HAHAHA bravo Tom! Well said..perfectly said.

Thank you!

The relaxation on our standards of language is just a pet-peeve of mine; I've seen a lot of problems caused by people simply having alternate definitions of word before, I'd like to see that prevented if at all possible.

That's why I said this earlier

"If people use the wrong terms that aren't religious, society would question your intelligence and throw a thesaurus at you but yet when it comes to religion discussions things slide."

However, like you mentioned I think regardless a religion term or not people need to not associate wrong meanings by simply using bad word choice.

Well said!!

>> However, agnosticism IS a religion. Atheism is a religion. The fact that one has no beliefs is, in fact, having a belief system and, therefore, a religion....So as an agnostic, I have a system of beliefs that I practice.

Fuzzy,

I agree that it is important for people to remember that (AFAIK), we -all- have beliefs. Unverified, unproved, dogmatic, we can't escape it. What you say above concerns me, however, because of how these ideas are manipulated by -some- Christian leaders/pundits.

There is another element to what makes a religion a religion, aside from a person having a personal belief. To be agnostic/'weak atheist', one need only a lack a belief in God. Every human being might have additional 'beliefs', but to simply BE agnostic/'weak atheist' no -particular- additional belief is necessary.(*)

This is completely unlike the major religions of the world today. To be considered a member of any of the major religions, there is a larger set of beliefs which you are required to have or you won't be considered a true member. These religions have texts which are universally considered authoritative by all members of that religion (or, again, other members of the religion will say you aren't really a member). The people in these religions believe that a minimal amount of deliberate association with members -within the religion- should be a part of their life - and in most cases this means churches with people placed in positions of authority, so that 'belonging to that religion' also means recognizing the authority of those people.

(Noting tangential that there are -believers in God- who don't identify with a particular religion in this way).

Now, all of these things DO EXIST in some form amongst some atheist/agnostic people, but they are not -necessary- for a person to be atheist/agnostic. I grant you that many atheists are also darwinists, and that many atheist darwinist insist that some interpretation of evolutionary theory is 'truth'. They take, in my opinion, a somewhat 'religious approach'. Also, these days, this guy Richard Dawkins is getting a lot of visibility. There are many atheists/agnostics who read his book and relate to him, his writings, and each other much in the same way you see so called 'religious' people relating to religious writers (and writings and other readers). The list goes on of ways -some- atheist are similar to 'religious' people.

But this does not make atheism a religion! This just means that -some- atheists behave/think/relate in a way parallel to the way religionists behave/think/relate. (Again acknowledging the existence of -theists- who do not participate in a -religion- the way I characterized.)

The falsehood that "atheism *is* a religion" is often promoted and manipulated by -some- Christians. Its done with an agenda, and at the expense of truth.


-------------
(*) And yes I'm deliberately skipping the whole 'positive belief' vs 'lack of belief' discussion, and pretending a lack of belief IS a belief, just to make this conversation shorter.

My that was verbose. May this is more direct:

Consider these eight groups (just as thinking material, ultimately each person is their own person, and categorization can as readily interfere with understanding as it can aid).

First divide people into (1) theists and (2) non-theists.

Then see that in EACH of those two groups, there are (a) People who strongly identify with particular sub-groups, based on stated beliefs, and (b) people who don't.

Within each of those 4 groups, there are people who eagerly accept the beliefs of others (religious, scientific, pop-culture, whatever) and people who don't.


Atheism is -not- a religion, any more than theism is a religion.

deep breath......thank you MT.


!!!!atheisism is a religion

serious education should be the new religion

So basically not to believe in something is a religion? Wow...interesting.

okay back to the topic...

Sorry Wild for that hijack! Its a pet peeve of mine!

(back to the topic)

It's okay massage you are very insightful :)

What are you views on the misuse of semantics? Should people of a religion be offended for being labeled in the same category of the extremists?

Do you feel historical tragic events are an accurate representation of a faith or religion?

I guess not many people are online

>> What are you views on the misuse of semantics?
>> Should people of a religion be offended for being labeled in the same category of the extremists?

I'm offended when people use pejorative terms for religious-people- as-a-whole, and I'm not even a theist. Its a crime against truth to use 'fanatics' as a reference for all religious people.

When I say "religious fanatics", I speak of people with two -separate- qualities: they are religious, and they are also fanatics, and I don't mean that as a slight against the non-fanatical religious people.

I've seen people try to make arguments against Christianity by citing the crusades, and usually when I see that the person is not being even remotely fair or reasonable - they are casting blame where it doesn't belong. On the other hand...

...on the other hand, it is worth examining all historical circumstances of violence and asking 'what led to this'. Any time a group of people have a really strong and exclusive group identity, it makes violences against others that much easier. And any time a group of people believe their human leaders have 'special status', like access to God, or divine guidance, that makes violence against others all the more possible...

