What is Christian?

[3278]

3 doesn't apply at all. Atheism is inherently not applicable to spiritualism. Madeline Murray O'Hare isn't spiritual, and she certainly isn't "atheism."

As I pointed out to Marius, 3 doesn't apply to all Christians, either. There are many subsects, all of which acknowledge different persons as their "spiritual leader".

No, there aren't. All Christians hold "a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of" Jesus Christ, by definition. Therefore, Christianity is religious under definition 3.

Atheism is inherently applicable to spiritualism, albeint in a negative fashion. Madeline Murray O'Hare is an example of a "spiritual leader" within atheism, just like the Pope is an example of a spiritual leader within Christianity.

In a negative fashion. :

No. It's a lack of belief in a thing, not an active belief in the absence of a thing. It doesn't suggest beliefs, values or practices, except to suggest a lack of reason for beliefs, values, or practices predicated on theism.

Oh, atheism-- at least as practiced by some people-- definitely suggests certain practices and beliefs. For example, remember that flap last year about the "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?

"...except to suggest a lack of reason for beliefs, values, or practices predicated on theism."

Now, you're going to try and argue that this doesn't apply to all atheists. So what? It doesn't apply to all religious people, either.

I don't think there's any reason to believe that "suggests beliefs, values, or practices" has anything to do with this whatsoever. That's a notion you introduced here that has nothing to do with the issue.

All Christians don't have to agree on a thing to make their beliefs religious in nature.

What makes their beliefs religious in nature is the "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe." That's the thing they agree on, among several other characteristically Christian religious beliefs, none of which are shared by atheism.

No. An atheist is one who believes there is no higher power. It's not a religious belief, but rather the absence of one.

A negative interger is still an interger.

That's great. Religious beliefs are not integers.

[3278]

Absolutely. I was speaking from a purely logical perspective, and not a real-world one. It is certainly true that the high incidence of numinous phenomena worldwide does require some degree of explanation or justification before one could even logically embrace atheism.

I take it that your views are somewhat atheistic, although I'm not entirely sure on the extent of them. What then is your take on numinous experience?

Uh...bullshit? I mean, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.

edit: Oh, the extent of my atheism: It's full. I'm an all-out realist-pragmatist who doesn't believe in any numinous experiences at all, a soft atheist at the "hard" end of "soft." I acknowledge that it's possible some spiritual beliefs are true, but am skeptical without objective proof.

[Marius]

Easily done. Simply check, by visual and tactile inspection, the trunk of every car in the world.

No Cain, I'm afraid you've gone retarded. You've again failed to account for the fact that these aliens are not only invisible, but too small to be detected by touch.

Then by that definition, all Christianity is not a religion-- certain people do follow Christ's teachings as a moral code, but reject any of the spiritual elements.

First of all, I don't believe that's true - it sounds to me like you're trying to redefine 'Christianity' now. And secondly, even if you did, the fact that they still "follow Christ's teachings as a moral code" clearly constitutes a religion.

Atheism, as a category, makes a theist dictum-- namely, that there is no supreme being. Again, a negative interger is still an interger; a statement that dictates that there is no god is still a theist dictum.

No. First of all, there's no such thing as an "interger." Second, atheism does not posit some kind of anti-diety. It is a null, not a negative integer. Atheism isn't making a theist dictum any more than my french horn, locked in its case in my living room, is making music.

You just said that some athiests "make a religion out of atheism". Said people form organizations to spread their word, and act in very similar ways to religious organizations. Therefore, definition 4 applies.

Some people make hats out of newspaper. But a hat is defined as a covering for the head, and a newspaper is defined as, "a publication, usually issued daily or weekly, containing current news, editorials, feature articles, and usually advertising." Saying simply "newspapers are hats" is muddled nonsense. So is saying "atheism is a relgion."

Wrong. In Newdow's case, he argued for an exception based on religious grounds-- namely, that saying "Under God" impinged on his (and his daughter's) religious freedom. . . .

Newdow's testamony makes frequent references to the Establishment clause and the First Amendment; his main argument was made on religious grounds.

In any case, whether atheism is a religion or not, the teaching of religions to children is going to be a question of religious freedom. What Newdow thinks or does isn't going to change the argument anyway. Anyway, if you're really attached to the idea, I've already given you Michael Newdow's religious atheism as a freebee. There's absolutely no point in bringing his court briefs into it. He doesn't get to redefine 'atheism' or 'religion' any more than you do.

[3278]

I'm also aware that it's impossible to design an experiment that will me to prove there are no sentient extraterrestrials in the trunk of a particular car, the location of which (and the existence of it, really) is totally unknown to me.

Easily done. Simply check, by visual and tactile inspection, the trunk of every car in the world.

Invisible, ephemeral alien. See, it's impossible to test for the same reason you say God is unable to be tested: an inability to define exactly what said alien is supposed to be.

Then by that definition, all Christianity is not a religion-- certain people do follow Christ's teachings as a moral code, but reject any of the spiritual elements.

Those people are certainly arguably not religious, and aren't Christians. There are also certain atheists that have some spiritual beliefs; this doesn't make atheism religious, any more than certain secular Christian moralists make Christianity not a religion.

What's more, he flat-out admits that his atheistic views constitute a "religious belief system".

That doesn't make him correct.

[Crazy Elf]

I'm an all-out realist-pragmatist who doesn't believe in any numinous experiences at all...

So what is your take on the large numbers of people who claim to experience them? That each and every one who claims such a thing is delusional?

[3278]

For various reasons, yes. I mean, it's not as if they're all hallucinating, but that there's a logical, non-mystical explanation for what they claim to have experienced.

[Cain]

"...except to suggest a lack of reason for beliefs, values, or practices predicated on theism."

Newdow's argument wasn't predicated on a "lack of reason". He offered a direct value judgement based on his religious beliefs. Clearly, atheism is suggesting a set of values, based on the nonexistance of a deity.

That's great. Religious beliefs are not integers.

Quit being pedantic. A negative view on a tpoic is still a view on a topic. A negative religious view is still a religious view.

Those people are certainly arguably not religious, and aren't Christians. There are also certain atheists that have some spiritual beliefs; this doesn't make atheism religious, any more than certain secular Christian moralists make Christianity not a religion.

If they choose to call themselves Christian, I certainly don't have the authority to challenge them, and you don't either. At any event, in both cases we show that the lines are blurred, and that both doctrines can and do make certain spiritual suggestions.

For various reasons, yes. I mean, it's not as if they're all hallucinating, but that there's a logical, non-mystical explanation for what they claim to have experienced.

I seem to recall reading something in a journal not that long ago, suggesting that the ability to experience numinous sensations is linked to a specific gene, which I believe has been identified. I'd have to do some research on in, though-- the details are escaping me right at the moment.

You've again failed to account for the fact that these aliens are not only invisible, but too small to be detected by touch.

No, what you've done is change the argument after the fact. Which, granted, many religions do-- but that doesn't change the fact that they made an objectively testable statement. Juist because they, like you, backpedal once they've been found out, doesn't mean their initial statement isn't objective.

First of all, I don't believe that's true - it sounds to me like you're trying to redefine 'Christianity' now. And secondly, even if you did, the fact that they still "follow Christ's teachings as a moral code" clearly constitutes a religion.

First of all, there are various "secular humanist" orginazations who do indeed use Christ's teachings as a moral code, but reject Christ's status as the son of god. Some of them classify themselves as Christian, others do not. We could go around and around on rather or not they should do so; but the fact is, that is how they choose to identify themselves.

Second, you're making it sound like anyone who follows a given moral code is therefore religious. By that standard, all lawyers and policemen are religious, since they actively follow a moral code as established by our government. So, since they "follow Benjamin Franklin's teachings as a moral code", that, by your argument, constitutes a religion.

Second, atheism does not posit some kind of anti-diety. It is a null, not a negative integer. Atheism isn't making a theist dictum any more than my french horn, locked in its case in my living room, is making music.

