tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post4628854195832662668..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Does the term "atheist evangelism" acknowledge that atheism is a religion?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-64680846716705131202009-03-15T22:18:00.000-05:002009-03-15T22:18:00.000-05:00My argument was centered around the 'who' more tha...My argument was centered around the 'who' more than the 'how'. Whether other gods were actually manifested as entities, or stories disseminated among the people is a moot point for the believer if he thinks it was all derived from Satan. They can bypass the intricacies of <I>how </I>this occurred by holding through a faith-based position that they know <I>why</I> it occurred.<BR/><BR/>It is not too dissimilar to how they view the natural world. They don't understand how it works, but they think they know its ulterior purpose. The way it works then becomes unimportant, as it is a lesser quantity than the ultimate purpose giver, with whom contact becomes a priority. After all, after God, "we" are the pinnacle of creation, so everything else is of lesser importance.<BR/><BR/>These are of course my own conclusions from my own interactions with theists.Cafeeine Addictedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02011016176276511661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-17279291926175244302009-03-15T22:03:00.000-05:002009-03-15T22:03:00.000-05:00MrFreeThinker: I think you guys missed the point o...MrFreeThinker: <B>I think you guys missed the point of my "worldview" analogy. The point is that nobody cares about these ideas that have long been abandoned.</B><BR/><BR/>Um...how is that the point of "I just reject one more worldview"? Since you don't reject one more worldview, just a <I>different</I> worldview, your rebuttal doesn't hold up.<BR/><BR/>As far as nobody caring about ideas that have long been abandoned, then you still have to deal with all the active religions, with all their active gods and goddesses and other assorted deities. But then again, I have a hard time believing that <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_Neopaganism" REL="nofollow">anything</A> is ever <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellinais" REL="nofollow">really</A> <A HREF="" REL="nofollow">abandoned</A>. <BR/><BR/><B>My ideas on the other religions is that people are sinful and so they invent other religions and Gods (some people even deny God altogether) because they do not want to be held accountable to the one true God.</B><BR/><BR/>Right, every other religion is a human invention, just like you say. Now, take off your special pleading blinders and see what that might suggest about your own religion.<BR/><BR/><B>As ot the founders I think some (like Mohammed) had genuine experiences but were deceived by Satan. Perhaps Joseph Smith too was deceived.</B><BR/><BR/>Yes, perhaps Mohammed was deceived, and perhaps Joseph Smith, and perhaps L. Ron Hubbard, and perhaps Marshall Applewhite, and perhaps David Koresh, and perhaps Buddha, and perhaps Saul of Tarsus, and perhaps whoever came up with the idea that there must be a supernatural source of deception.<BR/><BR/>Caffeine Addicted: <B>Thank you for confirming my above analysis.</B><BR/><BR/>If I'm reading your above analysis correctly, then he's not confirming it. You seemed to suggest that the Christian would believe the other gods existed, that the events discussed in the mythologies actually occurred, but that Satan was behind it all. MFT is saying that the other gods and religions are human inventions, possibly inspired by Satan, but not that the gods of those religions actually exist or the stories behind them are actually true. If I've misread the implications of your earlier posts, though, feel free to correct me.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-13265889015519092972009-03-15T20:01:00.000-05:002009-03-15T20:01:00.000-05:00My ideas on the other religions is that people are...<I>My ideas on the other religions is that people are sinful and so they invent other religions and Gods (some people even deny God altogether) because they do not want to be held accountable to the one true God.<BR/><BR/>As ot the founders I think some (like Mohammed) had genuine experiences but were deceived by Satan. Perhaps Joseph Smith too was deceived.</I><BR/><BR/>Thank you for confirming my above analysis.Cafeeine Addictedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02011016176276511661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-30484872010177845062009-03-15T19:47:00.000-05:002009-03-15T19:47:00.000-05:00My ideas on the other religions is that people are...<I>My ideas on the other religions is that people are sinful and so they invent other religions and Gods (some people even deny God altogether) because they do not want to be held accountable to the one true God.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, that's right. That's precisely what happened. The founders of these other religions realized God exists, but taught their followers to pretend he doesn't, so they could delude themselves into thinking they wouldn't be judged.<BR/><BR/>Do you and the other jokers over at that cracker factory you call a blog every think before you speak, or do you just open your mouths and say any damn fool thing that comes into your heads?Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-25317638253932676782009-03-15T19:26:00.000-05:002009-03-15T19:26:00.000-05:00I think you guys missed the point of my "worldview...I think you guys missed the point of my "worldview" analogy. The point is that nobody cares about these ideas that have long been abandoned.