WWLabRat

You need yet another term, then, for the vast majority of atheistic people who simply haven't considerd the matter for whatever reason.

 

 

Is it? It wasn't when you created the group "has no backbone". Your group now is much different from that one. You still have a couple of issues to clean up, though - amoeboids, in or out? Flagellate algae? Photosynthetic flagellates? Photosynthetic non-flagellates not "plants"? Animals with partially cartilage covered notochords?

 

 

 

Uh, what?

 

 

 

With the exception of your continual confusions and errors minor and otherwise, all my observations of your confusions and errors minor and otherwise are invalid. So?

 

 

 

The Christian God is living by definition - was resurrected from the dead, if you recall, and grants eternal life to true believers. His progeny was a vertebrate.

 

 

 

Why yes - and if I asked someone what they had learned about their neighbor the Republican by lumping all the other Republicans together with their neighbor in a group, and was told that they had used the group to "figure out" that their neighbor was a Republican, I presume you would notice a certain difficulty with the response - right?

 

That term hasn't been coined and I don't consider my vocabulary skills to be high enough to determine what that phrase should be.

There's less difference between a vertebrae made up of cartilage and bone than no vertebrae and one made of bone.

Amoeba: Not Kingdom Animalia (Kingdom Protozoa)

Algae: Not Kingdom Animalia (Kingdom Protista)

Photosynthetic Flagellate (aka Green Algae): Not Kingdom Animalia (Kingdom Plantae)

The notocords are the only argument you can make of the ones listed. Clearly they belong to Animalia. Most embryos that are to develop into vertebrates start out with notocords as the support structure for muscle tissue.

Autocorrect mishap. "All" should have been "at".

I have had no confusions other than ones where your logic has fallen through. And I've only had one error and I admitted to it.

No, the Christian God is part of a trinity, The Father (god in the sky), The Son (human), and Holy Spirit (ethereal being). So, no, god is not living. God's son, however, would be a different story.

They would have a starting point to learn more about their neighbor. But as was stated previously, their individual intricacies would need to be discovered through conversation.

 

Correction: because some religions don't necessarily involve belief in gods, then that explains why some atheists can also be considered religious.

 

FALSE!!! Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. It does not require that you believe there are no deities. The term atheist literally means not-theist, nothing more. There are people who have an affirmative belief that there are in fact deities and they are theist, everyone else is atheist, i.e. not-theist because they are not in the group that believe in deities. They do not have to believe there are no deities, they only need to lack belief that there are. Bottom line: you believe that the existence of one or more deities is a fact or you are atheist.

 

 

Definition of ATHEISM

1

archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity

You were saying?

And saying that all those who don't affirm their belief in a deity makes them automatically atheist is incorrect. There are those who has not decided their position on whether or not there is a god. Those people are referred to as "agnostic".

 

 

Definition of AGNOSTIC

1

: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2

: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

Agnostics are the middle ground between theists and atheists. They are the ones who are "on the fence".

You assumed that when you grouped and labeled them - that was your grouping criterion, remember? One doesn't make assumptions and assign labels, and then "figure out" from the labels that these assumptions are facts or those labels apply.

 

 

 

It's the first step - assigning membership in a false group, like this:

 

Whoa there: Nobody said anything about "lifeform" (let alone "animal"). The criterion was "invertebrate", which you defined as anything without a backbone - just as an atheist is anyone (granting "person" - but adult? Conscious? ) without a belief in a God. If you are making more assumptions, you need to be clear - negative categories like that are dragnets, they bring in everything. That's the problem with trying to learn fom such "groups": it's easy to overlook stuff, bring in presumptions, and fool oneself.

 

btw: Technically that might make a shark an invertebrate, but I didn't get that rigorous on you - I just pointed out your God would certainly belong to your group "(living) invertebrates", as well as all known species of mushroom, all bacteria, all plants, and so forth. And I asked you what you thought you could learn by way of such a grouping. That implies a consequence or result or discovery, not an assumption or grouping criterion.

 

Things are determined by the groups they are in all the time, even if the determining factor is one of the criteria in order to be considered part of that group. A Republican is a Republican because they have identified themselves as one in addition to the other political views they hold.

