoe fits.....

thanks for reading

you are welcome. I appreciate your thoughtful consideration

god speed to you

whatever that means

believe in the facts

If people live by that phrase they will never doubt anything once they consider it a fact. Kinda scary if you ask me

That is what it looks like when someone respects what you type.

atypican

It seems you mean that a person who may put trust in another, in this case science, is not much different than a religious person's trust in say a Rabbi.

What I am talking about is "excessive trust" or worship if you will. There is no telling how catastrophic the consequences may become. I am inclined to believe that the tendency to worship (the behavior I associate with theism) is the main problem. Holding any "entity" or "group" "literary collection" in too high a regard is basically the same thing IMO as being theist.

I would say of that, that I only have as much faith as scientific method has proved

Most atheists I have met wouldn't touch the word "faith" with a ten foot pole. You recognize (I think) faith as a practice which is not intrinsically bad but one that demands caution, curiosity and critical thinking.

This may be the same as 1. but what then would an atheistic definition of religion be?

Religion is our ideological and traditional heritage. We identify ourselves religiously by our affinity for or rejection of specific expressions of it. Religion to me represents a person's or group's peculiar brand of intolerance, what we pay attention to, promote, struggle against, what we ignore, and alliances we form related to our personal (consciously chosen or passively accepted) value system.

An agnostic believes proof of a deity is impossible, or does not exist, either way they are not committed to the idea that there simply is not a god. An atheist is committed to the idea that there are no deities, so one cannot be both. If an atheist says "I don't think there is a god, but there could be" then they're actually agnostic.

Though I consider myself both, I like to make a distinction between atheists and anti-theists. Someone who is without a belief is not necessarily rejecting said belief. I think it is possible and logically consistent (since that's how I see myself) to be atheist anti-theist and agnostic.

Being agnostic I recognize the futility of arguing for or against the existence of deities (people define and imagine them in such diverse ways). As an anti-theist I work to make the practice of worship lose popularity.

"An imaginary problem is a real problem" ~atypican

But the difference is proof. Science has theories, and then the theories are either proved or not. There is no attempt to prove anything in religion. I think that would make the belief systems very dissimilar. With science, if a theory is proved wrong, then people walk away from that theory.

When we discuss proof, we are talking about what is sufficient to convince. Religious and scientific beliefs rely on repetition as the primary means to do that convincing. What is the difference between a belief and a theory? Both are subject to change based on new information. Red flags go up for me when people start talking in terms of certainty. It smacks of theism

That theory was leading people in the wrong direction. How is a religious person ever to know if their theory is leading them in the wrong direction?

It's is our religiously developed values that define what a good direction and a bad direction is. It is our religion that determines what questions we deem most important to ask. The scientific method is just that, a method. The method cannot provide us with a reason to study test and produce records.

'm curious how you separate theism from religion. Are you saying one can be religious without being a theist?

Yes I am. I hope I have successfully shared my perspective.

If I have failed to address a point you brought up please make me aware and I will make effort to do so respectfully.

Thank you.

I don't mean to come across as insulting, just provocative.

If one, like one the other side of this debate does, defines religion as anything done religiously

Then sure, everyone has something or many things they do religiously, and in that sense, okay they're religious.

I argue that someone who is atheist ought to subscribe to a definition of religion that is also atheistic. Strangely most atheists prefer the definition of religion rife with theological connotations.

I think atheists should engage in religious debate with influential theism promoting individuals but cannot do so in as meaningful of a way without first coming to terms on what "practicing religion" means. I think us atheists ought to stop denying that we practice religion. We are subject to the same sort of folly that anyone else is including theists. We may misplace trust as well.

But that is not the definition of religion that an atheist is going by when they claim to not be religious.

Agreed. Shouldn't atheists favor an atheistic definition of religion?

Now, I don't know the percentage of people who claim to be atheist, but are really just agnostic

As if people cannot be both

but that lack of understanding in whatever percent in no way negates the first paragraph's misrepresentation of both what religion is, and their lack of understanding the inter-workings of other people's minds.

nonsense alert

I think the idea of a god is silly.