<BR/><BR/>My ideas on the other religions is that people are sinful and so they invent other religions and Gods (some people even deny God altogether) because they do not want to be held accountable to the one true God.<BR/><BR/>As ot the founders I think some (like Mohammed) had genuine experiences but were deceived by Satan. Perhaps Joseph Smith too was deceived.MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-29934325191864751152009-03-15T09:48:00.000-05:002009-03-15T09:48:00.000-05:00Caffeine Addicted: the theist doesn't necessarily ...Caffeine Addicted: <B>the theist doesn't necessarily disbelieve in other gods, he just incorporates them in his own worldview.</B><BR/><BR/>And in this case, I agree that the phrase would be ineffective. But I have yet to meet any kind of orthodox Christian who would say that the gods of other religions did exist, but were just made by Satan, in league with Satan, or something along those lines. As I said, that makes them henotheists, not monotheists, and I imagine that would represent a minority of Christians. <BR/><BR/>Most of the Christians I've argued with believe that the gods of ancient religions are just myths, and the gods of other modern religions don't exist, which is pretty close to the skeptical position--they just believe it based more on the First Commandment than reason and evidence. <BR/><BR/>If they were consistent, though, I think more Christians would hold your proposed position, though. There are enough places in the Old Testament that suggest other gods exist that you have to do some amazing mental gymnastics to reinterpret them. Which is, of course, no problem for most theists.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-9573161400048022392009-03-13T06:56:00.000-05:002009-03-13T06:56:00.000-05:00The reasons being are two: there is a fundamental ...<I>The reasons being are two: there is a fundamental difference between thinking an overarching intelligence guides the world and that none does. The theist worldview has a lot more in common with that of other theists than with an atheist, even if both reject 99.99% of the same gods.</I><BR/><BR/>By the same token, fundies often claim they have more in common with fundamentalists from other religions than they do with liberal Christians. It's more a matter of conceptual ability than a position that's been arrived at rationally. I'm convinced a lot of it has a neurological basis.<BR/><BR/>This is why I keep saying there's no point in arguing with them. Reason doesn't work.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59947086984028092302009-03-13T06:49:00.000-05:002009-03-13T06:49:00.000-05:00There are many atheists who are not philosophical ...<I>There are many atheists who are not philosophical materialists, and while I don't know if there are philosophical materialists who who are theists, it's not entirely impossible to imagine such a thing (people who believe in a god like Dr. Manhattan, for instance).</I><BR/><BR/>I think the Mormons may qualify, or come close. My understanding is that their conceptualization of God and the afterlife is pretty corporeal. I think they think that God is material in nature; he's just in another dimension, or is temporarily hiding from us, or something along those lines.<BR/><BR/>A few years ago, I heard a Mormon theologian speak at Harvard Divinity School. It was... bizarre.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-4246592723164811442009-03-12T21:19:00.000-05:002009-03-12T21:19:00.000-05:00"And that's where the "understand" part comes in, ..."And that's where the "understand" part comes in, I think. If a theist thinks that Zeus, Thor, etc. were all fabricated by the Devil, while they may disagree with atheists on the source, the conclusion is the same: the other gods are fabrications. They don't exist."<BR/><BR/>That's the point where the analogy breaks down. The Xian may very well accept that "Zeus copulated with an ancient greek woman in the form of a (ahem!) golden shower, but that the whole event was orchestrated by Ole Scratch. <BR/><BR/>the theist doesn't necessarily disbelieve in other gods, he just incorporates them in his own worldview. Islam and Mormonism are good examples of this, in that they both incorporate a large chunk of other theists in their worldview as 'misguided' or falled from the true path. The God of Abrahamof the Jews existed yes, Jesus existed and was intouch with the divine supposedly, but their followers missed the latest newsletter and are lagging behind.<BR/><BR/>As for all possible gods, most theists will not dwell on it. A non-existent possible god is inconsequential, while any new one, is just Satan up to his old tricks...Cafeeine Addictedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02011016176276511661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-71852371873156038622009-03-12T21:05:00.000-05:002009-03-12T21:05:00.000-05:00CaffeineAddicted: the phrase "when you understand ...CaffeineAddicted: <B>the phrase "when you understand why you reject all other religions, you will understand why I reject yours?" falls flat when the person thinks opposing religions are the work of the devil, or your inner body thetans, or your personal desire to sin.</B><BR/><BR/>Which is why, I think, it's good to use the exact quote: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."