Symmetry wrote:
And this is my main issue with your, Beezer, and John9Blue's arguments.
First, it requires a massively broad definition of religion that incorporates almost any kind of belief or social practice. Literally everybody is made to be religious.
Not religious, but having religion. There is a difference.
Symmetry wrote: Far from avoiding boxes, you put everyone in to a single giant box, and walk away saying "there, we're done". It's the height of intellectual laziness, and has very little to do with how we use the word "religion".
It is not laziness. Religion is a word used to describe people depth, core beliefs about things, mostly things that cannot be proven or otherwise readily explained. Atheists try to say they are "above belief", but this is simply avoiding the obvious. Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean you lack core beliefs, lack religion. You wish to see yourself as apart from those of us who subscribe to particular kinds of religion, which is fine, to a point. Your belief is different, but it is still a belief. Fundamental beliefs are religion.
Symmetry wrote: John9Blue's choice of the second definition above is telling. The example given is that Star Trek is a religion. Take that broad definition as the true meaning, and being a religion, or being religious means nothing more or less than regularly watching pro-wrestling.
Actually it is a mostly "tongue in cheek" reference to how some Trekkies seem to act and appear.
Seriously, only a few crazy individuals truly see Star Trek as anything close to religion. However, any very strong belief system would qualify as a religion. In time, that might include trekkies (scary thought, though that is!) There really IS a "First church of Elvis".
Symmetry wrote:Second, your arguments about atheist churches, or the nature of belief systems begin to look dishonest if you truly believe that first broad definition. What does it matter if atheists have churches or not, if they are religious anyway.
Churches don't matter, I said that. However, you and some others asked for evidence of atheist churches.
Symmetry wrote:Thirdly, you seem to conflate and muddy distinctions between organised religion, religious affiliation, and personal belief. Your argument about atheists having churches, bizarre as it is, is an argument that it is organised. Your most recent argument seems to suggest that atheists are religious as a natural matter of personal belief, although I note that you descended into a few cheap shots directed at what you assume I believe. That argument suggests that atheists, and indeed, anyone, is religious, but doesn't actually say that atheism is a religion. Neither argument seems particularly satisfactory.
The line between "personnal belief" and "religion" is very fine indeed, if it even exists. Mostly, I would say "religion" applies to the
most fundamental of personal beliefs. Whether there is or is not a God, qualifies.
As for the church bit, again, that was not my argument for religion at all and yes, I did make a distinction between organized religion and religion. To have a religious affiliation generally means you are tied to one or another organized groups or (perhaps) simply a readily named groupd. Atheists can be said to have a religious affiliation, but not to necessarily be part of an organized group.
Symmetry wrote:Fourthly, it does seem to be a particularly nasty habit of some within these forums to completely ignore what atheists have to say on the subject of their own atheism.
This is because atheism is a definition of a particular type of belief. You are free to form your own modifications and perhaps found your own religion. This is must the way Christianity has evolved from a "simple" belief in Christ to include, depening on to whom you speak, all sorts of other conditions.
