Splain this one, god loonies

[Hermit]

Never thought of right wing libertarianism as a religion, but you do fit your choice of definitions in that regard.

[Seth]

Never thought of right wing libertarianism as a religion, but you do fit your choice of definitions in that regard.

Yes, it does, doesn't it. See how it works?

[JimC]

Atheism as a "religion", libertarianism as a "religion", what utter crap. Part of the whole stupid tendency to over-generalise concepts until they are so broad that they can fit any fucking thing you can imagine...

Religion is the belief in, and usually the worship of, a particular supernatural entity. No more, no less.

[Svartalf]

Atheism as a "religion", libertarianism as a "religion", what utter crap. Part of the whole stupid tendency to over-generalise concepts until they are so broad that they can fit any fucking thing you can imagine...

Religion is the belief in, and usually the worship of, a particular supernatural entity. No more, no less.

Actually, religion is a set of practices and beliefs shared between a given group, that gives them identity, and often an 'us vs them' attitude. supernatural entity belief and worship is just a subset of the previous.

[mistermack]

pretty much all Atheists have very positive and entirely religious beliefs about the non-existence of God, whether they admit to them or not.

You seem to be using the word "religious" to mean "illogical" and "unsupported by evidence".
At least you got something right.

Shooting yourself in the foot is an ever-present danger for god-nuts and gun-nuts.

No, I use the word "religious" to mean what the dictionary says it means: "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience."

Even in that case, you would be talking bollocks. What I believe in, and follow devotedly, isn't the existence or non-existence of a god.

It's EVIDENCE. Yes, I believe in evidence, and am devoted to the concept of following the evidence, and not believing in something, without very good evidence. And the constant questioning and testing of evidence, and proper logical debate about what it means.
And most atheists that I read and talk to are the same.
So you nearly got it right. Atheists don't have a religious belief in the non-existence of god.
They have a religious belief in the vital importance of evidence.

[JimC]

Atheism as a "religion", libertarianism as a "religion", what utter crap. Part of the whole stupid tendency to over-generalise concepts until they are so broad that they can fit any fucking thing you can imagine...

Religion is the belief in, and usually the worship of, a particular supernatural entity. No more, no less.

Actually, religion is a set of practices and beliefs shared between a given group, that gives them identity, and often an 'us vs them' attitude. supernatural entity belief and worship is just a subset of the previous.

I disagree. Sure, there is "a set of practices and beliefs shared between a given group", but that is true of a vast number of human activities, from politics to sport. To be a religion, belief in a supernatural entity has to be the core.

[Svartalf]

and politics and sport are religious activity, having to do with tribal identity and maintenance.

[JimC]

and politics and sport are religious activity, having to do with tribal identity and maintenance.

They are sets which overlap with some of the aspects of religion, but not fully, since there is no supernatural being involved. It is useful to find parallels between human activities such as sport and religion, as long as we don't overgeneralise our way to something so broad it could be almost anything...

[Seth]

Atheism as a "religion", libertarianism as a "religion", what utter crap. Part of the whole stupid tendency to over-generalise concepts until they are so broad that they can fit any fucking thing you can imagine...

Religion is the belief in, and usually the worship of, a particular supernatural entity. No more, no less.

That's one form of religion. Buddhists don't worship a supernatural entity and they are certainly part of a religion.

You want to restrict the definition of religion not because it's inappropriate but because you can't stand the thought that you might be just as much of a "religious nutter" as any theist you care to name might be.

But the dictionary doesn't lie. The reason that definition exists is because the non-theistic actions of individuals can, and often do, meet the same criteria that apply to theistic religionists.

Theism and atheism are what you believe. Religion is how you go about what you believe.

There's nothing wrong with being religious, you see. One can religiously believe in evolution and science without also being a "religious nutter." And that's the point.

But it's highly amusing to watch you squirm as you realize that your dogmatism is precisely the same thing, if different in content, than that of the most zealous Islamic fundamentalist.