A group is a group. There's no falsehood about it.

Part of the definition of an invertebrate is that they are animal, not plant, not anything other than life. So yeah, the lifeform criteria stands until there has been a discovery made that shows a thing that has vertebrae and has never been living. And what do you mean that's what the problem is by learning from groups? When you went to school, was every class taught by the same teacher to all the students in the school regardless of grade? Grouping allows one to be able to focus on one aspect while not focusing on others. Going back to the school example, students are grouped into grades, from that, each grade also gets divided up on the subject of class they are currently in. And even those who are studying the same subject may be in an honors class, regular or remedial.

And, last I checked, sharks have vertebrae. So your argument, with the exception of my misnomer (saying backbone instead of vertebrae), is invalid. And being that, if it is real, God has no known physical form, it could not possibly be known as living or nonliving, to say nothing of whether it has vertebrae. And again, a requirement of vertebrate/invertebrate is whether or not the thing in question is an animal or not. Being that mushrooms, bacteria, and plants are not animals, they can't even be considered as to whether or not they are vertebrates.

That's why trying to lump atheistic people into a group together creates problems - because it does not allow you to figure out anything about them, but it's easy to fool yourself that it does; and that is where bigotry comes from.

 

They may or may not be religious, for example - you don't know. The OP has fallen victim to an illusion of a false grouping. Pretty soon we see people asserting that Buddhism is not a religion, but atheism is - careless grouping can take one in some very odd directions.

 

 

 

Over historical time and global geography, probably, most atheistic people have never given any thought to the matter - even now, many don't "doubt" or "disbelieve", they just don't have a God. The issue hasn't come up in their lives.

 

 

 

Another instructive example might be vertebrates and invertebrates. If "invertebrate" is the name of group, then your God belongs in it - correct? So does an ant, and a jellytfish, and an oak tree. So what "facet of the whole" is that?

 

What does creating the group "inorganic invertebrates" allow you to figure out about its members?

 

Notice the scope and depth of confusions possible as a side effect of creating the category "inorganic matter" - and what the effects would be of such confusions entertained about people.

Actually it does allow you to figure out something about them right off the bat: They don't believe in a deity. And grouping isn't from where bigotry comes. Bigotry comes from ignorance or just plain stupidity. People not seeing or understanding that though there are differences between two people, they are still both people.

Yes, grouping can take you in odd directions, an example being you saying inorganic invertebrates. What that tells me is that this lifeform is not carbon based (so it would almost have to be extra terrestrial in origin) and that it doesn't have a backbone. .

And by it's very definition, Atheism is the disbelief in a deity. By this discussion even taking place, the issue has come up, and last I checked is still continuing.

Since when is an oak tree an animal? Pretty sure plants don't have backbones... Or a skeletal structure for that matter...

Inorganic matter exists all around you. Inorganic being synonymous with non carbon/hydrogen based compounds (wiki article). I fail to see how the scope of grouping inorganic matter into it's own group (which it is) would make things confusing...

The locale I am talking about is the United States of America.

 

And your lumping of atheists into a "group" is the root of the persecution, which afflicts many and quite disparate individuals - including many religious ones.

 

How can you not lump atheists into a group? Everything on Earth is grouped into one or more categories. EVERYTHING. Name one thing that doesn't fall into a category. Please. I'm begging you. Atheism is a group. There's Atheists and Theists. See, I did it right there. On a larger scale, there's organic and inorganic matter, plants and animals, planets and stars... Everything out there, every possible large group is made up of smaller groups each covering a different facet of the whole. If atheism weren't it's own group, then all people would be theists. There would be no one to doubt or disbelieve the existence of a deity. Grouping people together allows you to figure out, broadly, what they are and what they aren't. Of course to finely tune that, you would have to get to know each person and from there realize that the lines dividing some topics may be more or less blurred than others.

The degree to which they identify as atheist is of importance. Those who feel more strongly about there being no god will defend that viewpoint that much more vehemently. Those who aren't concerned about it will shrug it off and move onto the next topic. This also applies to whether or not a person perceives a comment as being offensive or discriminatory.

