Nobody cares about the 1st church of atheism.
I agree. I certainly don't, dear C (peace to you!). But that wasn't the point.
Somebody already explained to you its about getting around the law for the purpose of officiating at weddings etc.
Yes, like the WTBTS is about a corporation selling magazines under the guise of being a religion so that it can "legally" circumvent tax, labor, and other laws. Even still, that wasn't the point, either...
My sentence should have read ... an absence of belief in a 'Divine Power".
Ah, nope, too late, dear Eva (peace to you, as well!). J/K - LOLOL!
AGuest - can you just get to your point.
I did, dear JM (again, peace to you. A couple/few times, actually: that just like there are [some] atheists are religious and/or who've made their "belief" into a religion... there are [some] believers who are NOT religious. At all.
This looks like someone taking the michael a little, although a previous poster suggests it is so people can get married who do not believe in god by someone other than a judge.
Ah, yes, so the reason negates the action. Yes, I can see that, sure I can.
But let us assume it is true. Nowhere does this say they are religious so you are using the things they describe as meeting your definition of religious, be that from a dictionary or elsewhere. So I could argue well, that does not meet my definition of religious because nowhere does it mention belief in a supernatural god.
But religious isn't limited to belief in a supernatural god, dear JM. It isn't limited to a belief in a god at all. Let's say this... ummmmm... "church" took off. Grew. Gained more and more members. Then had some rules. Then some stated beliefs (or disbeliefs, whatever). THEN would it be a religion? Or is it NOT a religion because [some of] you can't handle the possibility that it might be? Because they don't want to identify with what religion and the religious have done around the world (like JWs used not be able to handle that, either, because they didn't want to be so identified, either)? I certainly don't was to be so identified. So why must I be called "religious"?
As it is, this all seems so utterly pointless.
Then why are you commenting? Why are you even reading the posts?
Even if this behaviour could be described as religious and you know, I think it probably could be although maybe for specific legal reasons, then so what?
So, nothing... except my previous offering of logic: if some atheists ARE religious, then it's logically possible that some believers are NOT.
From your previous posts I can only see possibly three points you are trying to make specifically regarding atheists engaging in religious type behaviours:
Okay, let's see what you got.
The apparent human need for ritual to help explain our existence. But this makes no sense given your own disbelief in this.
Yep, no, not saying that.
That the need for religous ritual is no way connected to true worship as you yourself (I think) believe. As an example this may work, granted. It does not prove what you believe is right but I would agree that the fact that both believers and non-believers seem to like a bit of ritual in their lives suggests that this is unconnected to belief itself.
That's actually pretty close, yes.
That because some people without a belief can be described as religious it follows that some people who have belief in the supernatural can be described as non-religious. I am afraid your logic is flawed here as the statement is not transitive. It is like saying 'someone who was not born in Britain can be British. Therefore someone who is born in Britain can be non-British.' Both statements might be true but you cannot prove one of the statements by reference to the other. So you might be right and believers may be able to be classed as non-religious. Unfortunately the evidence you present cannot support this.
I understand. I only presented evidence, however, to refute others' contentions that atheists are not religious. Apparently, some are. Since they are wrong about that, it stands to reason that they COULD be wrong about the other (that believers are necessarily religious). I simply started with that. I cannot prove to you that some believers are non-religious... because of your "definition" of religious.
This thread was to help some who may not get it that "religious" is not necessarily what they believe it to be: belief in a god/divine being, etc. It really is more about the behavior of someone in connection with their beliefs/disbeliefs.
What was interesting to me, though, was that rather than consider FULLY what my point(s) were, some (including perhaps you) immediately went on the defense. Why? Because of their definition of "religious" - that it MUST be connected to a belief in God (which these links show is not the case); that it CANNOT be associated with a "church/congregation" (which these links show is not the case); that it does NOT engage in things like ministries, sermons, prayer (which these links show is not the case), etc.
If I were to say to some here... and I think I've proven that... that some atheists are "religious"... they would take hard issue with that. What I find fascinating is that, although atheists profess to believe in the right of others to believe what they will... some don't actually live that creed, apparently.
And it is things like that which make ME "blind" to the differences between some atheists here (some, not all, not by a stretch)... and, say, some JWs/believers.
Just working my thoughts on the matter out... out loud... here on the Board. As I stated, I saw a sign... which prompted me to go "Hmmmmmm..."
Peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA
