Fuzzywois I was only kidding I thought it was cute.

Tom,

Yes, its -completely- wrong to just up and blame a group for the conduct of some its members of that group. I think it is also wrong to blame the current incarnation of a group for the actions of a distant past incarnation of the group - be it a nation or corporation or church or whatever.

My real point, which I failed to express well, is that I don't see how any blame can be placed at the feet of religion itself, but there are certain elements (found everywhere in our society, religious or secular) which can make it easier for a group to be violent against another group.

As far as it coming down to people, and your example with 'joining a group, would you start murdering', we are looking at this on two completely different scales, both in time, and in numbers of people. You have already had a lifetime of formativeness from a variety of influences. I agree, -joining- a group will not lead one to violence unless they were either predisposed, or had a shockingly low sense of personal identity, personal ethics.

But when you look at how a person comes to view the world over the whole of their life, then the dominate beliefs in their environment can play a role in their willingness to be violent against another group - like 'our nation is the best', or glorifying warfare, or native americans are just savages, etc.

And when you look at how a -group- decides to wage violence on another -group-, there are differences there too. You might never be willing to assault someone, but if you believe whats being told to you by your leaders, and if there are people in your group willing to 'make the sacrifice' on the front lines - one might find themselves 'agreeing' its a good thing to send off the people who actually do the assaulting...its a very different thing than a person making a personal decision to engage in violence.

oh, i wasn't taking offense. i had a dirty frnech-speaing stuffed penguin in my life at one time. i called him fuz-ee-wahh. fuzzywois. thats how i got the name. if you would have seen the penguin, and my accent while he wore sunglasses and scarves, and quoted the french taunter from monty python, you would have laughed. he also spoke about how hot the french riviera was, and how he missed his dear home of "antarctique"

>> They are fanatics. However, they are radical in benevolent ways.

Excellent point, fanaticism isn't always negative.


>> Agnostics are not any more "weak atheists" as they are "weak believers".

"Weak atheist" is NOT a pejorative term, its an accepted distinction between two uses of the word atheist - a) those who are simply lacking an affirmative belief in God and b) those who -disbelieve- in a God. Many atheists call (a) a 'weak' atheist, and (b) a 'strong' atheist, is it not intended to imply that one is better than the other.

There are varying uses of the word 'agnostic', but -sometimes- agnostic and 'weak atheist' are used almost synonymously - both for a person who lacks a definite belief in a God.

wow that penguin was stylin'

>> JustSayHi has the following information: "Religion : Atheist" in their profile information.

*Please* tell me you don't actually think this has any significance whatsover??? That is what happens when you people look for convenient ways to categorize things.

>> As for atheism not being a religion, it IS.

You can just make that claim all you want, claiming it will never make it true.

>> If having a religion means belonging to a named group of people having the same beliefs [then atheism is not a religion]

That is one of the most popular uses of the word, yes.

4 definitions were given earlier in this thread for a religion, atheism fails all four of those.

Can you provide a definition from a reliable source which atheism meets?

And tell me, do you consider Theism a religion?

Massage...

Ok, I'll accept that, though it's a misnomer. I'm fairly strict on my etymology of agnostic. i plead the fifth.

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

Why do you consider a deist to not be a theist? A theist is one who believes in a God, and a deist is one who believes in a more particular kind of God.

>> Ok, I'll accept that, though it's a misnomer. I'm fairly strict on my etymology of agnostic. i plead the fifth.

There are so many components to this conversation, I'm not sure which term usage you are saying is a misnomer. One reason I prefer the term 'weak atheist' to agnostic is I've never heard conflicting definitions for 'weak atheist' just one very simple one repeated the same way each time, but I have heard conflicting definitions for agnostic - maybe as the word has evolved through time, or as it was used by different groups of people, I don't know.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

atheism may fail 3, if your focus is on "spiritual" which i do not. you have leaders atheistic thought and principles. some poeple choose to follow or borrow those ideas and opinions. and i am my own spiritual leader.

atheism passes on 4. if you didnt believe so much in your conviction god didn't exist, why are you arguing here? are you actually against religion, and not god? if so, your atheism is not genuine. and yes, i may have just insulted your religious beliefs.

religion <> god
religion =

and no, i dont take justsayhi's example as proof. that was me being facetious. "hey look, if justsayhi says it, it must be right!" seriously, i've only heard atheism referenced as not being a religion by atheists who are atheists because they do not like organized religion and woudl rather think for themselves concerning opinions surrounding their post-death happenings, and how this world was created. so if i insulted you, i apologize, atheism is a religion.

I do agree that alot of people put emphasis on "religion" as being something believed as part of a community. to me, that is simply "a" religion. everyone HAS religion, but not everyone BELONGS to a religion.

lets wikipedia it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

and just like all good scripture-skimmers, i read the thing and pick out what supports my opinion.

Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”[4] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions.....Other encyclopedic definitions include: "A general term used... to designate all concepts concerning the belief in god(s) and goddess(es) as well as other spiritual beings or transcendental ultimate concerns"[6] and "human beings' relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine."[7]

I pick that one out because it isnt religious folks saying religion doesnt necessarily have to deal with god or affirmation of a god existing...it is the scientific types who may or may not believe in god. i also pick that because it is what i think, though, stated much more formally in wikipedia than i have ever put it.

i would largely like to wager, and i am being a jerk here, that your opinion about atheism and religion is due to your subjective opinion about the stigma of organized religions. similarly, my opinion about it being religion is due to my subjective opinion that it is in fact, not a bad thing to have a system of beliefs, even if they are affirming something in a negative stance, ie. "i believe god does not exist".