"How important is it to you that you don't believe in the easter bunny?"
Or how about, "How important is it to you that you don't believe in Zeus?"
Said another way, "How important is it to you that you don't believe in the healing power of magnets?"
Also, "How important is it to you that you don't accept astrology as a valid science?"
Hmm... Lesse... "How important is it to you that you don't believe in stork theory of childbirth?"
And, "How important is it to you that you don't believe in flying unicorns?"
What about, "How important is it to you that you don't find the evidence of alien visitation to earth very compelling?"

Are you saying that astrology is a valid science? (I'm only joking, do not take that comment seriously)

The first one says

"Survey found that 41% of self-identified atheists reported experiencing discrimination in the last 5 years due to their lack of religious identification. "

Identifying yourself as an atheists isn't complicated.

Do you believe there's a God any more than you believe that, for example, there are unicorns?

Nope, then you're an atheist.

 

 

So this "First study doesn't present data on how strongly the subjects identify with atheism. Without knowing how strongly they feel about and believe themselves to be atheist, how can anyone know whether they are or if it's something that they still are deciding for themselves. " is nonsense.

 

The figures don't really matter very much. If one person is discriminated against because of their atheism then there is a problem.

 

"Despite the arguments I've been putting in this thread, I don't believe atheists to be religious, merely that the definition we use to describe religion would make atheism included"

So you say you are using the wrong definition?

It's not a matter of whether or not they are atheist when identifying themselves. What the degree is indicating is how much they identify as an atheist. As in how important is it to you that you are atheist? For example, when someone asks me about being Catholic, I'd have to rate it at a 1. I was born and raised Catholic, but I don't identify myself as a Catholic. I identify myself as someone who is spiritual (in that I try to do good when possible) but not religious (I don't believe I'm going to Hell if I don't follow strictly to ten laws that were made long before I can even trace back my heritage). And to answer you about the unicorns, I subscribe to the view Robot Chicken put forth: That if mythological creatures were real, Noah must have let them drown during the flood.

And I see discrimination as a problem, but as I stated in this last post, everyone is discriminated in some way or another. Should they be? No. Do I do my best to ignore stereotypes and judge a person on their present actions? Yes. Do I always? No. But I agree with your statement " If one person is discriminated against because of their atheism then there is a problem." How many people are discriminated and how many times shouldn't matter, but that's what the study had been about, so that's what I commented on.

You could say that. You could also say that definition of "religion", as a whole, is ill defined and leaves much room to interpretation. Unfortunately, I don't have a better definition than has already been published.

 

I grew up in Connecticut, which at that time still had "blue laws" on the books that resricted businesses from being open on Sundays. Until 2012 Connecticut still had laws on its books that restricted the sales of alcoholic beverages on Sundays. Those restrictions were lifted on May 20th, 2012.

Have you checked to see when those Blue Laws were put into effect? The laws regulating what can be done on Sundays are outdated at best. I mean, hell, they even outdate the signing of the Declaration of Independence by a little more than a century! And that's just for Connecticut. In other states car dealerships are/were forced to be closed, etc. However the trend is that these laws are being amended or removed entirely as their significance reduces. These laws were generally put into place prior to an official separation of church and state.

 

 

That's a rather huge shift of the goalposts. Your instal question was:

 

 

To which I presented a scientific study demonstrating discrimination.

 

Here's more btw:

 

http://www.secularismandnonreligion.org/article/view/snr.ad

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13537903.2012.642741#.Un0fdOKTVk8

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12035/full

 

 

Here's one conducted in New England:

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0276562413000413

*Unable to access third link. It's not loading at all for some reason. Study done in New England requires credentials and/or a fee.

First study doesn't present data on how strongly the subjects identify with atheism. Without knowing how strongly they feel about and believe themselves to be atheist, how can anyone know whether they are or if it's something that they still are deciding for themselves. People's reactions can be different based on on this. This study also shows that these atheists weren't completely out about their disbelief (on average). Out of the ten possible relations that they could be out about their atheism to, the average was just below 6. It's possible that the perceived discrimination was due to an ignorance on the discriminator's part for not knowing the person was actually atheist.