<BR/><BR/>The key words here are "possible gods" and "understand," I think. It's not just "why do you reject Zeus," but "why do you reject all the other gods but your particular Jehovah, including all the ones that no one's ever thought of worshipping yet?" The ones who've never been made up can't be the creations of Satan; they aren't the creations of <I>anyone</I>--they don't exist.<BR/><BR/>And that's where the "understand" part comes in, I think. If a theist thinks that Zeus, Thor, etc. were all fabricated by the Devil, while they may disagree with atheists on the source, the conclusion is the same: the other gods are fabrications. They don't exist. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, if they believe in other gods, but believe they're all false gods (a sort of henotheism, I suppose), then it kind of falls apart.<BR/><BR/>MrFreeThinker: <B>I just reject one more worldview than you do.</B><BR/><BR/>No you don't. Are you completely without worldview? I don't know how such a thing would even be possible. Clearly you have a worldview that there is something other or more than matter (and presumably that "something" isn't energy or space or emergent property). So you don't reject "one more worldview," you reject "one different worldview." Of course, your use of a vague, undefined weasel-word like "worldview" really lays bare the weakness in your position. <BR/><BR/>The "one fewer god" argument is not an all-encompassing defense of philosophical materialism, nor is it meant to be. It's a pithy consciousness-raising point about <I>atheism</I> which is (everyone sing along) only the lack of belief in gods. There are many atheists who are not philosophical materialists, and while I don't know if there are philosophical materialists who who are theists, it's not entirely impossible to imagine such a thing (people who believe in a god like Dr. Manhattan, for instance).Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-43949056771760172382009-03-12T12:25:00.000-05:002009-03-12T12:25:00.000-05:00One can just as easilly reverse engineer the argum...<I>One can just as easilly reverse engineer the argument. For example,<BR/>There have been thousands of worldviews throughout history.<BR/>Thales believed everything was made of Water.<BR/>Anaximenes believed everything was made of Air.<BR/>Heraclitus believed everything was made of fire.<BR/>I reject the atheistic naturalist/materialist worldview that everything is made out of matter.</I><BR/><BR/>Except for the niggling little detail that the existence of matter is not a belief produced by an "atheistic naturalist/materialist worldview," but a fact supported by, oh, the entire science of physics.<BR/><BR/>It's really no use trying to compare what people believed about the universe prior to the advent of the scientific method used today. You might as well try to "reverse engineer" the argument by saying, "Ancient people believed illness was caused by evil spirits. I reject the atheistic naturalist/materialist worldview that illness is caused by bacterial or viral infection, or for genetic reasons." And you'd sound just as silly. <BR/><BR/>There's nothing innately dumb about rejecting unfounded beliefs, such as those pertaining to gods or other sundry invisible magic beings in the sky. Rejecting established facts...well, yeah, that's mighty dumb. But Christians do love that word "worldview," don't you? It's the all-purpose catchphrase of apologetic post-modernism. Whenever atheists bring up pesky talking points like "evidence" or "proof," just call everything a "worldview," and presto, there are no such things as facts any more! Everything becomes a "worldview"-based belief, and truth gets decided by popularity.<BR/><BR/><I>Oftentimes people do not realize the weaknesses of their arguments until they are turned against them.</I><BR/><BR/>And if you ever manage to do that successfully, I'll be the first to let you know.<BR/><BR/>I would, in the interim, be tremendously amused to hear what you do think the universe is made of, if not matter. Oh, and show your work.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-18375164717759045622009-03-12T11:10:00.000-05:002009-03-12T11:10:00.000-05:00Back to the prior point though, that used to be a ...Back to the prior point though, that used to be a common tactic of Christian missionaries in the early Middle Ages. They would forcibly destroy sacred groves and other pagan holy places just to prove to the pagans that the gods they worshipped weren't real. Of course, today, if you tell them "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" they blow a gasket and cry oppression, but destroying pagan holy places, that's okay.Tommykeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14751182125861177379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-46952281028461924782009-03-12T11:08:00.000-05:002009-03-12T11:08:00.000-05:00Kazim, just for the sake of humor, you should have...Kazim, just for the sake of humor, you should have ended it abruptly:<BR/><BR/><EM>See, I'll prove it. Your god is a limp wristed, latte drinking, Volvo driving homosexual.<BR/><BR/>Huh. No lightning. Fa</EM>Tommykeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14751182125861177379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-84217585379128524822009-03-12T10:56:00.000-05:002009-03-12T10:56:00.000-05:00You linked a story about a Christian missionary wh...You linked a story about a Christian missionary who impressed some locals by doing something to piss off Thor. When he didn't get struck by lightning, they all stopped believing in Thor and converted.