Can Atheists Be "Religious"?

by AGuest 45 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  TheClarinetist

  The First Church of Atheism was created for the reason of creating ordained atheist ministers. It is illegal in the United States for an atheist to perform a wedding ceremony. To get a "atheist wedding", you have no choice, before the First Church of Atheism, but to get married by a judge. This fact is toned down on the website because doing otherwise would basically un-ordain all of their ministers.

  The FACTS Church you could make an argument for, and I would agree that someone who joined them according to what they say on their website would be considered religious, and that the church itself could be considered a religion.

  There are also branches of atheistic paganism and satanism.
• 

  Megachusen

  This topic really rustles my jimmies. Atheists and theists can both be religious because all people are capable of, and drawn to, religion. Trying to accuse either group of being a religion is so asinine that I don't really want to discuss it any further.
• 

  jamesmahon

  Agree Megachusen. If the topic had been 'Atheists can show behaviour that is the same or similar to those who have belief' and then given reasons why then it could go somewhere. Perhaps. But probably not. Would just be an argument about semantics.
• 

  AGuest

  Thank you, dear Clarinetist (peace to you!).

  I happen to agree with you, dear Mega (peace to you, as well!)... and have tried to make that point. Unfortunately, some believe... and wish others to believe... that the term "religious" has only a narrow view which relates to worshipping [a] god... when it does not. Here, by the admission of some atheists who DO engage in religion, either athesistic or theistic.

  Just as the topic may irritate you, though, it bothers me when I try to tell folks that I am NOT religious but, due to my belief, they adamantly insist that I am when I really am not... while at the same time vehemently denying that [any] atheists are... when some even state they are. In other words, unless your religious you're not really a believer... and unless you're non-religious you really aren't an atheist.

  Personally, I love words... and so I don't always accept the "usual" meanings of them, when that usual meaning negates all others... or attempts to belie what the word truly means. That's one of the WTBTS' tactics... and I abhor it.

  But no one here was accusing anyone of being religious (not on this thread, anyway), and certainly not atheists. It was merely a question that itself answered another question: who is religious? And just that answer is even those to do not believe in [a] god... those who do so believe may be non-religious. A truth that some folks here apparently can't grasp. Even now.

  Again, peace to you, both!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  cofty

  Words are tools to communicate thoughts. They can mean what we want them to mean as long as we make it very clear to others.

  You abuse them to avoid normal social conventions of discussion.
• 

  jamesmahon

  Now now cofty, leave her alone. And by 'leave' and indeed 'alone' I could of course mean many things. Perhaps the opposite of what I am saying. You will never know.

  I think you are religious AGuest. By my definition. Which to me is of course all that matters and to you should matter not one jot. So why does it matter to you that some people think you are religious? I am genuinely surprised you care. I am sure the Lord will suitably punish them for their impudance and reward you for your true non-religousness.
• 

  AGuest

  It is a play on words.

  No... truly, it isn't, dear Jay (peace to you!). Did you review any of the links?

  She may say something to the contrary, but when she says "Religious" she really means "Zealot".

  Noooooo... but perhaps that's what YOU mean. I mean, I didn't even get from the website that anyone was a zealot (although I realize that Dr. Newdow is passionate about his quest for separation of church and state... and I totally agree with him on that...).

  She uses the word "Religious" as a trap and\or as a means to attract eyes to a topic.

  As a means to attract eyes to the topic, absolutely. Isn't that the purpose of all thread titles? Shouldn't it be? But no trap, truly. I included the links so that you could see what I was referring to for yourself...

  Aguest - you start the discussion.

  I did, dear JM (again, peace to you!).

  If you cannot be bothered with a definition but just lazily put up a few links that I could not give a rats arse at reading through then don't expect people to enter into a proper debate.

  Ummmmmm... one, I didn't expect anyone to debate. That's not entirely true: I did expect ones to debate (the usual suspects, a couple of whom did not disappoint), but I didn't invite debate, per se. Because, given what's in the content of the links, I can't see where there's anything TO debate. The "definition" is (1) as to something others of us have discussed on this board before, so "they" know what I was referring to, even if YOU don't; and (2) the definition is contained in the content of the websites, so what's to debate? I'm not calling them/identifying/labelling them as religious - THEY are.

  Now, if you're too lazy to check it out... I would say that YOU'RE the one who can't "be bothered." But I understand that: I didn't many JWs that liked to read anything more than a comic book, romantic novel, or WT... so I'm not surprised when I come across an ex-JW with the same aversion.