On page 54 it gives a table of the types of perceived discrimination experienced by atheists in the study separated into groups of Social Ostracism, Coercion, Slander, Denial of Opportunities, Hate Crimes, and Other. Under Social Ostracism, it seems to be the extreme minority of the atheists who feel outcast because of their being atheist. Of these, the most they have felt discriminated is because of classmates or coworkers. Even then, less than 30% felt they were discriminated on more than one occasion.

For Coercion, the highest amount of perceived discrimination is under "Being expected to participate in religious prayers against my will" with "Being asked to attend religious services or participate in religious activities (besides prayer) against my will". In regards to the prayer, isn't it possible that they are being asked to say grace with the rest of their family at dinner or during the holidays? And as for participation in religious activities, it's likely that they have been asked during the holiday seasons that are big within the religious community (ie Christmas and Easter). These are also the times when you see a large rise in the number of people filling the churches.

Under Slander is where you find the largest amount of perceived discrimination. Of this, the majority is under "Witnessing anti-atheist comments in newspapers or on television". My problem with this is that television makes fun of all religions, beliefs, actions, etc. Atheism isn't the only thing that is shown in a negative light on the tube.

Almost no one said that they were denied opportunities based on their atheism and of those who did, it was generally between 1 and 3 times that it happened with a few outliers in the 4+.

Again, little to no hate crimes because of their atheism.

In the Other category, I can understand the "Being unfairly stereotyped because of my Atheism" and Being treated differently because of my Atheism" sections. Many people do both of these. However, as with actual religions, or other dividing things like race, gender, age, etc, people are going to stereotype and treat people differently based on those stereotypes. It's just a fact of the world.

The second study doesn't correlate the levels of discrimination that those who are religious (in the national sample) experience discrimination. It would have been a bit more productive for them to relate how many of the atheists or non-religious are discriminated against those who hold religious beliefs or belief in a deity/deities. What I do like about this survey, though, is that it makes a distinction between non-religious and atheists. Despite the arguments I've been putting in this thread, I don't believe atheists to be religious, merely that the definition we use to describe religion would make atheism included.

Pull Me Under by Dream Theater (link)

 

 

The scientific study cited below conducted at the University of British Columbia showed that the level of distrust for rapists and athiests was not significantly different, and to quote it:

 

"Recent polls indicate that atheists are among the least liked people in areas with religious majorities (i.e., in most of the world)"

 

http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~will/Gervais%20et%20al-%20Atheist%20Distrust.pdf

 

 

I do live in the deep south and churches vary from store fronts in strip malls to huge mega churches with tens of thousands of members. Atheists have lots to fear, from conservative news shows that advocate atheists having no civil rights to religions wanting to indoctrinate your children in their particular religious perversion in the guise of education. The perversion that is religion permeates every part of our society espousing lies and bigotry as part of gods plan and insisting they have the right to bully and even pass laws that strip citizens of their rights based on bronze age mythology. The separation of church and state is the only thing that protects us from religious wars and civil unrest based on "my god is better than yours" Religious is in a constant state of war against the rights of anyone who disagrees with them and claim persecution just because they can't persecute people who hold different supernatural beliefs or hold no supernatural beliefs at all. Atheism is not religion any more than a lack of belief in fairies is a religion...

The community in which half the businesses and activities must obey special Sunday rules, in which child custody and divorce arrangements and criminal sentencing and other treatment by various authorities is strongly affected by Church allegiances and religious reputation, in which an acknowledged atheistic person has much less chance of election to public office, employment as a schoolteacher, appointment to postiions of public trust, et al, and much more chance of having their children made wards of the State, parole or release on recognizance denied them, slander published regarding them, etc.

 

 

 

Because it is based on assumptions not met.

 

In most cases, apparently, their atheism dates to after they became clergy.and was a consequence of their learning and experience as clergy. That does not mean they have the kinds of doubts you suppose - even about the value of the religion they espouse. Belief in the value of a given religion and belief in the existence of its deities whatever they may be are not the same beliefs.

 

Sure it is. In the Catholic priesthood, it's elaborate and formal doctrine.

 

 

 

Your entire argument rests on the claim.

 

And neither are atheistic persons, religious or otherwise. In fact, the atheistic religious persons tend to be among the least zealous of all religious persons - haven't you noticed that?

