The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Every religion needs:

1) A deity to worship and follow.
2) A book associated with the deity to tell them what to do.
3) A hierarchy of people to interact with and reinforce their beliefs.
4) Some trinkets for further reinforcement.

I don't see any reason why any atheist would be considered religious. However, not every atheist is a freethinker, and that is more important, because I don't think that just "atheist" says too much about me. Still, it is an important step towards free thinking. I would focus on that more than declaring some atheists to be religious (quite ridiculous).

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H Einstein was an atheist ? Are you sure ?

I'm afraid I have not had the pleasure of discussing his beliefs with him. His beliefs do not constitute an argument for or against religion. As far as it goes, and this is expressed in that little snippet I posted, he appeared to be a Deist. Which has in american history been tantamount to atheism in the minds of many believers. Hence, I would wager, why he said "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." From the viewpoint of modern fluffy liberal Unitarian style religion, one could consider him religious, I suppose. From the viewpoint of Pat Robertson fundamentalist evangelic type religion, he might as well have been purely atheistic.

But even if he was a true believer like the excellent scientist Francis Collins, to point it out is not an argument for the existence of God.

Personally, I'm becoming more of an ignostic. The term God itself is ill defined and incoherent. Saying I believe or don't believe in God is like saying I believe or don't believe in Flurb.

Originally Posted by SigTerm Type-A. An atheist who doesn't concentrate on "not believing in a god" too much. Type-B. An atheist who jumps at any opportunity to tell people that "there is no god", asserts that he(she?) is an atheist frequently, is a member of some kind of atheistic club (social network group, or whatever), have some kind of well-known figure(Dawkins?) whose opinion he(she?) shares and probably secretly believe that being an atheist somehow makes him better. Type-A cannot be called religious, but to an observer Type-B is indistinguishable from average religious fanatic, plus there are emerging elements similar to organized religion. If you don't want other people to think that atheism is religion, IMO, you should get rid of all the Type-Bs.

Nice. You feel that any atheist who dares to communicate what he/she feels should be punished by being "gotten rid of."

Now let me break this stereotype down:

Type-B. An atheist who jumps at any opportunity to tell people that "there is no god", asserts that he(she?) is an atheist frequently,

I'm not going to claim that people who fit this description don't exist, but I can tell you that I don't personally know of any. And I do follow the discussions.

have some kind of well-known figure(Dawkins?) whose opinion he(she?) shares

If these people would agree with Dawkins no matter what, or would find his conclusions more important than his reasoning, then you might have a point. But that's not usually the case.

and probably secretly believe that being an atheist somehow makes him better.

No atheist believes that being an atheist makes you better. Some, however, will argue that being better (at reasoning) made them atheists.

I'm a phil-latelist - I love not arriving on time.

Originally Posted by dugan Nice. You feel that any atheist who dares to communicate what he/she feels should be punished by being "gotten rid of."

That's a strawman, and you should re-read the post.

If you don't want other people to think that atheism is religion,

Originally Posted by dugan Now let me break this stereotype down:

I'd advise to look at any random internet discussion.

Originally Posted by dugan No atheist believes that being an atheist makes you better.

This is most likely not true, I wouldn't say something like that if I were you, since it is impossible to support such statement (existence of 1 person is enough to make it false).

Originally Posted by SigTerm It looks like stamp collection example isn't suitable for the discussion (frankly, looks like a strawman to me...).

Hey, I didn't make the analogy, I just picked it apart. I'd be interested to see why you think it's a straw man, though.

Originally Posted by SigTerm Regarding real-world people. There are two possible scenarios: Type-A. An atheist who doesn't concentrate on "not believing in a god" too much. Type-B. An atheist who jumps at any opportunity to tell people that "there is no god", asserts that he(she?) is an atheist frequently, is a member of some kind of atheistic club (social network group, or whatever), have some kind of well-known figure(Dawkins?) whose opinion he(she?) shares and probably secretly believe that being an atheist somehow makes him better. Type-A cannot be called religious, but to an observer Type-B is indistinguishable from average religious fanatic, plus there are emerging elements similar to organized religion. If you don't want other people to think that atheism is religion, IMO, you should get rid of all the Type-Bs.

By this logic, there are people who believe in Christ that don't go around concentrating on it too much, but they're not Christians, they're Type-A Christians and cannot be considered religious. But since by definition Christianity is a religion, and by definition having a belief in Christ makes one a Christian, the argument is completely false.

Honestly, your argument fails because you're getting your basic definitions wrong. You keep trying to paint atheism as a religion, but by definition, it is not. And religions are not defined by how ardent their followers are, they're defined by the nature of their beliefs. In other words, it's what you believe, not how strongly you believe, that matters.

Originally Posted by SigTerm It looks like stamp collection example isn't suitable for the discussion (frankly, looks like a strawman to me...). Regarding real-world people. There are two possible scenarios: Type-A. An atheist who doesn't concentrate on "not believing in a god" too much. Type-B. An atheist who jumps at any opportunity to tell people that "there is no god", asserts that he(she?) is an atheist frequently, is a member of some kind of atheistic club (social network group, or whatever), have some kind of well-known figure(Dawkins?) whose opinion he(she?) shares and probably secretly believe that being an atheist somehow makes him better. Type-A cannot be called religious, but to an observer Type-B is indistinguishable from average religious fanatic, plus there are emerging elements similar to organized religion. If you don't want other people to think that atheism is religion, IMO, you should get rid of all the Type-Bs. Also, it looks like the thread is going in the wrong direction. My original point was that atheism and religion are not mutually exclusive, so whether atheism is religion or not is completely irrelevant.

Unfortunately, atheists have very little political power. If folks who strongly value the separation of church and state, who value science and reason, who oppose teaching unscientific ideas like Intelligent Design in schools, who want to fight against the discrimination of nontheists and secularists, are to have an impact, they must organize and they must speak out. When all the religious folks stop proselytizing and injecting their faith into the public sphere, and when belief without evidence, ie faith, is no longer considered a virtue, then I personally will gladly stop talking about religion and God and my lack of belief therein.

Originally Posted by SigTerm I'd advise to look at any random internet discussion.

You mean Internet discussions where are atheists invited to participate and expected to share their viewpoints?

Originally Posted by SL00b I'd be interested to see why you think it's a straw man, though.

Because it is based on assumption that atheism is an absence of any kind of religious belief, and is made up solely to support such idea.

Originally Posted by SL00b By this logic, there are people who believe in Christ that don't go around concentrating on it too much, but they're not Christians,

By this logic, a person who claims to be a christian, but doesn't go to church, doesn't pray, doesn't wear a cross, and doesn't live in accordance with christian rules, is not religious, but simply claims to be religious.

Originally Posted by SL00b Honestly, your argument fails because you're getting your basic definitions wrong. You keep trying to paint atheism as a religion, but by definition, it is not.

Incorrect. Atheism and religion are not mutually exclusive, since there are atheistic religions.
Atheism is an opposite of theism. Since not all religions are theistic, then atheism is not the opposite of all religions. It is unknown whether atheism is a religion or not. There are better terms for "opposite of religion" - antireligion or irreligion, but not atheism.

"Your religion is none of my business"---my most common reply when someone comes to the door promoting their particular faith.

First, if there is a God who created and sustains everything, how significant would that be?
Second, if God judges every soul once, for eternity, how significant would that be?
Third, if a person believes these two laws, how could that person not be obliged to tell as many people as they could?

Primarily Christian, as described before. I associate especially with Pentecostals (surprised?). If I would migrate, it would be to the Soul-Baptist churches.

As far as I'm concerned, these people couldn't really give s about my soul, it is just about how much converts we can get vs the others,

No doubt religious folks are often preoccupied with numbers, especially leaders. There are also folks (the proportion of which I have no idea), who know the significance of a soul lost for eternity, and who also want to see you in "heaven."

Originally Posted by bluegospel First, if there is a God who created and sustains everything, how significant would that be? Second, if God judges every soul once, for eternity, how significant would that be? Third, if a person believes these two laws, how could that person not be obliged to tell as many people as they could?

Fine let them tell as many people as they want BUT not when it is early in the morning and they come knocking at your door. And I have noticed that it is a protestant based sect anyways that do this. You don't see Orthodox Christians do this, nor Catholics and that even gives me a somewhat favorable view towards Catholics, and that says a LOT considering that I was born into Christian Orthodoxy and the bitter history between the two.

I have stated before in this very thread my mistrust for western Christians generally speaking (that also does include Catholics), since I have pretty much drawn the line there, because if and when I should ever to re-affirm my faith I will always make sure that I make that distinction that I clearly align myself with the Orthodox Church, and quite frankly the whole message to me has become more and more distorted even after the further split (Protestantism and onwards), and sorry quite frankly the evangelicals are one of the worst IMO, and really they are the cause for my dim views of Christianity, because of their incessant badgering.

Originally Posted by bluegospel No doubt religious folks are often preoccupied with numbers, especially leaders.

Because it is not really about 'saving other people', it is purely about who has the biggest congregation and in turn get more money. You can see this in Latin America and the now contest between the Catholics vs the Protestants (Baptist sect.) vying for more 'souls to save.'

Originally Posted by bluegospel There are also folks (the proportion of which I have no idea), who know the significance of a soul lost for eternity, and who also want to see you in "heaven."

Sure only if you believe what and how THEY believe, other wise no. I get this also mostly from the Baptists and Evangelicals.

Originally Posted by bluegospel and who also want to see you in "heaven."

...and if people don't want to get into "heaven"?

Originally Posted by SigTerm ...and if people don't want to get into "heaven"?

Not a good answer, because their efforts will only increase thus also subjecting you to further annoyance.