Then theists won't take you seriously in discussions...which is fine if you don't aim to be influential

But I don't presume to know what other people are thinking.

my you do seem offended!!

I'm open to only what science says as far as life and death. I don't believe religions, prophets, or magic, I think those things are superstition, nothing more, like breaking a mirror or a black cat.

And theists, (much like you) are open to only the authorities they deem worthy.

Being opposed to superstition I get and support. What I try to do is find what is honorable from various traditions (I don't absolutely exclude any) and honor it/them. It is also important for me to be critical of aspects of traditions that stand out to me as objectionable.

As far as morals, I prescribe to philosophy, not any religious text.

So if you understood religion the same way I do. Philosophical considerations including texts (valued by you) would strongly influence your morals.

I think that religious morality is based again, on superstition, and like superstition, some is good

you should replace "religious" in the above snipplet with "theistic" (just my opinion take it easy)

What superstition is good?

, some is bad, and it is rarely based on thought. Philosophy on the other hand is all thought, and unlike religion, philosophy can change its mind based on evidence.

I identify theism as making religion less adaptable.

Now, does that not sound like an atheist?

Sure but not necessarily someone opposed to all forms of theism

Where is the god I worship?

I detect an integral element of theistic worship in the following:

I'm open to only what science says

and your concept of sound science is infallible? You have more in common with "religious" people than you think - methinks

What "answers" am I appealing to a higher power for?

If you believe that two heads are better than one then you have access to a "higher power" that has nothing to do with theism.

Yet, according to the author of the first paragraph, I'm a liar or don't understand religion.

I am convinced it is the latter

the author of that quote is them self a bit confused by the entire thing.

not as confused as y....LOL

Maybe they are still struggling with some indoctrination

who isn't?

maybe they're one of those undercover theists trying to "just get atheists to ask the question."

could you please explain that?

Whatever the the situation, it is clear they have spent little time considering the concept that other people do not necessarily think of things in the same light as they do.

As evidenced by the first sentence after the debate hook line "I am atheist and find that I differ with most other atheists on this subject"

I find the assumption that I, an atheist, have not already asked these questions thoroughly of myself before deciding on my own personal philosophy, a bit insulting.

Is your personal philosophy decided? Have you made up your mind like worshipers do or are you open to change your mind based on evidence?

Boo hoo. I am just having fun contrasting my opinion with yours. don't take it too personal. I was trying to be provocative enough for a thoughtful response. I think I got it. If you felt insulted you could always try to insult me back...lol

Why on earth would one pretend to be an atheist?

I would rather ask who might claim atheism but still be quite theistic without even recognizing it? Most atheists (just my opinion)

This is too fun.

So please, if you become compelled answer plainly. Why do you disagree with the opening statement?

How you interpret the word religion is inexorably tied to theism then? I see.

I think you know (at least I hope you do) that words can come to mean multiple things that are loosely related, or not related at all.

being atheist I obviously prefer definitions of the word that are also atheistic.

... well hopefully you see your error.

I do not see my error. I would like to.. by respectful debate have it (them) clearly exposed. I don't think you have clearly expressed why you disagree.

Whatever is the center of your life is your religion.

being someone opposed to worship, I don't regard anything as being "the center of my life" This does not preclude me however from practicing and reaping the benefits of deep devotion. The efforts that evidence my devotions is how I express religion. though I may not identify wholeheartedly with any particular religious sect I identify with many of them in some ways.

I think atheists (a group I embarrassingly belong to) ought to shut up with the anti-religious rhetoric because it amounts to saying: Our system of belief has lead us to believe that some systems of beliefs are objectionable. Well no shit?

How about a little more devotion to describing why non-theism is a good philosophical base for religious practice?

If Christian, Jewish, Mormon, etc. are classified as religion, then why is agnostic or atheist not a religion? After all it is something that one practices.