 

You claimed to have met no other kind of atheist - they all tend to be adamant and zealous, in your experience.

 

There is no "hence", unless you are claiming a mirrored religious belief in addition to the observation of similar zealotry.

 

We all agree that zealous, adamant, and even obnoxious atheistic people exist. So?

 

All I've seen from each of your arguments, in regards to hostility towards atheists, is that Atheism persecution is more about locale rather than the population as a whole. But how is this different from any other group that's persecuted? Scientology, of course, being an exception because it seems like the entire world persecutes them. Judaism was persecuted in Nazi Germany, and is now (and always has been) persecuted in Islamic nations of the Middle East. Christianity is persecuted in the Middle East. Islam is persecuted in many areas of the US, and AFAIK, parts of the UK.

 

 

Courtesy dailymail.co.uk (link)

As you can see, there are plenty of areas marked in green and blue which shows that a large portion of even the US falls outside the dense religious communities.

Overtone, it's up to individual businesses to decide what days and hours they are going to be open. If a store wishes to be open on Sundays then so be it. My mother, a Catholic, owned an ice cream shop and had the shop open on Sundays. She'd open it up right after Mass. Chick-Fil-A chooses to have it's stores closed on Sundays. Government offices are closed on Sundays. That's outside of the private sector and outside of the community. It's not something that affects only the atheists of a region. Can it be pointed out with absolute certainty that the reason atheistic politicians aren't elected is due to their lack of a belief in deities? I'm sure they still receive votes but, as is the case with democracy, the majority wins out. If they can't appeal to a religious area, they may want to think about moving and trying to run their campaign elsewhere. I don't know where you get off saying that atheists have difficulty becoming school teachers... I went to a Catholic school up until my sophomore year of high school. All through my junior high years, I had the same science teacher who was atheist. Now if an atheist can work at a religious school, what does that tell you?

What assumptions aren't met? If a man, or woman, joins the clergy with absolute faith in what they preach and later finds that they lack that same faith, they are able to renounce their position and no longer be a priest, or nun. It happens a lot. A guy I grew up with, his mother was a nun for some time and later left the church. She married his father, they had him, three years later they got a divorce and years after that, she still participates in the church choir. Also, do you realize how long a priest has to study and train in order to be Ordained? They have to study for a minimum of 6 years, plus serving at least 6 months as a deacon. I think that's plenty of time for a person to decide that they no longer have the faith they did prior to starting.

No, it isn't. The ten commandments state, the first one in fact "You shall have no other gods before me", This doesn't say that there are no other gods, only that none should hold a position higher to you than God. So it is entirely plausible for a catholic priest to believe in other gods.

How does my entire argument rest on the claim that zealotry equates religiousness? Please state so explicitly as you have yet to do the last few times you've said that. Elaborate.

The reason religious atheists tend to not be zealous about it is likely because to the general populace they would seem hypocritical. Most don't see atheism as having the potential to also be religious and as such would have no religious beliefs. So for an atheist to preach a religion would, for most, deem that atheist as no longer atheist.

In case you missed my previous posts, I amended what I said in regards to the atheists I've met. Please read back through them.

In the first place, I use the term community in the sense that there is a commonality among them"

A bit like the "left handed people" community. Are they a religious group?

" I was merely stating that the majority of atheists I come across are very ardent in their defense and proclamation of atheism."

How do you know?

Was the bus-driver who politely took your money and gave you a ticket an atheist?

The guy ahead of you in the sandwich shop?

The obvious fact is that you only recognise the vocal atheists as such.

 

 

How can you rule out the idea that most of the atheists you meet are quiet about the fact- so you just can't know they are atheists?

Even I turn up at church for funerals so some people might think I'm part of the God squad if that's the only place they see me.

When did I ever state that community=religious group? I'm fairly certain that I never said that. Please don't twist my words.

I know that most of those atheists whom I have met are that way because I've actually talked to them. That's how most people find out information about each other. They communicate. They talk. They debate.

I don't take a bus, I own my vehicle. That I know of, no bus is going to travel 30+ miles each day one way without it being for interstate travel.

I don't eat out. Gets to be too expensive.

Again, I know the views of those I talk to regularly because I talk to them. I don't make assumptions about the people I meet.

I can rule out the fact that people I talk to are or are not atheist because I have had conversations with them. I see them in my day to day experiences and ask them questions about themselves while they do the same with me. And I don't think funerals are the place to go to debate topics, especially one that people find as sensitive as religion and the afterlife. But even still, funerals are innately a private, intimate thing (with the exception of celebrities, public officials, etc) and as such, these are commonly people whom I have already met previously. No sense rehashing old topics if I already know the response.

Sure. And you were wrong, as illustrated with numerous counterexamples.

 

 

 

You said this:

 

 

So did you mean to say that, or not?

 

 

 

Your inability to recognize atheism in strangers is becoming obvious. I am merely suggesting that it is due to the standard circumspection common among atheistic people in a hostile community - other possibilities of course exist.

 

 

? Those other possibilities are moving up the likelihood ladder.

 

Your presumption that they are in crisis or have doubts is unwarranted. Meanwhile, the question was what religion they had in the meantime - if atheism wre a religion, than of course that would be their religion, but they remain Catholic priests , so - - - -

 

 

 

You offered zealotry as evidence of religious belief.

 

Um... There's only one counter-example to my use of community, and it wasn't even a complete counter-example. I don't think that counts as many.

I'm sorry that I wasn't articulate enough in my previous post. Forgive me for not living up to your standards.

I don't think it's an "inability to recognize atheism in strangers". More accurately it's that I don't meet many strangers so it's not something that comes up as often as other topics. And I think you have used circumspection incorrectly here... What hostile community is there for atheists to fear? I don't live in the deep south nor the "bible belt" so there's not a church on every street corner. So what other possibilities are there to exist? If there are some, please enlighten all of us as to what they are.

How is my saying that they have doubts unwarranted? When someone becomes clergy, they are affirming their belief, their faith, in front of the entirety of that religious group. They are declaring that they believe, unwavering, in their religious doctrine. So of course its probable that those 1-4% would remain silent about their lack of faith. Why would they choose to become clergy if they didn't believe in their religion? And not having a personal deity is not the same as not believing in a deity at all.

I never said that zealotry is evidence of religious belief. Not all religious persons are zealous. I was indicating that the atheists who are adamant about being atheist are tend to be just as enthusiastic and passionate as the religious zealots who try to push their religion onto others. Hence "mirroring".

So? In the first place, there is no such "community" - lumping atheistic people into one common and separable community is an error of analytical approach. Second, the confusion of zealotry with religion would make religions of everything from political factions to fly fishing.

 

You seem to find the non-adamant atheists of your acquaintance invisible, which is easy to understand in a community so pervasively hostile to all belief systems of that description. But if the only atheistic folks you ever see sign of as such are adamant and zealous ones, you might ask why the others have been so careful in your presence, eh?

 

Meanwhile, the very large number of atheistic Buddhist, Taoist, Animist, Ancestor Worshipping, whatever you want to call the Navajo spirituality, and similar adherents of various deity-free religions around the planet and down through the centuries are not adherents of a religion in common with each other. And we have even stranger categories - such as the 1-4% of Catholic priests who, given anonymity, agree that they have no personal God of their own: what religion are they?

 

There is no religion one can name "atheism", just as there is no religion one can name "theism". There are atheistic and theistic religions, atheistic and theistic non-religious individuals, and wide variety in all those categories.

 

In the first place, I use the term community in the sense that there is a commonality among them, not that they are a group that meets for any particular reason. Second, I specifically state the zealots of many religious groups, not zealots in general.

I never said that I don't come across passive atheists, in fact it's quite the opposite. My two closest friends are atheists but don't try to force this disbelief on me or others that they encounter. I was merely stating that the majority of atheists I come across are very ardent in their defense and proclamation of atheism. And it's not that others are careful in my presence, its that I don't run into many new people in my day to day encounters. I live a very structured and scheduled life that rarely deviates for there to be enough exposure to other people, whether theistic or atheistic. And those that I do see on a regular basis I already know their thoughts on religion and deities.

Buddhists aren't adherent to their own religion? Nor are Taoist among Taoists? Not sure you're making much of any sense there... And the 1-4% you mentioned, as indicated by the small percentage, are a minority of the church officials. It's not a secret that many people, whether clergy or laymen, have times of spiritual crises and doubt their faith while looking for something to renew their faith. That doesn't make them non religious, it just means that they have doubts.

Um, by its very definition, any religion with a deity is a theism (not to be confused with atheism)... That includes polytheism (many gods), monotheism (one god/goddess), pantheism (physical world is god), and deism (one deity exists who created the world, but doesn't intervene).

Where Are You by Dexter Gordon

 

 

re·li·gion noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

Atheists have an interest concerning their disbelief in deities. It may not always be an active interest except when the topic arises, at which point, albeit based on my experiences with atheists, they become rather animated in religious debates. The atheists that I have come across are very adamant in their disbelief, mirroring the zealots of many religious groups. I'm not saying this is true of all atheists, but it still gives a good feel of how a portion of that community acts.

To avoid rehashing a previous back-and-forth in this thread, I'll skip over belief and activity.

Well, yes. In fact, you sort of have... More specifically, what you've just done is known as cherry-picking. There are clearly other elements in the definition of religion that are important here.

 

Even using YOUR OWN SOURCE your argument is invalid:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

 

I especially like how AT YOUR LINK they state this:

 

Then by that right, atheism is a religion.

Okay, IMO Overtone already addressed this handily when you first presented it, but since you've basically ignored that rebuttal and merely doubled-down on your original (inaccurate) position, here ya go:

 

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=buddhism

 

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

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/buddhism

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/Buddhism

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/buddhism

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Buddhism

 

Are you noticing a pattern here?

 

So yes... You really are choosing to redefine religion simply to make your argument. Buddhism is very much a religion no matter how forcefully or repeatedly you continue to assert otherwise.

I see you failed to also show the definition of religion. For your convenience, I'll quote Merriam-Webster:

 

 

re·li·gion noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

 

Link to definition here

Based on this, I think I'm well within what I said before. Which is the point that I was trying to argue. I don't ignore posts like some do here. I replied to his rebuttal as was needed and discussed each point that was made. I don't see how that can be considered ignoring. I have not changed the definition to suit my argument.

Could you provide a bit more detail on what you believe?

You know you are a geek when the first thing you do with any new program you install is attach it to a debugger.

You know you are a geek when you are unanimously voted to be the Sheldon of any group of people you appear in... every time...

You know you are a geek when you know the etymology of most keywords in most programming languages.

You know you are a geek when you seriously ponder [Adrian Newey, Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, John Carmack, Tim Sweeney, Jeff Bonwick, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Tejun Heo, Hector Martin, Travis Goodspeed ... ] being a robot. [ probably true, WWIII, WWIII, probably true, probably true, yep, first president of the world, WW[math]-{{\hbar^2}\over{2m}}\nabla^2\Psi+V\Psi=i\hbar{{\delta\Psi}\over{\delta t}}[/math], probably wrote the kernel modules for the Linus robot hardware, would reverse and install homebrew on all of the above robots, would whip-up the hardware and software for the robots one boring afternoon...]

 

Ok, that's where you lost me. lol

If you are going to exclude Buddhism and Animism and Ancestor Worship and in general most of the commonly practiced belief systems ordinarily described as religions from your category "religion", then you can by such redefinition create a frame in which no religious people are atheists.

 

But I don't see the point. It's like redefining legs so that insects don't have them.

But Buddhism is a philosophical view of the world that happens to have a large following, not a religion. I don't have to change the definition of religion to exclude Buddhism. Whereas part of Animism dictates that there is a supernatural power that works in the background pulling strings. Ancestor veneration can't really be defined as a religion either. It's nothing more than honoring the memories of those who came before you and hoping that their existence continues after death. The only argument you could make in regards to ancestral worship is that it is present in many religions. However, being present in various religious doctrine doesn't make it a religion unto itself.