It doesn't have to "posit an anti-deity". All it has to do is discuss the nature of a creator, which it does-- it says that, by nature, one does not exist. A true null would not even consider the question in any fashion.

In any case, whether atheism is a religion or not, the teaching of religions to children is going to be a question of religious freedom.

That's just it, though. The Pledge of Allegiance, under current rulings, doesn't constitute the "teaching of religion". At any event, the teaching of atheism to children would also fall under the heading of "a question of religious freedom", wouldn't you agree?

[Cain]

For various reasons, yes. I mean, it's not as if they're all hallucinating, but that there's a logical, non-mystical explanation for what they claim to have experienced.

Sorry, my last post got eaten. I remember reading something on how a geneticist found the "God Gene", which was linked to people's ability to experience spirituality. I found a link to the story here.
Might make for some interesting reading. If nothing else, 32, it might be the logical explaination you're looking for.

[Crazy Elf]

For various reasons, yes. I mean, it's not as if they're all hallucinating, but that there's a logical, non-mystical explanation for what they claim to have experienced.

Okay then, but without a solid logical reason, non-mystical explaination, aren't you taking it on faith that there will be one?

[Marius]

No, what you've done is change the argument after the fact. Which, granted, many religions do-- but that doesn't change the fact that they made an objectively testable statement.

Sorry, you're entirely missing the point. It was hit straight on when 32 wrote, "See, it's impossible to test for the same reason you say God is unable to be tested: an inability to define exactly what said alien is supposed to be." It's the reason I wrote "sentient extraterrestrial" in my objection, and not "turtle."

And if you think this is something that religions do, well then I'll thank you for conceding. My original statement, after all, was that if atheism is a religion it is precisely as much as a belief that sentient extraterrestrials are not playing in your trunk - a belief not objectively testable because of our inability to define how such aliens would or would not be detectable.

First of all, there are various "secular humanist" orginazations who do indeed use Christ's teachings as a moral code, but reject Christ's status as the son of god. Some of them classify themselves as Christian, others do not. We could go around and around on rather or not they should do so; but the fact is, that is how they choose to identify themselves.

Sure, absolutely fine with me. I'd love some examples of these secular humanist organizations, but that curiosity is totally unrelated to the discussion.

Second, you're making it sound like anyone who follows a given moral code is therefore religious. By that standard, all lawyers and policemen are religious, since they actively follow a moral code as established by our government. So, since they "follow Benjamin Franklin's teachings as a moral code", that, by your argument, constitutes a religion.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. I thought I'd set my expectations low for you, yet I'm simply appalled at the extent to which you've overread that statement and added nonsense competely of your own invention.

I was, in fact, making an obvious and unambiguous reference to dictionary definition number three, which states that a religion is "A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader." Jesus Christ is indisputably "a spiritual leader." People who follow Christ's teachings, but reject supernatural elements, are clearly still practicing religion.

And before you go claiming that the Church of the Enlightened Spare Tire of Michael Newdow's First Contact thusly makes atheism a religion allow me to stress yet again that atheism is not anything more than a disbelief in god or gods. The religious pretensions of some atheists are not atheism.

It doesn't have to "posit an anti-deity". All it has to do is discuss the nature of a creator, which it does-- it says that, by nature, one does not exist. A true null would not even consider the question in any fashion.

A true atheist's belief, once he has dispensed with the initial determination of the facts of the world - an exercise that fails to distinguish God from Santa Claus - does not even consider the question in any fashion, to any greater degree of religiosity than it considers the question of the existence of dragons, monsters under the bed of the Prime Minister of Japan, and aliens in the trunk of Cain's car.

Don't be stupid about this. The answer to a question which is religious (adjective) in nature does not constitute a religion (noun).

At any event, the teaching of atheism to children would also fall under the heading of "a question of religious freedom", wouldn't you agree?

It certainly would. Likewise, killing all of the children would fall under a heading of "a question of vital freedom," but one cannot thusly conclude that death is life.

[Cain]

And if you think this is something that religions do, well then I'll thank you for conceding. My original statement, after all, was that if atheism is a religion it is precisely as much as a belief that sentient extraterrestrials are not playing in your trunk - a belief not objectively testable because of our inability to define how such aliens would or would not be detectable.

Actually, that's what I said in the first place. Namely, that while religions might make statements that are objectively testable, the [non]existance of a supreme being is not one of them. But it's good of you to finally concede to me.

I was, in fact, making an obvious and unambiguous reference to dictionary definition number three, which states that a religion is "A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader."

Like Madeline Murray O'Hare? Or any of the other atheist leaders out there?

A true atheist's belief, once he has dispensed with the initial determination of the facts of the world - an exercise that fails to distinguish God from Santa Claus - does not even consider the question in any fashion....

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Why on earth do you get to decide who is a true atheist and who isn't? That's like certain denominations deciding what is and isn't Christianity. In short, what you're describing is exactly what we'd expect to see in a religion.

Do you see what you're doing? You're offering a set of beliefs and practices that decide who is a true atheist and who isn't. You are personally fulfilling definition 3.

If atheism weren't a religion, there wouldn't be such a strict definition of who's a more devout athiest, would there?

At any event, the teaching of atheism to children would also fall under the heading of "a question of religious freedom", wouldn't you agree?

It certainly would.

Good. Now, ignoring your straw man for a moment, it stands to reason that teaching anything about a supreme being, either positive or negative, is a religious view. The only nonreligious view possible is to not address the question at all, something most public schools try to do. This is quite different than actively teaching "There is no God"; which you are trying to pass off as a null view.

[Marius]

Like Madeline Murray O'Hare? Or any of the other atheist leaders out there?

Sure, something like that. The set of beliefs and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader is a religion. Atheism is not a set of beliefs and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Athiests may follow teachings of a spiritual leader, and thus practice religion. The spiritual leaders they follow may be athiests, and may even include atheism in their teachings, creating an atheistic religion. That doesn't make 'atheism' a religion.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Why on earth do you get to decide who is a true atheist and who isn't? That's like certain denominations deciding what is and isn't Christianity. In short, what you're describing is exactly what we'd expect to see in a religion.

Do you see what you're doing? You're offering a set of beliefs and practices that decide who is a true atheist and who isn't. You are personally fulfilling definition 3.

If atheism weren't a religion, there wouldn't be such a strict definition of who's a more devout athiest, would there?

Sorry for the confusion, then. You used the phrase "a true null," and because atheism is exactly a statement of nullity, I responded with talk about "a true atheist" when perhaps it would have been better to talk of a 'simple' or an 'essential' atheist. Please don't let it get you off on bizarre ranting tangents where you accuse me of being a spiritual leader and founding a new religion.

Good. Now, ignoring your straw man for a moment, it stands to reason that teaching anything about a supreme being, either positive or negative, is a religious view.

It is a religious view. A religious view is a view of or about a religion or religions. A religion is . . . well, we've got some great dictionary definitions, none of which are "a view of or about a religion or religions." See how there's a difference between adjectives and nouns? That wasn't a straw man there, you know. And it wasn't a puritanical extraterrestrial atheist disguised as a scarecrow. An answer to a religious question is not a religion.

[3278]

"...except to suggest a lack of reason for beliefs, values, or practices predicated on theism."

Newdow's argument wasn't predicated on a "lack of reason". He offered a direct value judgement based on his religious beliefs. Clearly, atheism is suggesting a set of values, based on the nonexistance of a deity.

But the non-existance of a deity is not "based on the teachings of a spiritual leader," so this test still fails under definition 3.

Additionally, he made a value judgement based on his lack of religious beliefs. Clearly, atheism is suggesting, to him, a set of values based on "a lack of reason for beliefs, values, or practices predicated on theism."

That's great. Religious beliefs are not integers.

Quit being pedantic.

It is not pedantery. You have shown no reason there should be a correlation between the properties of integers and the properties of religious beliefs, a correlation which is not axiomatic. If you desire to use this correlation as a logical reason for accepting your comparison, then you must prove the correlation.

A negative view on a tpoic is still a view on a topic. A negative religious view is still a religious view.

The view's being about or in regards to religion does not make the holder of that view religious, nor his beliefs necessarily religious in nature. Unless his view fits the definitions we've already stated, it is not religious, but secular, which is precisely the view held by atheisms: a secular view of religion, which is not a religious belief, despite being a belief about religion.

In other words, "The answer to a question which is religious (adjective) in nature does not constitute a religion (noun)."

I remember reading something on how a geneticist found the "God Gene", which was linked to people's ability to experience spirituality. I found a link to the story here. Might make for some interesting reading. If nothing else, 32, it might be the logical explaination you're looking for.

Well, it would certainly be one of them. There are other theories about a structure in the brain they call the "god antenna," which made quite a stir several years ago. But there are always going to be other sorts of logical explanations for supernatural phenomena, as well. There is no one logical explanation for all mystical or numinous phenomena.

[3278]

For various reasons, yes. I mean, it's not as if they're all hallucinating, but that there's a logical, non-mystical explanation for what they claim to have experienced.

Okay then, but without a solid logical reason, non-mystical explaination, aren't you taking it on faith that there will be one?

Absolutely. Other than phenomena I know for certain - within the bounds of nihilism - to be rationally explicable, I accept without reason - in other words, on faith - that there is a logical explanation. I don't find this logically untenable; I don't know for certain that australians sit in chairs, but I accept it on faith that they do so, because it's most logical. To be intellectually honest, though, I must admit that I have no proof of this, and could very well be wrong. My religious beliefs are similar. Just as I have no proof that there's not some secret new invention for holding up aussie bums, I have no proof that the wine in church isn't really blood.

We all accept most things on faith. That lack is what makes hard atheism logically untenable: it is impossible to prove for certain the absence of God - or of Australian butt-racks - therefore certainty of his nonexistence is impossible.

[AtemHutlrt]

Well, it would certainly be one of them. There are other theories about a structure in the brain they call the "god antenna," which made quite a stir several years ago. But there are always going to be other sorts of logical explanations for supernatural phenomena, as well. There is no one logical explanation for all mystical or numinous phenomena.

...

We all accept most things on faith. That lack is what makes hard atheism logically untenable: it is impossible to prove for certain the absence of God - or of Australian butt-racks - therefore certainty of his nonexistence is impossible.

Two interesting tangents:

1. Some medieval mystics, unaware of cerebrospinal fluid, believed the brain's four "empty" ventricles served as literal conduits for the Word of God, that is, the foundation of all human reality.

2. This is the only result from a Google image search for 'Australian butt rack'.

[Crazy Elf]

Absolutely. Other than phenomena I know for certain - within the bounds of nihilism - to be rationally explicable, I accept without reason - in other words, on faith - that there is a logical explanation. I don't find this logically untenable; I don't know for certain that australians sit in chairs, but I accept it on faith that they do so, because it's most logical.

"Australians probably sit on chairs" is by no means a statement that an be said to be on the same level as, "There's probably no God." No one is saying that they've experienced an Australia without chairs, and a chair is very easy to display when you're in Australia. No such simplicity is involved with your second statement.

Still, I have recieved the answer I was after, and will respect your decision to take it on faith that there is no God. I should hope that a numinous experience would have you test that in the future.

To be intellectually honest, though, I must admit that I have no proof of this, and could very well be wrong. My religious beliefs are similar. Just as I have no proof that there's not some secret new invention for holding up aussie bums, I have no proof that the wine in church isn't really blood.

Again, if you want to pick the silly parts of religion, it's easy to pick apart. Many Christian groups see the blood and body as a purely symbolic gesture rather than a litteral transformation.

[3278]

"Australians probably sit on chairs" is by no means a statement that an be said to be on the same level as, "There's probably no God."

No, definitely not. Obviously, they share certain similarities from a "logical standard of proof" standpoint, but the matter of scope and testability is certainly very different.

No one is saying that they've experienced an Australia without chairs, and a chair is very easy to display when you're in Australia. No such simplicity is involved with your second statement.

No. Another example, though - UFOs, for instance - would more closely resemble that of numinous experiences.

Still, I have recieved the answer I was after, and will respect your decision to take it on faith that there is no God. I should hope that a numinous experience would have you test that in the future.

I do, too! I can think of little more interesting than a good personal mystery. And it is possible that I might have an experience which would change my mind in regards to divinity - that's happened several times in the past; it's not like I was born an atheist, or was a theist only once - or that I might have a numinous experience and develop a logical reason for it...which might itself only be rationalization. In any case, I'm certainly open to new experiences which shed light on the basic order of the universe!

Again, if you want to pick the silly parts of religion, it's easy to pick apart. Many Christian groups see the blood and body as a purely symbolic gesture rather than a litteral transformation.

I meant it only as an example of a religious belief, and not as an example of a ridiculous one. Frankly, in a religion of burning bushes, plagues of locusts, boats full of animals, angels, demons, resurrection and salvation, I find transubstantiation to be positively mundane. A god who can create a universe might hardly have difficulty altering the basic molecular structure of certain elements of it; I don't think it's absurd at all.

[Cain]

Sure, something like that. The set of beliefs and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader is a religion. Atheism is not a set of beliefs and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Athiests may follow teachings of a spiritual leader, and thus practice religion. The spiritual leaders they follow may be athiests, and may even include atheism in their teachings, creating an atheistic religion. That doesn't make 'atheism' a religion.

All right, then, let's reverse the question. Would you say that anyone who believes in a supreme being is practicing religion?

You used the phrase "a true null," and because atheism is exactly a statement of nullity, I responded with talk about "a true atheist" when perhaps it would have been better to talk of a 'simple' or an 'essential' atheist.

You're still defining atheism by the beliefs and practices that are suggested. Namely, that simply lacking belief in a God isn't enough-- one cannot even consider the question, or practice any form of spirituality, in order to be an "essential" atheist.

It is a religious view. A religious view is a view of or about a religion or religions.

No, but specific doctrines and practices can and do constitute religions.

[Marius]

All right, then, let's reverse the question. Would you say that anyone who believes in a supreme being is practicing religion?

Of course. Why would you even ask? It's definition number one of religion: "Belief in a supernatural power as creator or governor of the universe."

You're still defining atheism by the beliefs and practices that are suggested. Namely, that simply lacking belief in a God isn't enough-- one cannot even consider the question, or practice any form of spirituality, in order to be an "essential" atheist.

No, I'm not. If you want to, you go ahead and do that, but I'm not.

[Cain]

But the non-existance of a deity is not "based on the teachings of a spiritual leader," so this test still fails under definition 3.

Really? So, if someone became an atheist after attending a seminar held by one of Madeline Murray's sons, he did not derive his beliefs "based on the teachings of a spiritual leader"?

Additionally, he made a value judgement based on his lack of religious beliefs. Clearly, atheism is suggesting, to him, a set of values based on "a lack of reason for beliefs, values, or practices predicated on theism."

Actually, no. He made his value judgement on the fact that his views were directly contradicted by the two words in the Pledge of Allegiance. It wasn't because he lacked beliefs; it was because he felt his beliefs were challenged. Read the transcript, you'll see for yourself.

It is not pedantery.

Metaphor!=Correlation. You know that. You're focusing on the choice of metaphor to the exclusion of the actual arguement. This debate has been very productive and civil so far, let's try and keep it on topic, ok?

The view's being about or in regards to religion does not make the holder of that view religious, nor his beliefs necessarily religious in nature. Unless his view fits the definitions we've already stated, it is not religious, but secular, which is precisely the view held by atheisms: a secular view of religion, which is not a religious belief, despite being a belief about religion.

No. You're describing the difference between atheism and secular humanism. Someone who holds purely secular views on religion may or may not be an atheist.

Well, it would certainly be one of them. There are other theories about a structure in the brain they call the "god antenna," which made quite a stir several years ago. But there are always going to be other sorts of logical explanations for supernatural phenomena, as well. There is no one logical explanation for all mystical or numinous phenomena.

Purely for my own research, what other factors are you considering? Until recently, I was leaning towards an altered-consciousness theory, brought about by stress or deliberate effort. The genetic predisposition seemed to fill some of the blanks that I hadn't considered.

Then again, I was only focusing on personal transformative experiences. There are several other kinds of mystical experiences for which I know logical explainations. (And a bunch I don't, natch.) For example, I've seen many feats of "supernatural" strength and physical ability replicated by master yogis and martial artists.

I'd be very interested in what else you happen to know on these topics. It's a personal fascination of mine.

[Crazy Elf]

Frankly, in a religion of burning bushes, plagues of locusts, boats full of animals, angels, demons, resurrection and salvation, I find transubstantiation to be positively mundane.

I agree that it's very hard to take the entirety of the Bible completely literally without sacrificing much of your logical functioning. These stories do work as metaphor and parable, but when people start saying that Noah's arc is historical fact, and that man has been inbreeding for thousands of years, we have problems.

In the defence of many of the followers, the number of people who take it completely literally is not so high. A lot of Christians see these as tales that teach lessons, but not necessarily as historical fact.

[3278]

But the non-existance of a deity is not "based on the teachings of a spiritual leader," so this test still fails under definition 3.

Really? So, if someone became an atheist after attending a seminar held by one of Madeline Murray's sons, he did not derive his beliefs "based on the teachings of a spiritual leader"?

Correct, he did not, since Madeline Murray's sons - provided they are teaching atheism - are not "spiritual" leaders.

He made his value judgement on the fact that his views were directly contradicted by the two words in the Pledge of Allegiance. It wasn't because he lacked beliefs; it was because he felt his beliefs were challenged.

Okay. But since those beliefs aren't religious - they're beliefs about the absence of something - this doesn't really make a difference. You're trying to show atheism is a religion because one person tried to challenge the government in regards to his lack of religion - his beliefs - by showing that his beliefs are religious, and thus atheism is. Except that his beliefs aren't religious, so this semi-circular argument simply doesn't matter.

It is not pedantery.

Metaphor!=Correlation. You know that. You're focusing on the choice of metaphor to the exclusion of the actual arguement.

Yes, metaphor does not equal correlation. That's my point. In order to show correlation, you need to do more than provide metaphor. You're focusing on the metaphor without giving an actual argument.

The view's being about or in regards to religion does not make the holder of that view religious, nor his beliefs necessarily religious in nature. Unless his view fits the definitions we've already stated, it is not religious, but secular, which is precisely the view held by atheisms: a secular view of religion, which is not a religious belief, despite being a belief about religion.

No. You're describing the difference between atheism and secular humanism.

No, that's not at all what I'm doing. I'm describing atheism as a belief which treats religion in a secular fashion; I'm not actually talking about secular humanism - or humanism at all - in any way. I'm sorry if my use of the word "secular" was misleading, but I think it's completely clear that humanism isn't mentioned at all, directly or indirectly, in the above paragraph.

Then again, I was only focusing on personal transformative experiences...I'd be very interested in what else you happen to know on these topics. It's a personal fascination of mine.

About personal transformative experiences, I doubt I know any more than you, and likely much less, as those sorts of phenomena are generally easily attributed to stress, coincidence, altered states, consumption of dirt,* mental illness, wishful thinking, and all those other very human characteristics, and lack the sort of objective testability that make such phenomena interesting to me.

*No joke. One of the best theories I've ever heard for certain UFO abduction experiences; consumption of soil laced [natually] with DMT on unwashed farm produce.

[3278]

I agree that it's very hard to take the entirety of the Bible completely literally without sacrificing much of your logical functioning.

Unless you've really sold your soul to your faith, of course. I could buy a lot of the crap in the Bible with the right impulse to rationalization. If someone created the universe, it's not ridiculous to believe him capable of smooshing space enough to fit several million animals into a fairly small boat.

In the defence of many of the followers, the number of people who take it completely literally is not so high.

It's ridiculously low, really. In fact, biblical literalism was surpassingly rare until the 1900s, when a movement went through America spawning it. Various attempts at some kind of literalism had been made in the past, but this was the first time people really believed, on a massive level, that every single word in the Bible was the literal word of God. The idea was considered ridiculous by most Christians, but has slowly seeped into worldwide public Christian views. Mostly, though, it's used as a straw man by people who just want to rip on Christians without bothering to have a rational discourse about faith.

[Cain]

Correct, he did not, since Madeline Murray's sons - provided they are teaching atheism - are not "spiritual" leaders.

Again, they are indeed teaching about spirituality, albeit in a negative fashion. They're actively attempting to convert the masses to their views, and preaching a brand of spirituality based on the nonexistance of the soul. It's exactly the same as if they had gone to see a sermon, and converted to Christianity/Islam/What-have-you.

Okay. But since those beliefs aren't religious - they're beliefs about the absence of something - this doesn't really make a difference.

Except his beliefs *are* religious. He says as much in his testimony, and the Supreme Court justices agree with that position. Newdow's beliefs seem to be not only an "absence of God"-- but an active belief that references to a supreme being is detrimental to his daughter.

Atheism isn't a simple passive "lack of beliefs"-- it's an active refutation of the concept of a deity.

Yes, metaphor does not equal correlation. That's my point. In order to show correlation, you need to do more than provide metaphor.

I don't need to show correlation to make a metaphor. All I need to do is show similarities, which I have done. A metaphor is not a statement of proof; it's an illustration. Besides which, if you really want to get into it, a correlation is only used to show a mathematical relationship between two items, not a comparison between related metaphorical functions.

A negative interger is still an interger. A negative religious view is still a religious view. A negative religion is still a religion. Quit quibbling over the metaphor, ok?

I'm describing atheism as a belief which treats religion in a secular fashion; I'm not actually talking about secular humanism - or humanism at all - in any way.

If atheism merely "treats religion in a secular fashion", that does not prevent atheism from being a religion. It is possible to be both "secular" and "religious"-- see the term "secular clergy" for examples.

About personal transformative experiences, I doubt I know any more than you, and likely much less, as those sorts of phenomena are generally easily attributed to stress, coincidence, altered states, consumption of dirt,* mental illness, wishful thinking, and all those other very human characteristics, and lack the sort of objective testability that make such phenomena interesting to me.

A couple of those examples are easily testable; it's just that the results have been inconsistant. That's why the genetic theory is so fascinating to me-- it indicates that certain people will have a higher preponderance to these experiences. Theroetically, that's why you can expose a human to any of the above, and not get any noticeable results. The next question would be to examine if these results are consistant across individuals-- something I don't recall reading any research on. I was kind-of hoping you might have something on this topic that I haven't seen.

[Marius]

A negative interger is still an interger.

There's still no such thing as an interger.

A negative religion is still a religion.

There's also no such thing as a "negative religion." There are, as we've admitted, atheistic religions. "Negative religions," the way you keep talking about it, would need a definition which read: "Belief in and reverence for, or disbelief in and disdain for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe." They didn't leave that little phrase out by accident, or because they were trying to save space. They left it out because it's not supposed to be there.

No. You're describing the difference between atheism and secular humanism.

I'm describing atheism as a belief which treats religion in a secular fashion; I'm not actually talking about secular humanism - or humanism at all - in any way.

If atheism merely "treats religion in a secular fashion", that does not prevent atheism from being a religion. It is possible to be both "secular" and "religious"-- see the term "secular clergy" for examples.

Sure, it doesn't prevent it from being a religion. But a religion is not simply 'a thing which "treats religion" somehow.'

This little three-post exchange between you and 32 is a beautiful example of you backing away from a clear point, spinning around, and not going anywhere. You're back up at the wall of:

"The view's being about or in regards to religion does not make the holder of that view religious, nor his beliefs necessarily religious in nature. Unless his view fits the definitions we've already stated, it is not religious, but secular, which is precisely the view held by atheisms: a secular view of religion, which is not a religious belief, despite being a belief about religion."

[3278]

Correct, he did not, since Madeline Murray's sons - provided they are teaching atheism - are not "spiritual" leaders.

Again, they are indeed teaching about spirituality, albeit in a negative fashion.

Not in a negative fashion, not as an inverse god: the absence of gods is what they're talking about. That is a priori not religious.

They're actively attempting to convert the masses to their views, and preaching a brand of spirituality based on the nonexistance of the soul.

How is spirituality involved? What is their "brand of spirituality?"

Atheism isn't a simple passive "lack of beliefs"-- it's an active refutation of the concept of a deity.

No, it is not. As a philosophy, as a belief, it is absence - zero - and not "an active refutation." Certainly some atheists do actively refute religion, but that doesn't mean that atheism is an active refutation, any more than the sexual proclivities of certain clergy make Catholicism "a child molesting religion."

Yes, metaphor does not equal correlation. That's my point. In order to show correlation, you need to do more than provide metaphor.

I don't need to show correlation to make a metaphor.

You do, if you want to prove a point with that correlation.

All I need to do is show similarities, which I have done.

You have not. That is precisely what I am requesting.

If you'd like to use the integer/belief metaphor, you need to show why integers are like beliefs in such a way as to prove your point. It is not enough to show that there is something negative which is still a thing; you must show correlation between the two. I could certainly say, "A negative balance isn't a balance, but a deficit, therefore a negative religion isn't a religion," but I would need to show why religions are like balances in this way if I wanted to prove my point. [Of course, since my point is not that atheism is a negative religion - it isn't - I would not use that metaphor.]

Besides which, if you really want to get into it, a correlation is only used to show a mathematical relationship between two items, not a comparison between related metaphorical functions.

Definition 1, on that page: A causal, complementary, parallel, or reciprocal relationship, especially a structural, functional, or qualitative correspondence between two comparable entities.

A negative interger is still an interger. A negative religious view is still a religious view. A negative religion is still a religion.

Atheism is not a negative religion, it is the absence of religion. Not -1, but 0.

If atheism merely "treats religion in a secular fashion", that does not prevent atheism from being a religion.

Correct. That fact alone is not necessarily indicative of atheism not being a religion; however, that fact does contradict your assertion that it is. Other qualities might make it a religion, but this one does not. It is atheism's lack of religion that makes it not a religion, but the fact that it treats religion in a secular fashion.

I was kind-of hoping you might have something on this topic that I haven't seen.

I suspect not. It is not a study I pursue assiduously.

[Cain]

There's also no such thing as a "negative religion." There are, as we've admitted, atheistic religions. "Negative religions," the way you keep talking about it, would need a definition which read: "Belief in and reverence for, or disbelief in and disdain for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

Which happens to preciely meet the actual practices of modern atheism in the USA. What you're saying amounts to: "Christianity isn't a religion, expcet that's how everyone practices it."

This little three-post exchange between you and 32 is a beautiful example of you backing away from a clear point, spinning around, and not going anywhere. You're back up at the wall of:

"The view's being about or in regards to religion does not make the holder of that view religious, nor his beliefs necessarily religious in nature. Unless his view fits the definitions we've already stated, it is not religious, but secular, which is precisely the view held by atheisms: a secular view of religion, which is not a religious belief, despite being a belief about religion."

First of all, a belief about religions is, by definition, religious in nature. Second, since you seem to believe that all theist doctrines are also religions, then all anti-theist doctrines are as well.

What you're doing is the standard knee-jerk response of most athiests, who hate to be compared to the religions they actively oppose. It is an emotional reaction, not one of definition or actual practice.

[Cain]

Not in a negative fashion, not as an inverse god: the absence of gods is what they're talking about. That is a priori not religious.

Again: a belief about religions is, by definition, a religious belief. There's no two ways about it-- it is, as you put it, axiomatic.

How is spirituality involved? What is their "brand of spirituality?"

Actively preaching that all other spiritual practices are self-delusionary, for one. Not only is this integral to atheist literature, it's common to most religious doctrines as well.

It doesn't matter if all other spiritual practices are bogus because there is no spirit, or because Goulessarian tells you that they're bogus. They are exactly the same kind of doctrine and practice.

Definition 1, on that page: A causal, complementary, parallel, or reciprocal relationship, especially a structural, functional, or qualitative correspondence between two comparable entities.

Note the emphasis. Do you think a metaphor always has to be directly comparable? Just because the Mona Lisa's smile is a metaphor for the complexity of human emotion, does not mean there is a 1:1 correlation between the two.

Illustration!=Comparison. You should know that.

Atheism is not a negative religion, it is the absence of religion. Not -1, but 0.

Wrong. The null category would be no mention or consideration of the topic at all. For example, most public schools do not mention the question of deity in any fashion. They treat the matter as a null, a zero.

When you compare these two approaches (and note-- these two things *are* comparable, not merely an illustration), you see that atheism is an active preaching of a certain viewpoint. A null view would preach nothing at all, and not even consider the topic. That's why teaching atheism in schools is considered equal to teaching any other specific religious viewpoint-- because it *is* a religious viewpoint.

If you don't want to take my word on it, then consider this: the Supreme Court justices are a hell of a lot smarter than the two of us, and are much better-versed in the miniscule differences between "null view" and "negative view". They consider atheism to be a religion; and their views are pretty much the final authority in our country. Since their job includes considering the fine details of religions on the state, I submit that citing their view is a legitimate: "Appeal to authority" argument.

Correct. That fact alone is not necessarily indicative of atheism not being a religion; however, that fact does contradict your assertion that it is. Other qualities might make it a religion, but this one does not. It is atheism's lack of religion that makes it not a religion, but the fact that it treats religion in a secular fashion.

Again, incorrect. You can have a "secular religion"; for example, secular clergy are quite commonplace. Remember definition 2 of religion? "The life or condition of a person in a religious order." A clergyman, by definition, is a member of a religious order.

So, atheism can still have clergy, even if it treats religion in a secular fashion. Which does not prove that atheism is a religion-- but it does prove that your standard fails to exclude it from being so.

I suspect not. It is not a study I pursue assiduously.

Pity, I think it's a fascinating topic. It's certainly one I think wouldmake for an interesting discussion.

[Marius]

There's also no such thing as a "negative religion." There are, as we've admitted, atheistic religions. "Negative religions," the way you keep talking about it, would need a definition which read: "Belief in and reverence for, or disbelief in and disdain for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

Which happens to preciely meet the actual practices of modern atheism in the USA.

Except that, there, is not a definition of religion. That's some nonsense I typed out to illustrate what isn't so.

What you're saying amounts to: "Christianity isn't a religion, expcet that's how everyone practices it."

No, it really doesn't. How you could possibly read any of my statements to mean that defies comprehension.

First of all, a belief about religions is, by definition, religious in nature.

English, motherfucker! Do you speak it? Adjectives and nouns, dude.

Second, since you seem to believe that all theist doctrines are also religions, then all anti-theist doctrines are as well.

No, they are not, and dude, even for you that's a whopper of a non sequitur.

It couldn't possibly be any clearer. Theist doctrines are religions because a religion is explicitly defined as a belief in a supernatural power (definition 1), and theist doctrines are (by definition) doctrines of belief in a supernatural power.

Atheism is (by definition) not a belief in a supernatural power.

What you're doing is the standard knee-jerk response of most athiests, who hate to be compared to the religions they actively oppose. It is an emotional reaction, not one of definition or actual practice.

Atheism is (by definition) not a belief in a supernatural power. Thus definition one is out. In the course of this thread you have utterly failed to show that definitions two or three apply to atheism. That definition four is merely a figurative definition is not a matter of dispute.

Now you're just repeating yourself and resorting to a silly attack that my response is merely emotional. You disappoint me.

[Crazy Elf]

Unless you've really sold your soul to your faith, of course. I could buy a lot of the crap in the Bible with the right impulse to rationalization. If someone created the universe, it's not ridiculous to believe him capable of smooshing space enough to fit several million animals into a fairly small boat.

Firefly had a good take on that.

Still, the human race evolving from a long chain of inbreeding doesn't do any favors for my genetic knowledge.

It's ridiculously low, really. In fact, biblical literalism was surpassingly rare until the 1900s, when a movement went through America spawning it. Various attempts at some kind of literalism had been made in the past, but this was the first time people really believed, on a massive level, that every single word in the Bible was the literal word of God. The idea was considered ridiculous by most Christians, but has slowly seeped into worldwide public Christian views. Mostly, though, it's used as a straw man by people who just want to rip on Christians without bothering to have a rational discourse about faith.

It's an easy target, I can't blame them for taking a shot at it when all other discourse is smashed against solid faith.

"So you believe in God?"

"Yeah."

"Ha ha! You believe that we're all made of clay and that you should stone gays!"

"No I don't."

"Then you're a hypocrite."

"Oh here's the problem, you're an idiot."

"Says you, Christian!"

The number of arguments stemming from religion that end that way, or start that way, is boggling.

[Cain]

Except that, there, is not a definition of religion.

Except that it is. Again, it might come about it in an opposite fashion, but there's no denying that it amounts to the same thing.

It couldn't possibly be any clearer. Theist doctrines are religions because a religion is explicitly defined as a belief in a supernatural power (definition 1), and theist doctrines are (by definition) doctrines of belief in a supernatural power.

Atheism is (by definition) not a belief in a supernatural power.

If you want to get technical, a theist doctrine is one that assumes a supreme being, which may or may not be supernatural in origin. Stephen Hawking illustrated that point in A Brief History of Time, when he explained how the role of a creator would be defined by the laws of physics. Further, theist doctrines may not have a "reverence for" a deity, even if one is assumed to exist, thereby exempting them from definition 1.

Atheistic doctrines can assume the existance of nonscientific powers that are responsible for the universe-- for example, parts of etheric theory. Nonscientific is not quite the same as supernatural, but they're quite close. An atheist who believes that aliens gengineered all life on earth would be acknowledging a superior power, nonscientifically-testable; but it would not be supernatural in origin. And, it would have to be taken on faith equally with any other religious belief.

Atheism is (by definition) not a belief in a supernatural power. Thus definition one is out. In the course of this thread you have utterly failed to show that definitions two or three apply to atheism. That definition four is merely a figurative definition is not a matter of dispute.

As I pointed out to 32, you can have "secular clergy"; a clergyman, by definition, is a member of a religious order. Since you can therefore have an athiest who is a member of the clergy, definition 2 can apply. Definition 3 can also apply, because athiest leaders can and do suggest moral codes, beliefs, and practices.

In fact, let's look at what Madelyne Murray had to say to the Supreme Court on the topic:

Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their life-style as follows. An Atheist loves himself and his fellowman instead of a god. An Atheist knows that heaven is something for which we should work now -- here on earth -- for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. An Atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellowman can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment...

That's not a simple statement of non-belief. That's a full-on manifesto; a detailed doctrine of moral behavior. To complete the definition, if you research the history of atheism, you'll see it is filled with notable philosophers and leaders. Thus, it becomes: "A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader."

Atheism is not a simple passive lack of belief, nor are its practices merely the result of the presumed nonexistance of a deity. It's an active belief that following a religious path is self-delusionary and detrimental to humanity as a whole. It includes a detailed moral code, encourages certain practices, and teaches a set of values based on deific theory-- namely, that there is no god.

[Marius]

Except that, there, is not a definition of religion.

Except that it is.

No, it wasn't. See, those extra words I added in the middle of the dictionary definition aren't part of the definition of religion. No matter how much you want them to be, they're not. That's the problem you're having here. Those words aren't there, but you've decided not to argue, "Well, they ought to be. Religion doesn't mean what religion should mean." So you keep trying to shoehorn things into your personal idiom, and it's just not working because it's just not accurate.

If you want to get technical, a theist doctrine is one that assumes a supreme being, which may or may not be supernatural in origin.

How completely and utterly absurd. "Supreme being" is as supernatural as it gets.

Further, theist doctrines may not have a "reverence for" a deity, even if one is assumed to exist, thereby exempting them from definition 1.

Yes, a clever escape based on the use of 'and' rather than 'and usually.' That's perfectly cool with me. I'm not going to have a problem saying that it's not a religion if you believe in God but think he's a dick and don't do anything in particular to make him happy. If that can't be considered a religion then there's no way atheism could be.

Atheistic doctrines can assume the existance of nonscientific powers that are responsible for the universe-- for example, parts of etheric theory. Nonscientific is not quite the same as supernatural, but they're quite close. An atheist who believes that aliens gengineered all life on earth would be acknowledging a superior power, nonscientifically-testable; but it would not be supernatural in origin. And, it would have to be taken on faith equally with any other religious belief.

A "superior power," sure, if you like. Not a supreme being. It's not theistic. Insofar as such beliefs are taken on faith, well, fine and not germane to the topic. Such beliefs may or may not be religious. Of course, not all nonscientific beliefs constitute religions. Such beliefs are also most certainly superfluous to atheism.

I would, incidentally, disagree that such creator-aliens should not be considered 'supernatural.' If it were an important point - which it is not, because it has nothing to do with atheism - I'd argue that the notion of "natural because we can identify all the agents, but indecipherable to us, and beyond our understanding of natural forces," is completely within the conceptual definition of 'supernatural.'

As I pointed out to 32, you can have "secular clergy"; a clergyman, by definition, is a member of a religious order.

You need to learn to read the dictionary more carefully. The "secular clergy" are ordained Catholic priests. They are, by definition, not members of monastic orders, but are sworn Catholics with religious vows of canonical obedience to the bishop. There were also secular clergy in the Church of England. Your talk about atheist secular clergy is simple nonsense, a fictional notion.

Definition 3 can also apply, because athiest leaders can and do suggest moral codes, beliefs, and practices.

The leaders of atheist religions may suggest moral codes, beliefs, and practices. Those things, however are not necessarily a part of atheism. If you want to specify Michael Newdow's Atheism Club is a religion, or Madelyne Murray's Atheism Seminar is a religion you'll probably get a lot less argument. When you say simply 'atheism,' you're quite wrong.

Atheism is not a simple passive lack of belief, nor are its practices merely the result of the presumed nonexistance of a deity. It's an active belief that following a religious path is self-delusionary and detrimental to humanity as a whole. It includes a detailed moral code, encourages certain practices, and teaches a set of values based on deific theory-- namely, that there is no god.

No. Atheism is not all of those things. Try checking a dictionary. Try checking an encyclopedia. The only place that atheism is all of those things is in your imagination, and perhaps the imaginations of people like Murray and Newdow who are specifically trying to make atheistic religions. You want to refer to all that stuff, find a new term. The simple term 'atheism' already has a meaning. Modify it somehow if you want - add a syllable, or a second word, or something descriptive. If you insist on trying to redefine that simple word all by itself, you're just going to continue losing arguments.

[Paul]

[Paul]

[Paul]

[Paul]

[Paul]

I think I'm done channeling Nex for now.

[3278]

Not in a negative fashion, not as an inverse god: the absence of gods is what they're talking about. That is a priori not religious.

Again: a belief about religions is, by definition, a religious belief. There's no two ways about it-- it is, as you put it, axiomatic.

That does not, however, make the belief a religion. It is "about religion," and in that sense can be considered "religious," but it is not "religion," and so is not "religious" in that sense. We can dance with semantics all day, but the simple and axiomatic fact is that atheism does not fit any of the first three definitions for a religion, and meets the fourth only figuratively.

How is spirituality involved? What is their "brand of spirituality?"

Actively preaching that all other spiritual practices are self-delusionary, for one.

That is not "spiritual." They are not "spiritual leaders."

Definition 1, on that page: A causal, complementary, parallel, or reciprocal relationship, especially a structural, functional, or qualitative correspondence between two comparable entities.

Note the emphasis. Do you think a metaphor always has to be directly comparable?

I'm sorry, but this was in reponse to your statement that, "a correlation is only used to show a mathematical relationship between two items, not a comparison between related metaphorical functions." This has nothing to do with the comparability of metaphor, but with the fact that correlation is not strictly a mathematical relationship.

Just because the Mona Lisa's smile is a metaphor for the complexity of human emotion, does not mean there is a 1:1 correlation between the two.

Absolutely. Quite true. However, if you wish to show that something about the Mona Lisa's smile must also be true about human emotion, you must show correlation for that relation. You cannot say, for instance, "The Mona Lisa's smile is brown, therefore human emotion is brown." You would have to show correlation between the smile and the emotion in terms of color. You have not shown correlation between integers and religions in any way.

Illustration!=Comparison. You should know that.

If you intended it as an illustration, that is fine. It does not prove your point, and cannot be held as a point of logic. I understand your metaphor, but believe it cannot be carried through sufficiently to provide proof of similarity on this issue.

Atheism is not a negative religion, it is the absence of religion. Not -1, but 0.

Wrong. The null category would be no mention or consideration of the topic at all.

That is an interesting point of view. We do not share it.

When you compare these two approaches (and note-- these two things *are* comparable, not merely an illustration), you see that atheism is an active preaching of a certain viewpoint.

No, and this is one place you are most certainly incorrect. Atheism is not active in any way. Some atheists may be, but atheism is not.

Your observation that many atheists practice atheism in this way is certainly true, but that doesn't make it a religion. Many Christians constantly practice actions inimical to their faith, but that doesn't make Christianity hypocritical, it makes Christians hypocritical. [Atheism, obviously, doesn't lend itself to hypocriticality, since nothing in the absence of belief gives a moral imperative to challenge or not challenge the faith of others.]

If you don't want to take my word on it, then consider this: the Supreme Court justices are a hell of a lot smarter than the two of us, and are much better-versed in the miniscule differences between "null view" and "negative view". They consider atheism to be a religion; and their views are pretty much the final authority in our country.

1. They are legal experts, and not moral, religious, or semantics experts any more than we are. Your appeal to authority might provide a simple way out, but it is certainly possible to produce authoritative figures on either side of the issue, many of whom will be more authoritative on religion than the Supreme Court. So I don't place much stock in authority in this case.

2. Where, exactly, did they say, "Atheism is a religion?"

Again, incorrect. You can have a "secular religion"; for example, secular clergy are quite commonplace.

I direct your attention to Marius' response on this issue.

Remember definition 2 of religion? "The life or condition of a person in a religious order." A clergyman, by definition, is a member of a religious order.

Actually, I think you may be running afoul of some confusing terminology. Secular clergy are not a-religious clergymen, they're members of the clergy who are not bound by a monastic order. Don't be misled by the use of the word secular - although it is one of the definitions of the word - into believing they're secular in the sense that they're not religious.

So, atheism can still have clergy, even if it treats religion in a secular fashion.

Quite definitely not. Your illustration is flawed by a misunderstanding of "secular clergy," and thus your conclusion is similarly flawed.

[Cain]

A "superior power," sure, if you like. Not a supreme being. It's not theistic. Insofar as such beliefs are taken on faith, well, fine and not germane to the topic. Such beliefs may or may not be religious. Of course, not all nonscientific beliefs constitute religions. Such beliefs are also most certainly superfluous to atheism.

Note, however, that definition 1 only requires "a supernatural power" and not a supreme being, per se. It still fits the definition.

I would, incidentally, disagree that such creator-aliens should not be considered 'supernatural.' If it were an important point - which it is not, because it has nothing to do with atheism - I'd argue that the notion of "natural because we can identify all the agents, but indecipherable to us, and beyond our understanding of natural forces," is completely within the conceptual definition of 'supernatural.'

Which means such a view, while still atheistic, could also constitute a religion under definition 1.

How many exceptions will it take to prove the rule?

You need to learn to read the dictionary more carefully. The "secular clergy" are ordained Catholic priests. They are, by definition, not members of monastic orders, but are sworn Catholics with religious vows of canonical obedience to the bishop. There were also secular clergy in the Church of England.

There are secular clergy in many Protestant Christian organizations. By and large, they constitute nonordained members of the faith in positions of responsibility, such as deacons. The term is not restricted to Catholics by any stretch of the imagination.

The leaders of atheist religions may suggest moral codes, beliefs, and practices. Those things, however are not necessarily a part of atheism.

"Leaders of Christian religions may suggest moral codes, beliefs, and practices. Those things, however are not necessarily part of Christianity." Do you see how silly that sounds?

It becomes increasingly difficult to spearate the message from the theory, when we examine a religion. But, hey, let's give you a crack at it. Please show me a major atheistic organization that does *not* present the equivalents of "exhorations to the faithful".

No. Atheism is not all of those things.

I'm sorry, but atheist expers disagree with you. It is treated as a religion to all standards of law, it functions as a religion to many of the faithful, and has an active doctrine preached by the faithful. While atheistic philosophy might not be a religion, neither are individual Christian theories, such as the trinity.

[3278]

How many exceptions will it take to prove the rule?

None. Exceptions cannot prove rules. Don't mistake trite folk wisdom for truth.

There are secular clergy in many Protestant Christian organizations. By and large, they constitute nonordained members of the faith in positions of responsibility, such as deacons. The term is not restricted to Catholics by any stretch of the imagination.

By trying to show Marius up - which didn't work, since he'd already mentioned non-Catholic secular clergy - you've proven our point. Secular clergy aren't secular in the sense that they aren't religious, but secular in the sense that they are not members of monastic orders.

The leaders of atheist religions may suggest moral codes, beliefs, and practices. Those things, however are not necessarily a part of atheism.

"Leaders of Christian religions may suggest moral codes, beliefs, and practices. Those things, however are not necessarily part of Christianity." Do you see how silly that sounds?

Yes, it does sound silly, because Christianity actually does suggest moral codes, beliefs, and practices. It doesn't sound silly when you say it about atheism, because it does not inherently do so.

We're talking about atheism. You're talking about atheists, in an attempt to paint them with the same brush. That isn't working. Try something else.

Please show me a major atheistic organization that does *not* present the equivalents of "exhorations to the faithful".

What do major atheistic organizations have to do with atheism?

While atheistic philosophy might not be a religion, neither are individual Christian theories, such as the trinity.

Atheistic philosophy /is/ atheism. What atheists do with that philosophy is not.

[Cain]

That does not, however, make the belief a religion. It is "about religion," and in that sense can be considered "religious," but it is not "religion," and so is not "religious" in that sense.

No, but it does not exclude things the way you've mentioned. It is, therefore, not "a priori not religious" the way you claim.

That is not "spiritual." They are not "spiritual leaders."

They are leaders who preach on the nature of the soul, the spirit. That, by definition, constitutes "spiritual leaders".

No, and this is one place you are most certainly incorrect. Atheism is not active in any way.

Atheism is most certainly an active belief. Only apathy would be passive, and atheism is not defined as "apathy towards the question of a deity".

1. They are legal experts, and not moral, religious, or semantics experts any more than we are.

Actually, the Supreme Court justices *are* considered moral experts, when you consider that they make many stands based on morality and "Intention of the Founding Fathers". Religious experts they may not be, but they are experts in the aspect of how religion interacts with the law. And finally, all lawyers are semantical experts by training, and almost by definition. Since every Justice is a full member of the Bar, they are indeed semantical experts, or at least more so than we are.