See, this is why I language is important. When we use our personal definitions without regard to what the words actually mean, it can cause all SORTS of misunderstandings.

I agree that fanatics are not necessarily religious, lol; in fact those that are fanatics in what would be considered a negative way are often wielding their idea of the religion, rather than the religion itself. Most religions, in a very broad sense, have the same general message. I don't know of any that don't encourage love, forgiveness, and harmony, in broad general terms.

yeah, i was referring simply to the word agnostic. i am speaking of its classic sense of "not knowing". greek roots for you, there.

form wikipedia, my favorite source of somewhat reputable information...you are correct, though i actually have never used it this way...

Agnosticism (from the Greek "a," meaning "without," and Gnosticism or "gnosis," meaning knowledge) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), deities, or even ultimate reality is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, "inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience".

not sure about that whole inherently unknowable thing...

Weak agnosticism (also called mild agnosticism, soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of god(s) is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say "I don't know, but maybe you do."

weak agnosgtic! there we go with that whole WEAK thing.

this has been an amazingly interesting read, especially from the view point of a buddhist. In my study of world religions i have found that religion itself was a way for the masses to understand things they didn't have the education or ability to understand. When it was all said and done, powerful people found a way to control the masses and also gain a large fortune based on the fear of hell and the fear of being excommunicated from the church. It was all a power thing. Religion, beliefs and faith have nothing to do with each other. Religion is an organization out to maintain its power base through continuing to prey on the weak minds of individuals as well as increase its power base through war and aquisition. Beliefs and faith draw a person to kindness, compassion, charity, understanding and peace. So I guess what I am getting at here is that fanatisicm and religion tend to go hand in hand especially when the indoctrination was started young and there was no other beliefs allowed. you can't damn the faithful for the actions of the religious

tom:

some satanic religions encourage malicious intent in their actions.

LoriZ I agree with you..well done!

Your post immediately made me think of the Roman Catholic Church back when it used tactics for authority. Wasn't the coin "propaganda" coined by the catholic church anyways.

I don't refer to my beliefs as "religion" because as a follower of Christ it is all about having a relationship with him in devotion and love. To also share that love with others regardless of what belief affiliation someone may have.

Nothing you have said so far has even remotely offended me, I find some of your potentially offensive, inaccurate speculations to be reasonable based on the information available to you.

>>"a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”

Is the attempting to truly *define*, or characterize? It reads like a characterization to me, and an accurate one, and one which says nothing about whether 'atheism' is or is not a religion.

>> if you didn't believe so much in your conviction god didn't exist, why are you arguing here?

I think I already stated that I am not convinced that God doesn't exist. My atheism is genuinely of the so called 'weak' variety.

>> that was me being facetious

Excellent!

There is no question of you insulting me that associating my embrace of the term 'atheist' with religions - I already know that my worldview requires faith in the unproven, and that many of my beliefs were deposited into my consciousness from outside sources, unexamined and unknown to me.

You have already, it appears, agreed with the description which absolutely does NOT apply to atheism, a description most commonly associated with the term religion in everyday speech.

LoriZ

Buddhism is a religion, right? Individualism is important, but do you not follow the Eightfold Path? How you reach enlightenment cannot be controlled, but at one time, it was neatly put into a doctrined form by influential, powerful spiritual leaders.

I like Buddhism. It's the only thing that makes sense. I just don't see it being an exclusive belief system outside this topic.

well thank you bored :) and I agree with you as well. I do not call my beliefs religion. as a Buddhist I am free to believe what is in my heart, and what is right for myself as well as for man kind. We firmly believe in ending suffering through identifying its cause and working to eliminate that cause. I was raised christian, and I believe in a higher power. The buddha was a man, and nothing more, he was enlightened and was able to teach others to find peace, much like the historical christ. The Biblical christ is seen as the son of god, making him a deity. As buddhists we try not to depend on a deity to take care of things that we can take care of on our own by looking at our actions and deciding what the heck we did to bring whatever is going on, on ourselves. its all about god helps those thathelp themselves! Meditation or zazen is the same as prayer, it is being quiet and listening for a change, rather than constantly talking. I believe the things that develop in meditation also happen in prayer, if it is the intervention of a higher power than I am an nothing more than grateful for the help.
ok i'm rambling and I could go on forever here, but the most important point i want to make is that tolerance and understanding of another human beings belief is the key to peace. we could learn so much from each other if we would just open our eyes and see that a human being is a human being regardless of where we come from, how much money we have, our status in life. we are all the same, we want the same things, and we could teach each other so much. so christians, agnostics, buddhist, hindu's, muslims, taoists, all of us could do better to spend time talking and learning rather than trying to impose our beliefs on others
did any of this make sense?

>> I pick that one out because it isnt religious folks saying religion doesnt necessarily have to deal with god or affirmation of a god existing...it is the scientific types who may or may not believe in god.

It is the dictionary writers who seem to be saying that affirmation of a God is a precondition for some (not all) of their definitions of 'religion', but 'atheism' also fails the definitions which don't explicitly require a belief in a God.

I am still -very- curious, would you consider "Theism" to be a religion?

>> some satanic religions encourage malicious intent in their actions.

And of course, here you are using the word religion in a -different- way, right? Which would be completely legitimate, of course! I just want to be clear. That in your belief that "atheism is a religion", you are not using the word 'religion' in the same way as when you say "some satanic religions", right? That satanic religions you refer to have social organizations, possibly doctrinal texts, probably spiritual leaders?

(Many apologies to Ghostwhisperer, it is a valid use of the term, I'm just going with it.)