 

Unfortunately for you (for your argument) there will not be a choice. A life without ageing will mean living for an indefinite time (no a priori limits) which could be 10 years, 18 years or 1000 years. There won't be any 'natural causes' unless you mean natural disasters or natural infections. A cure for ageing will mean the elimination of all age related conditions, but people will still die from any other cause (cholera, malaria, accidents etc). Also, unfortunately for your argument is the fact that, some theorists predict that once the cure for ageing has become reality, a majority of humanity will necessarily have to experience it. It will not be a matter of choosing to have the treatment or not. Something like the equivalent of the treatment of cardiac arrest today. If you have a cardiac arrest 'the system', will without your consent, put you through certain steps wich are likely to revive you.

The problem I see with your argument is that, as with all technology, someone will want to make a profit off of it. And anywhere that profit can be made, things tend to go awry. In this case, something like In Time would very much be the more likely a scenario to your view that all of humanity would live an indefinite length of time with no age related diseases. And as with anything medical, a person cannot be forced to take the treatment that would make them live forever. It would have to be elective, not compulsive, in order for people to accept it.

 

I would wager more children have been conceived after "happy hour" than after "intelligent hour". Bars don't have Jeopardy playing on the TVs for a reason.

And yet many bars will have a Trivia night... Although I must not be going to the most intelligent bar because I've had to correct their answers on more than one occasion...

In regards to OP, I would rather be exceedingly intelligent than happy. If I were that intelligent, don't you think it would be reasonable that I could figure out what would make me happy and pursue it? Well, so long as happiness didn't require a lobotomy and going A Clockwork Orange to Jersey Shore...

S1eep, I think the problem you, as well as others who claim that "atheists are religious", have is the incorrect use of the word religion. Crack open a thesaurus sometime and you will see next to religion (and therefore describing) the words "faith", "belief", "worship", and "creed". Also, religious persons and theists will gather to affirm to each other and their deity their belief in said deity or creed.

In my opinion, when Buddhism is used as an example of a non-theistic religion is incorrect. Buddhism is more a way of life than religion. It seeks nothingness as a way to end suffering. Because you can't have happiness for one without suffering for another.

Rather than say that atheists are religious, it'd be a bit more productive to say that *some* atheists are *spiritual*. Spirituality only has to do with the metaphysics of the self, not the whole and as such doesn't deal with the belief, or disbelief, in a deity. I have been born and raised Catholic, but if someone asks me about my beliefs and religious affiliation, I tell them that I am spiritual, but not religious. Most would say that this makes me agnostic (and at times it may be fitting) but agnosticism is when someone is unsure as to whether they believe in the existence of deities.

As Chris Logan said, there's still death in the movie In Time (starring Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried; IMDB.com link here). In the movie they've eliminated aging and also have given everyone a clock that tells them how long they have left to live. Lifetime is used as a currency to be traded for goods and services. When the clock hits zero, you die, unable to be revived. It is shown that there are some who have lived centuries, while others can barely make it past 18 years (when their clock which has been frozen at 1 year since birth, activates). These people are left at the age they looked when they turned 18 and suffer no ill effects of being alive for so long, even when they've died.

Essentially the idea that you've brought forth is similar to this. Corporations would, most likely, attempt to make a profit off the ability to halt aging and the future seen in In Time shows what can happen when people are unable to die through natural aging.

Do I want to live 1000 years? Hell no. And yes, I've seen the effects of the aging process on close family members who have passed away in recent years. They have also fallen to the effects of dementia, Alzheimer, Parkinson's, incontinence, etc in their final weeks and months. I will forever know how they looked at me and had no idea who I was despite seeing me grow up from a baby. But knowing that still wouldn't change my decision to live a normal life and die when my time is over from natural causes.

Hells Bells by AC/DC

By the Way by Red Hot Chili Peppers

With science, everything has to begin with a lone person seeking to find the answers. Rather than mock the mods, why not work towards discovering the answers? You say that people aren't willing to investigate these possibilities, but you yourself are capable of such. Rather than procrastinating as you indicate that most scientists seem to be doing, why don't you research the pyramids yourself? Attempt to get a research grant to do just that and find out if your answer is the correct one. Until then, please provide evidence to support your hypothesis more than just pure speculation. Within science, it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong in the end, only that you did it and showed your work.

I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.