...and when people believe not only that 'their truth' is the 'one right truth', but also believe that any belief which fails to line up with their's exactly is a morally inferior belief, that also makes violence all the more possible.

There's something I'm trying to express but can't find the words; look at how nationalism contributes to violence, there is commonality there with some religious influences. Look at how willing some animal rights and environmental people are to destroy property there, there is commonality with religiously motivated violence.

And you look at someone living a simple life of prayer and worship of their God - not following a human leader, seeing -humanity- as their brotherhood, rather than 'other believers' as their brotherhood, and that person may be immune to the possibility of religiously motivated violence.

So the blame isn't on religion per se, but some things which some religions sometimes embrace.

I agree to an extent, but returning to an original example; you can't blame Manchester united for soccer hooligans. The religion might give them a united identity, but their actions are in direct conflict with their beliefs. Really, it comes down to people. I could join a group of grammar nazi's, but would I start murdering people because of their careless attitude for language?

Only if I would do it without the group .

I agree there are some things you need to be accepted in a community of believers. I'm an independent person, and I think for myself. That is not to say the millions who all believe, or profess to believe, the same exact things are wrong or mindless.

I have analyzed, since I was 10, the "guidelines" or "requirements" of many religions. In Catholicism, my upbringing, there are some things which you cannot deny, otherwise you are not truly Catholic. Well, unlike most of my friends who just blindly accepted this and eventually got Confirmed, I decided that no, I don't believe these certain things. If you want specifics, I'll go there, but they aren't required.

At the same time, I questioned the ONLY fact you need to believe to be a Christian - that Jesus is divine. I do not debate that Jesus existed, but that he was divine is a whole new question.

So, relating to the topic, fanaticism may not be mainstream, and therefore seen as incorrect, extreme, or ignorant. However, those groups share a common bond. For Christians, it is the belief that Jesus was divine. That, in and of itself, has severe ramifications, which has led into all the various sects, denominations, and cults within the larger group of religions, collectively known as "Christianity". The same has occurred in Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. For Muslims, you believe that There is One God, Allah, and Mohammad is His Prophet. (I am sure some one will re-quote me with a more precise phrase.) However, some Islamic denominations believe in jihadism, while others do not.

Now think about the opposite thought. Stemming from Hinduism, we have the Jain Dharma (which may be considered it's own religion, I think). They are fanatics. However, they are radical in benevolent ways. Do we have anyone up in arms about their fairly non-mainstream views? No, because their views aren't belligerent. However, I find no reason why their views are more correct than the opposite end of the spectrum. Can you?


As for language, I do not think language is useless. The same piece of scripture can be interpreted many different ways. No one, and I mean no one, can say which is the correct interpretation. Since I am most acquianted with the Bible and Biblical history, let me expand on that. A long time ago, someone decided what would be in the Bible and what wouldn't. The Torah and Talmud were the same way. Someone decided, based on their own belief system (and I am sure a few other individuals had input), which scriptures were going to be forever taught and prescribed as affirmation of their faith. I stated in another thread, that anyone could find a piece of scripture to support almost anything they desired.

However, my only beef in this case with the language is that religion and fanaticism are not intrinsically related, and they should not be used in the same contect. All fantics aren't zealous about religion, and and religious aren't fanatics about their religion.

And as for the Cubs fans example, they would never burn down Shea stadium. They would invade Busch Stadium and make a sea of blue. I assure you fights occur, lots of random items get tossed, and general partisanship prevents fruitful relationships from taking firm stance. Not everyone is like that though. But those who are, even though sometimes criminally responsible for brawling, are not necessarily wrong in their beliefs about their team. On the other end of the spectrum you have people who abhor baseball and believe it to be the worst sport ever created. Are they wrong in their beliefs? No. It is what works for them. It might make them look like a sourpuss in a crowd of baseball fans, though.



As for atheism not being a religion, it IS. It may not be organized, but it is still a religion. If having a religion means belonging to a named group of people having the same beliefs, then ok, maybe atheism isn't a religion. However, religions do NOT require organization, large quantities of believers, or a name. Agnosticism is a religion. JustSayHi has the following information: "Religion : Atheist" in their profile information.

Agnostics are not any more "weak atheists" as they are "weak believers". They are fence sitters, truly not knowing if god exists, or god doesn't exist. I am leaning more towards god does exist. Or something of a metaphysical realm existing. I base it totally off of experiences in my own life, but I am not sure what it is even after advisement from various religious teachers.

Would someone call me a fanatic? Probably. I believe in free expression and tolerance. That's pretty radical these days, right?

Also, you can not be theist and still not be atheist. Score one point for deists everywhere.

Fuzzy wuzzy

wois = wahh. its a french fuzzy wuzz, you know, the dirty, durrendering, american hating kind of fuzzy wuzzy.

Hi fuzzy Tom is too funny