<BR/><BR/>Obviously this in no way proves that Thor doesn't exist. Had the roles been reversed, with the Thor-believers taunting the Christian God, nothing would have happened either. See, I'll prove it. Your god is a limp wristed, latte drinking, Volvo driving homosexual.<BR/><BR/>Huh. No lightning. Fancy that.<BR/><BR/>Does that prove there is no Christian God? Of course not. I imagine you're already scrambling to explain the lack of fireworks, with "My god is mysterious" and "He is too awesome to respond to taunts" or perhaps "God is not tested."<BR/><BR/>Perfect. So this still leaves open the possibility that Thor exists.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-47101459804065504602009-03-12T09:11:00.000-05:002009-03-12T09:11:00.000-05:00Let me point out that Christians disproved the exi...Let me point out that Christians disproved the existence of Thor a while ago too.<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor%27s_OakMrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-39919662616990436432009-03-12T03:32:00.000-05:002009-03-12T03:32:00.000-05:00While I understand the rationale behind the 'one l...While I understand the rationale behind the 'one less god' meme, I was also one who found it ineffective as an argument.<BR/><BR/>The reasons being are two: there is a fundamental difference between thinking an overarching intelligence guides the world and that none does. The theist worldview has a lot more in common with that of other theists than with an atheist, even if both reject 99.99% of the same gods.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, the theist will often have rationalizations within their worldview that explain away other religions. the phrase "when you understand why you reject all other religions, you will understand why I reject yours?" falls flat when the person thinks opposing religions are the work of the devil, or your inner body thetans, or your personal desire to sin.<BR/><BR/>I don't think the argument is 'full of fail' though. I usually present it in a different fashion, whenever I reach the 'you gotta have faith' wall, to point out that faith sustains thousands of religions, they can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. I ask them how would they discern the real one from a non-believer's POV which usually leads to some really bad arguments, following by retreat among cries of "I'll be praying for you".Cafeeine Addictedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02011016176276511661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-10689699681760810482009-03-11T22:44:00.000-05:002009-03-11T22:44:00.000-05:00One can just as easilly reverse engineer the argum...One can just as easilly reverse engineer the argument. For example,<BR/>There have been thousands of worldviews throughout history.<BR/>Thales believed everything was made of Water.<BR/> Anaximenes believed everything was made of Air.<BR/>Heraclitus believed everything was made of fire.<BR/>I reject the atheistic naturalist/materialist worldview that everything is made out of matter.<BR/><BR/>I just reject one more worldview than you do.<BR/>Oftentimes people do not realize the weaknesses of their arguments until they are turned against them.MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-87787545517664042142009-03-11T21:03:00.000-05:002009-03-11T21:03:00.000-05:00MrFreeThinker: While I'm sure the meme you refer t...MrFreeThinker: While I'm sure the meme you refer to is one that annoys you, I'd be interested to hear you defend the position that it's made of fail. What it points out to Christians is that there have been thousands of religions all through history, worshiping thousands of gods, none of which either the Christian or the atheist believe in. The difference at this point is that the atheist goes one god farther, and rejects belief in the Christian God as well. The idea then is to get the Christian to do a little inner work, and actually <I>think</I> about why their God is any more worthy of belief than the thousands of other gods they've rejected. If they only come up with something like, "Well the Bible says..." then it's pretty straightforward that they do not have a rational basis for their belief. <BR/><BR/>So, sounds like that's a meme made of hot, buttered win to me. Perhaps, if you were to be honest, you'd admit <I>that's</I> why you find it so annoying.<BR/><BR/>Also, don't mistake conviction for dogmatism. It's possible to be dogmatic about anything, but Dawkins, for one, is not. Just because you're willing and able to defend your opinions passionately (and well enough that those who disagree with you have trouble refuting you) doesn't mean you're dogmatic.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-82493820408985705132009-03-11T18:58:00.000-05:002009-03-11T18:58:00.000-05:00Atheism isn't a religion but the kind of atheistic...Atheism isn't a religion but the kind of atheistic naturalism Dawkins and Hitchen and people here are promoting is a kind of worldview.<BR/>And people can be dogmatic and evangelistic in their respective worldviews.<BR/>Off topic but the most annoying meme I have ever encountered is the "I just reject one more God than you meme". It is annoying and made of failMrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-76996489617801549872009-03-10T22:14:00.000-05:002009-03-10T22:14:00.000-05:00Tommy: Tom, I came up with one. Atheism is a relig...Tommy: <B>Tom, I came up with one. Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sexual position.</B><BR/><BR/>That's great. I'm totally using that.<BR/><BR/>Caffeine Addicted: <B>One point I tried to make once, with a more intelligent theist, was that atheism is as much a religion as theism is.