You have your beliefs and you practice them with devotion as a matter of ethics, principle and importance, and therefore you are a person of religion.

Enjoy it! Bask in it. It's not like being a child molester after all. It's actually a good thing because it shows that you have ethics and principles.

[Seth]

pretty much all Atheists have very positive and entirely religious beliefs about the non-existence of God, whether they admit to them or not.

You seem to be using the word "religious" to mean "illogical" and "unsupported by evidence".
At least you got something right.

Shooting yourself in the foot is an ever-present danger for god-nuts and gun-nuts.

No, I use the word "religious" to mean what the dictionary says it means: "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience."

Even in that case, you would be talking bollocks. What I believe in, and follow devotedly, isn't the existence or non-existence of a god.

It's EVIDENCE. Yes, I believe in evidence, and am devoted to the concept of following the evidence, and not believing in something, without very good evidence. And the constant questioning and testing of evidence, and proper logical debate about what it means.
And most atheists that I read and talk to are the same.
So you nearly got it right. Atheists don't have a religious belief in the non-existence of god.
They have a religious belief in the vital importance of evidence.

Every one of them I've ever met, or for that matter corresponded with, including you, clearly has a very firmly held and vigorously defended belief that God does not exist, and they only deny this obvious fact when it's pointed out that this is a religious belief not founded in any shred of evidence.

[Seth]

Atheism as a "religion", libertarianism as a "religion", what utter crap. Part of the whole stupid tendency to over-generalise concepts until they are so broad that they can fit any fucking thing you can imagine...

Religion is the belief in, and usually the worship of, a particular supernatural entity. No more, no less.

Actually, religion is a set of practices and beliefs shared between a given group, that gives them identity, and often an 'us vs them' attitude. supernatural entity belief and worship is just a subset of the previous.

I disagree. Sure, there is "a set of practices and beliefs shared between a given group", but that is true of a vast number of human activities, from politics to sport. To be a religion, belief in a supernatural entity has to be the core.

Why? Because you don't like the idea of being classified as being religious? Tough luck, sucks to be you I guess.

What sort of criteria is that anyway? Religion is a religion does, and in no way is "religion" necessarily restricted to theistic notions. That's why we have more than one word for such things. "Theism" is a general category of religious belief that generally includes reference to a deity of some sort. But then again there's "animism." and "Buddhism." And "Jainism." And any number of other non-supernatural-entity forms of religious belief...including Atheism.

Why does the fact that a "vast number of human activities" qualify as manifestations of religious belief disturb you so much? More importantly how does the number of people and their activities which might be defined as "religious" dictate what religion is?

[Seth]

and politics and sport are religious activity, having to do with tribal identity and maintenance.

They are sets which overlap with some of the aspects of religion, but not fully, since there is no supernatural being involved. It is useful to find parallels between human activities such as sport and religion, as long as we don't overgeneralise our way to something so broad it could be almost anything...

Nowhere in the definition of religion in any contemporary dictionary is a "supernatural being" a required component of religion. It's merely ONE of several non-exclusive components that define the belief/practice system as being religious in nature.

[Hermit]

Every one of them I've ever met, or for that matter corresponded with, including you, clearly has a very firmly held and vigorously defended belief that God does not exist

Every one? You have corresponded with me on the matter numerous times. Please link to an instance where I claimed, or even implied, that God does not exist. Come to think of it, please do likewise for all other atheist members of this forum.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Nowhere in the definition of religion in any contemporary dictionary is a "supernatural being" a required component of religion. It's merely ONE of several non-exclusive components that define the belief/practice system as being religious in nature.

You can have your eccentric, over-generalised definition of religion, but I'll stick to the version understood by virtually everybody else - a belief in a supernatural being or beings and (in most cases) a set of rules on how to worship it, and how to behave in such a way that pleases it.

[Animavore]

All aboard the carousel for one more round!