Bodhisattva; very nice repy - I wish I could be so susinct.
Perry; I have to say I think you are begging the question a bit;
I have always been amused by the propaganda the non-deists (and sometimes deists as well) use to spin their ideology.
Mmmm, not difficult to see where you're coming from... but anyway;
Whether a person subscribes to theism or atheism is irrelevant to the fact that those positions rarely exist in a vacuum.
I was actually musing the other day about how I dislike the word atheism, as it defines people by something they don't believe exists. It's like calling someone a athtoothfairist because they don't believe in the tooth fairy. I like the word 'humanist' ("a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values, especially a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason").
This is an interesting point;
... he/she has formulated the very essence and purpose of religion; and that is to make sense of and attempt to control the environment, at least for his/her self.
You say that is the essence of religion, but it is also what science is about, really. You can also say it is what philosophy is about too. So I'm not sure what you're saying given what you say religion is about is also true of science and philosophy.
What I find so ethically shocking is when any construct of thought, whether based on deism or athiesm, presents itself as "fact", "truth" and ideologically "free" while at the same time pursues its own logical agenda as a consequence of such constructs.
You have to accept that there is differentiation between constructs of thoughts and differentiation between consequnces of constructs of thought.
Are you putting Jim Jones and David Koresh on a level playing field with other constructs of thought? Or ancient Aztec religions where one had to cut the heart out of prisioners of war to make the sun rise on the same playing field as Universal Unitarians or Quakers?
I think there is clear differentiation between constructs of thought. I think there is clear differentiation between the concequences of these constructs.
To escape this with a sentence implying to think such a thing is shocking is to hide from reality.
A theist, unless they have some pretty good proof, is just exercising their opinion, and that should start and stop with their own lives. I agree that theists trying to impose their opinions upon the world has generally been an unpleasent business for those imposed upon.
An atheist would be most unusal if they would expect their opinions to affect others' lives. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but what is more likely is that certain things a theist would NOT want to happen CAN happen, as opposed to forced conformity.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion; you are not entilted to your own facts.
This is where a major paradigm shift between theists and atheists takes place. A theist's facts or proofs are often of a subjective nature. An atheists are less likely to be subjective and more likely to be externally verifiable.
Thus, to seek to argue that athiesm is a relgion, even if this has some semantic foundation, is a baseless arguement, as although there are some similarities, they are of such a superficial nature as to make comparison meaningless. Rabbits are a bit like giraffes, but this doesn't get you far in the study of either.
If the assertion that pure athiesm is not a religion is true, then it must also be true that pure theism is also not a religion.
Based on the above this is a non sequiter.
However, the product of either belief, whether it be a sense of community, policy formation, or standards of conduct, would be in my mind the very definition of religion.
You are confusing religion with society, and also not recognising that religion is essentially old-time politics.
It seems to me, that to critize the deist for formulating and participating in standards, policies, and community as being "mental illness" as promoted in an earlier thread, while at the same time accepting the athiests' standards, policies, and community to be ideology/religious free, is ignorance at best and hypocritical at worst
This is a bit of a straw man arguement; I don't think theists desire to participate in soceity is seen as mad, and you are verging on saying this is what people have said.
The arguement that theists are mad is based upon the fact that in 200,000 years of human existence, and maybe 40,000 years of pre-history and 5,000 years of history, no one has ever proved the existence of god in the same way that one can demonstrate the existence of gravity and value of g with a tenth floor window, a tape measure, a brick and a stop-watch, and a few assistants.
Despite this absence of proof, the theist can and does sometimes expect the non theist OR THE DIFFERENTLY BELIEVING THEIST (a very big hole in your arguement) to do what they say, essentially because they say it, or someone once wrote down what someone else said.
Like I say Bodhisattva, I wish I could be concise...
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
