Wow. Just wow.

We need to watch what we post…BushCo gets off on torture so we don’t want to give them any additional ideas.

(After posting the above, I am trying to get back into a smiling kind of mood, so, on a side note: Are you a first class snarker? I am looking for YOU! You’re gonna love this! Come join the fun and tell us why YOU are voting Republican.)

I am an atheist. I don not believe there are gods. I don’t believe there are no gods. I admire the wisdom of many philosophies. I have no religion.

[NOTE: For those who don't understand my part in the Bartlebee debate, atheism wasn't the issue to me. It's a subject I can easily discuss in a civil and reasonible manner. It's "safe".

My issue with Bart, which coincidentally happened in a discussion about atheism, was his infuriating habit of presuming what one (I in this case) think and believe; only to follow up with claims of liar, idiot and worse, when one (I in this case.) tell him his presumptions were wrong.]

Fair enough. Isn’t that embrace of the natural order also a belief?

Not unless it leads to a belief in elves, pixies, and harpies. By “embrace of the natural order” I mean the observable, quantifiable, world. Secularism, I guess, comes closest.

hussein toasterhead Says:
ralph the wonder llama Says:

HTH, under your definition, “progressivism” would be a religion, no? As would “conservatism”.

June 12th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
_____

No – these are, at best, amalgams of a variety of political and economic philosophies. Now, many of these philosophies may be shaped by an individual’s religious belief, but that doesn’t make them religious beliefs in and of themselves.

Come on, HTH, that’s a cop-out. Your definition of “religion” was:

an overarching system of belief that colors and contextualizes an individual’s perception of the world and frames their sense of morality and relationship to the world around them.

That describes progressivism or liberalism or conservatism at least as well as it describes Judaims or Christianity. And better than it describes atheism.

You tried to claim that atheism is a religion because it “colors and contextualizes an individual’s perception of the world”. Hence, it’s an individual thing, not a collective one (otherwise you could not include atheism, which is non-collective) yet you say that progressivism is not a religion because it’s too varied in its influences — in other words, because of its collective nature.

This is a contradiction.

Solitary Wiccan practitioners daily perform ritual, yet can hardly be designated as “organized religion”, just as the Catholic church performs ritual yet is organized religion.
Ritual is a part of many religions, even defines many of those religions

It depends how you define ritual. What Western Europeans consider ritual may not be what Mayan shamans consider ritual. Defining religion in terms of ritual is also problematic because it allows people who are just going through the motions to be religious.

My argument is still:
Rejection of the belief of something unprovable is not in of itself a belief or a religion. It is only a rejection of something that cannot be proven.

I understand what you’re trying to say, but I think we’re getting caught up in terminology.

In rejecting something that cannot be proven, you are still exhibiting belief. You are stating a belief in the nonexistence of a metaphysical – a belief that all there is to the universe is what is directly or indirectly observable, and that there is nothing else to it. If you don’t consider that a religion, fine. But it is a belief system.

Kind of like me rejecting what the silly trolls post is not a belief or religion.

June 12th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

True – because what the trolls post can be disproven by emprical evidence. Often overwhelmingly.

June 12th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
_____

No – these are, at best, amalgams of a variety of political and economic philosophies. Now, many of these philosophies may be shaped by an individual’s religious belief, but that doesn’t make them religious beliefs in and of themselves.

Yes, someone might say “I believe in a cap & trade system” or “I have faith in the free market.” But what they’re really saying is that their fundamental understanding of the nature of the relationship between humans and each other, humans and their country, countries and other countries, and humanity and the planet so shapes their worldview that it leads them to conclude that climate change should be stopped and that the poor should be provided health care, and that a cap & trade system would best stop climate change or that the free market would best provide health care to the poor.

False premise.
Example:
Solitary Wiccan practitioners daily perform ritual, yet can hardly be designated as “organized religion”, just as the Catholic church performs ritual yet is organized religion.
Ritual is a part of many religions, even defines many of those religions

My argument is still:
Rejection of the belief of something unprovable is not in of itself a belief or a religion. It is only a rejection of something that cannot be proven.

Kind of like me rejecting what the silly trolls post is not a belief or religion.

What ritual do you propose I perform that would designate my non belief in a diety as a “belief” or a “religion”?

June 12th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
______

This is a good point, thoough I’d counter that these rituals are more a product of culture than religion. Catholic rituals and traditions in Rome are not necessarily the same as rituals practiced in Miami or Kenya or among indigenous tribes in Chile.

Ritual is, perhaps, what delineates “religion” from “organized religion.” Atheism, then, would simply be a “disorganized religion.”

But atheism itself, as a concept, is not a religion. A broad statement that it is, in my opinion, is mistaken.

I would be tempted to include ritual in my definition of religion, since every religion I can think of, from Catholicism to being a Red Sox fan (or Yankees, Cubs, Dodgers, Celtics, Lakers, whatever), has its own rituals intended to support one’s devotion. By that measure, which I think is a reasonable one, atheism — the belief that there is no god — is not a religion.

As always, a refreshing debate.
**hat tip**

I am off to see if the FSM will make a surprise visit to the holy Olive Garden =)

June 12th, 2008 at 12:37 pm

RAmen!

I think I’m going to have some rocks for lunch, since I already proved that they’re salad.

Then the discussion will never make sense.
Reasonable and religion are two concepts that rarely match =)

June 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
______

Ok, fair enough. I’m defining it – and this is a really quick stab at a definition – as an overarching system of belief that colors and contextualizes an individual’s perception of the world and frames their sense of morality and relationship to the world around them.

Now in your example, your belief of having been born in New Jersey would not constitute a religion. It does not necessarily frame your entire worldview, unless you’re a Devils fan.

However, for many indigenous tribes around the world, the place of their birth has far more significance. A fundamental tenet of their religion is a spiritual connection with the land of their birth and their ancestors. Without this land, they have lost their culture, identity, and religion. So your example is not necessarily trivial.

Pass the pesto! ;o)

MMmmmmm pasta.
Thanks Annie,greatidea.
I “believe” I shall have lunch today at the Olive Garden.

The “proof” may be a pasta stain, if I forget the napkin =)