2. Where, exactly, did they say, "Atheism is a religion?"

The combined case, Murray v Cutlett/Abington Township v. Schempp, 1963.

Secular clergy are not a-religious clergymen, they're members of the clergy who are not bound by a monastic order. Don't be misled by the use of the word secular - although it is one of the definitions of the word - into believing they're secular in the sense that they're not religious.

Only under Catholicism. Under certain Protestant organizations, secular clergy is the term applied to nonordained lay members of the faith who are in a position of responsibility. See also: "Lay priest", in Lutheranism. Such people are not non-religious, but are indeed "secular'.

[Marius]

Atheistic doctrines can assume the existance of nonscientific powers that are responsible for the universe-- for example, parts of etheric theory. Nonscientific is not quite the same as supernatural, but they're quite close. An atheist who believes that aliens gengineered all life on earth would be acknowledging a superior power, nonscientifically-testable; but it would not be supernatural in origin. And, it would have to be taken on faith equally with any other religious belief.

A "superior power," sure, if you like. Not a supreme being. It's not theistic. Insofar as such beliefs are taken on faith, well, fine and not germane to the topic. Such beliefs may or may not be religious. Of course, not all nonscientific beliefs constitute religions. Such beliefs are also most certainly superfluous to atheism.

Note, however, that definition 1 only requires "a supernatural power" and not a supreme being, per se. It still fits the definition.

YOU specified it was not supernatural. I disagreed in an aside, but let it go for the sake of argument. What a string of irrationality you've put together!

Which means such a view, while still atheistic, could also constitute a religion under definition 1.

Yes, a statement I've made countless times so far. There certainly can be atheistic religions.

There are secular clergy in many Protestant Christian organizations. By and large, they constitute nonordained members of the faith in positions of responsibility, such as deacons. The term is not restricted to Catholics by any stretch of the imagination.

No, it's not restricted to Catholics. I said as much in my post. It does, however, refer to Christian spiritual leaders. Stop trying to use it as something very different.

"Leaders of Christian religions may suggest moral codes, beliefs, and practices. Those things, however are not necessarily part of Christianity." Do you see how silly that sounds?

Yes. Because virtually every form of known Christianity claims that those things are necessarily part of Christianity. The same is not true of atheism.

Please show me a major atheistic organization that does *not* present the equivalents of "exhorations to the faithful".

Nonsense. Atheism is not defined as something that is embodied in organizations. What organizations do is superfluous to atheism.

[Crazy Elf]

"Leaders of Christian religions may suggest moral codes, beliefs, and practices. Those things, however are not necessarily part of Christianity." Do you see how silly that sounds?

That's not silly at all. Christianity is a very large faith, and within the faith are various denominations that practice various different forms of the faith. A pentacostal religious leader will speak in tongues and highlight that as a gift from Christ that is of great importance, whereas a dispensationalist would say that the time of speaking in tongues is over.

These are two completely different viewpoints, and the differing view does not mean that they are still not under the heading of a religion. Both of these movements fit within the Protestant faith depending on your outlook. The outlook on homosexuality within Christianity is also exceptionally diverse, ranging from "stone them to death" to "they need Christ the most".

[Marius]

No, but it does not exclude things the way you've mentioned. It is, therefore, not "a priori not religious" the way you claim.

Woah, hold up. Are you trying to suggest that 3278 has asserted that atheism precludes religion? That by saying someone's atheist one should necessarily draw the conclusion that they're not religious? If you are, he's going to be right pissed that you're making things up out of whole cloth again.

[Crazy Elf]

Please show me a major atheistic organization that does *not* present the equivalents of "exhorations to the faithful".

I have no real knowledge of any major atheistic organisations, but of those that you know, do they pay tax or are they exempt?

[3278]

That does not, however, make the belief a religion. It is "about religion," and in that sense can be considered "religious," but it is not "religion," and so is not "religious" in that sense.

No, but it does not exclude things the way you've mentioned. It is, therefore, not "a priori not religious" the way you claim.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by, "it does not exclude things the way you've mentioned."

That is not "spiritual." They are not "spiritual leaders."

They are leaders who preach on the nature of the soul, the spirit. That, by definition, constitutes "spiritual leaders".

An interesting interpretation of the word "spiritual," much like your interpretation of the word "religion." I would say those who proclaim the absence of spirit are a priori not spiritual, but a-spiritual. [Some are "anti-spiritual," as well.] I would not call them spiritual.

No, and this is one place you are most certainly incorrect. Atheism is not active in any way.

Atheism is most certainly an active belief. Only apathy would be passive, and atheism is not defined as "apathy towards the question of a deity".

The atheist belief in gods is neither active nor passive; it is nonexistant.

Actually, the Supreme Court justices *are* considered moral experts, when you consider that they make many stands based on morality and "Intention of the Founding Fathers". Religious experts they may not be, but they are experts in the aspect of how religion interacts with the law.

Excellent. Then when we need an expert opinion on "how religion interacts with the law," we shall turn to them. When we need religious experts, we shall not. I shall not turn to authority in any case, but rather logic. I have no need of intellectual superiors to prove my case, since I am confident in the case itself.

2. Where, exactly, did they say, "Atheism is a religion?"

The combined case, Murray v Cutlett/Abington Township v. Schempp, 1963.

Murray v Curlett, and I don't recall any place in the decision or majority opinion in which atheism is referred to as a religion. Could you prove a quote and source, please?

Only under Catholicism. Under certain Protestant organizations, secular clergy is the term applied to nonordained lay members of the faith who are in a position of responsibility. See also: "Lay priest", in Lutheranism. Such people are not non-religious, but are indeed "secular'.

But still not secular under the meaning being used to refer to atheism. The word secular has many meanings, and we should use the ones most applicable, and not those which serve merely to confuse the case. I will be more specific as to which definition under which I mean the word when I use it going forward; I recommend you do so, as well.

[3278]

There certainly can be atheistic religions.

Can there be? I mean, besides definition 4? You've said a few things like this, and I've wondered about them, but this is the most bald statement yet, and now I find I must ask. I can't think of a way there could be atheistic religions, but I must admit to a fairly restrictive usage of the definitions of those terms.

[Marius]

There certainly can be atheistic religions.

Can there be? I mean, besides definition 4? You've said a few things like this, and I've wondered about them, but this is the most bald statement yet, and now I find I must ask. I can't think of a way there could be atheistic religions, but I must admit to a fairly restrictive usage of the definitions of those terms.

Sure. The "spiritual leader" definition leaves some room for them. As a rough example, elementary forms of Buddhism are not (or need not be) theistic. But they are certainly spiritual beliefs, following a spiritual leader, or in monastic cases as members of religious orders (forgiving the circularity for the moment). I think the definitions of religion cast it widely enough to allow the inclusion of, for instance, eastern philosophies frequently referred to as religions. And, I think, it could include atheistic philosophies, even in so far as to include philosophies descended from atheism as an integral driving principle. (None of which, for the sake of repetition, makes the simple belief of atheism necessarily religious.)

I've been giving Cain a really wide latitude on this one, because I don't really care to try to argue, for instance, that Murray or Newdow aren't spiritual or preaching about spiritual things. In dictionary terms, the first definition of 'spiritual' seems to allow for such latitude, and the second probably could depending on how we elaborate on the term 'soul,' which has a much more nuanced meaning than many of the other terms we've discussed here.

[3278]

I understand what you mean. I tend to equate "spiritual" with "religious," which is, in the case of many eastern philosophies, perhaps somewhat inaccurate. I have a difficult time apprehending the difference between spiritualism and theism of one sort or another, because my beliefs preclude both, but I can certainly see how beliefs regarding spirit do not require beliefs regarding absolute or partial divinity. Cool. Thank you.

[MissTeja]

What's that phrase? Spirituality unites people. Religion divides them. Everyone will interpret specific definitions of words a tad differently, but that is how my years have made me see the distinction.

Just my two cents.