  I might agree with you and your opinions.

  I had no opinion as to whether atheists can be religious, dear one. I only posted what the atheists who created the site say/imply.

  But if they are just someone elses - you know what, I will go on their site and comment there thanks.

  Well, but you'd actually have to click on the link and go TO the site, right? Which, if you had, you might have commented differently. And so we now all see how that came out.

  If the topic had been 'Atheists can show behaviour that is the same or similar to those who have belief'

  LOLOLOLOLOL! And you think that would have made a difference??? This wasn't about "behavior" though. I mean, heck, atheists can engage in say, adultery, philanthropy, crime, ritual, etc., as much as any believer might. That wasn't the point, however.

  and then given reasons why then it could go somewhere. Perhaps.

  You are more than welcome to start a thread under that premise. By all means...

  But probably not. Would just be an argument about semantics.

  Which is why I didn't do an all touchy-feely, ear-tickly kind of title, but instead cut straight to the chase. As I often do.

  Do you see?

  Peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  eva luna

  For me, No, not possible.

  Very simply, atheisim is an absence of belief.
• 

  AGuest

  Words are tools to communicate thoughts. They can mean what we want them to mean as long as we make it very clear to others.

  Was I not clear, dear C (peace!)? The question was, "Can Atheists Be 'Religious'?" The answer, as succinctly stated by dear Giordorno is... yes. The question that follows, then, is... "Can Believers Be 'Non-Religious'?" Sad thing is that that answer doesn't seem to have changed with some of you. To wit, from dear JM:

  I think you are religious AGuest. By my definition.

  And he is fully entitled to think what he wishes. But his petulance won't negate the logic of the question... and the truth of the matter.

  You abuse them to avoid normal social conventions of discussion.

  Actually, dear one... I don't avoid much of anything when it comes to discussion (except maybe some of the 'fluff'). I admit, though, that I don't necessarily know the "normal social conventions of discussion." I'm from the 'hood (where the "normal social conventions of discussion" would blowthe eyebrows off of most here). So, I can only "discuss" as I know how.

  Here, I had a point to make: NOT that some atheists are religious (I truly do not care!)... which I already well knew (and knew you would try to create some hokety "argument" against because you wouldn't open the links to see what I was even referring to... and then feel chagrin after you read some of the other comments... and so then would attempt to redeem your error by taking issue in a negative way... because that's YOUR style and I see it quite clearly now)... but that some believers are NOT religious (which you and dear JM seem to be unwilling... or unable... to wrap your heads around).

  Now, back to dear JM:

  Which to me is of course all that matters and to you should matter not one jot.

  That some atheists are religious absolutely matters to me... not one jot. Not even a fraction... of a fraction... of one jot.

  So why does it matter to you that some people think you are religious?

  Ummm... because (1) I'm not... and (2) when they use the term they tend to do it for the purpose of lumping me in with others I absolutely do not identify with?

  I am genuinely surprised you care.

  I'm surprised you think I "care." I told you why I started the thread - I saw a sign on the side of the highway... and thought, "Hmmmm..." What better place to ask the question... than here?

  I am sure the Lord will suitably punish them for their impudance and reward you for your true non-religousness.

  Your "lord" might have you... and others... thinking like that. My Lord would not.

  Okay, moving on...

  Peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA, who finds it fascinating that some have issues being called something... but don't allow the same for another who feels the same way and for the same reasons. Fascinating... and interesting...
• 

  jamesmahon

  Would respond but too busy reading Wolverine and Fifty Shades of Grey. Well, I lie. Mr Tickle is about my level I have to admit.

  I had no opinion as to whether atheists can be religious, dear one

  But in your first post

  I say, let's either call "religious" what it truly is... and admit that it can include atheists... and let's recognize that, just like some atheists consider religion anathema, in whatever it's form... so do some believers.

  Hmm. Oh well. I guess that isn't an opinion.

  Then

  LOLOLOLOLOL! And you think that would have made a difference??? This wasn't about "behavior" though. I mean, heck, atheists can engage in say, adultery, philanthropy, crime, ritual, etc., as much as any believer might.

  You are using religious as an adjective (although, you know, with only having a rudamentary grasp of English I might be wrong). In which case it is qualifying or describing somebody. Please tell me in which way you would describe someone as religious without discussing their behaviour? I suppose it may change something physically about them, but even then that would have to involve some form of behaviour.

  James (of the 'knows full stops occur at the end of sentences and not forty times within a sentence' class)