</B><BR/><BR/>This is a great point, and one I've used before occasionally (though as you mention, generally with a higher intellectual caliber of believer). <BR/><BR/>The "it takes as much faith" relies on the only options being theism and strong atheism--"I believe there is a God" or "I believe there is no God"--both positive positions. What they miss is that this suggests that either everyone has faith in every proposition, positive or negative (it takes as much faith to disbelieve in unicorns as to believe in them), or that the only position which requires no faith is some middle ground between--I neither believe there is a god nor believe there is no god. The point to make, quite simply, is that that position is <I>still atheism</I>.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59686447803198513512009-03-10T15:48:00.000-05:002009-03-10T15:48:00.000-05:00I hear the charge from time to time that atheism "...I hear the charge from time to time that atheism "requires just as much faith as religion/belief in god/etc.<BR/><BR/>I have always wanted to ask "what do you mean by that exactly?" to that charge as well.<BR/><BR/>It's the same muddling of definitions Russell refers to concerning religion - what the religious critter means by "faith" is similarly confused typically. <BR/><BR/>Usually it's not clear that faith is an acceptance as true of something held in the mind _but not verified or manifest in any way by evidence_. The Faithful tend to lump that in with something like trust which is a reliance on something that _is_ in evidence.<BR/><BR/>So naturally they think anyone who says they think, trust, accept and even believe, is assigning the same meaning to the term as they are.<BR/><BR/>So when I hear that charge leveled I like to ask what is meant, so I can determine if they're projecting their notion of faith onto my notion of truth/trust etc. That's usually whats at the root of it.<BR/><BR/>LSlshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17901508236729383702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-64926286730061392132009-03-10T14:40:00.000-05:002009-03-10T14:40:00.000-05:00That's exactly it.Of course, when the shoe is on t...That's exactly it.<BR/><BR/>Of course, when the shoe is on the other foot, and you are asked "what religion are you?" and you reply "I'm an atheist" that's just as nonsensical, if you ignore the convention that 'atheist' is an identifier for a smaller group within the actual whole atheist set.<BR/><BR/><BR/>The issue here is that by this definition you can't make any other claims about atheists, such as love of science, the tendency to look for proper evidence to evaluate claims etc. as these are not necessary to be an atheist (see Raelians). This, as a consequent, makes it difficult when we claim that we as 'atheists' want something<BR/><BR/>The best description for the position I hold seems to be antidogmatist, which is still a negative position.Cafeeine Addictedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02011016176276511661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-78409804013392423112009-03-10T13:25:00.000-05:002009-03-10T13:25:00.000-05:00Cafeeine Addicted,Agree with your above comments. ...Cafeeine Addicted,<BR/><BR/>Agree with your above comments. Its like person A walks up to person B and asks, 'What religion are you?'.<BR/><BR/>Person B responds 'theist'.<BR/><BR/>Person A responds, 'No, I didn't ask if you believed in god. I asked what set of beliefs you identify with?'Ai Denghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12141023502945802293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-33010516382383113122009-03-10T13:19:00.000-05:002009-03-10T13:19:00.000-05:00Microsoft has an entire department dedicated to De...Microsoft has an entire department dedicated to Developer Evangelism. Does that mean Microsoft is a religion?Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04699188886328578128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-71859161401167302172009-03-10T13:12:00.000-05:002009-03-10T13:12:00.000-05:00This claim that atheism is a religion is a diversi...This claim that atheism is a religion is a diversionary tactic to put theists on the offensive. It intents to correlate between atheism and dogmatic belief, which they hope leads to the atheists realization of self-contradiction. Theists make this claim by twisting the meaning of words. But in the context of their definition, suddenly everybody is religious, suddenly all it takes to be religious is to have a singular belief, or lack one. <B>Forget any surveys you may have read, where however many such individuals identified themselves as non-religious, they were obviously all liars, or just didn't understand the true definition of the word.</B><BR/><BR/>Regardless, this theistic outlying definition is born out of convenience only, it is their's, not mine, and not the commonly accepted one. The commonly accepted one typically identifies with a deity or deities, a set of beliefs, attitudes and practices. While what makes someone an atheist...just no belief in god(s). Does this singular decision alone make an individual religious? Let me get this straight, I don't believe in a god, therefore I am religious??? How oxymoronic!!! On the same token, does being a theist necessarily preclude that an individual is religious, not at all. Its about what an individual does in light of that belief.Ai Denghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12141023502945802293noreply@blogger.com