Reply to Re: You people are idiots.
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Don't think that because you believe something, it's right.
Agreed with that.
Still, I'd like to write a little reply to mr. SkeleTony. (A lot of text coming up...)
The OP asked if anyone had been offended by God and several people then chimed in with their proclamations of theism or atheism and my post was in direct response to those who had erroneously equated "atheism" with "not religious".
Fair enough.
You wrote to my point that there was a difference between atheists and non-theists:
You would be wrong on that count. "Nontheism"/"non-theistic" is a synonym for "atheism"/"atheistic" and atheism quite literally means "without gods". The term for being without religion is 'areligious'. The prefix 'a' in both cases means "without".
You might be right theoretically, but in practice this just doesn't work. If a person tells me he is an atheist he would be like WTF if I asked him if he was a Buddhist. If he told me he was a non-theist I might still ask. In practice there is a difference, even though theoretically there is not. And now we're at it are you a Buddhist?
To my point that I think that often atheism can be called a religion you wrote:
Not successfully they cannot. NO ONE can make that argument because it does not exist and leads to absurdities which even YOU would not grant. For example, is THEISM "a religion"? Of course it is not. Like "atheism" theism only pertains to belief in gods, regardless of religion or lack thereof.
It's all a matter of scale. When is a religion still a religion? You're trying to make an arbitrary border. Being Christian is a religion? Or is being Roman Catholic a religion? Or is Theism a religion? One can be all three at a time... Usually you can just say that being Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu is the level that you identify with, but this doesn't always really work, especially with sects that are disregarded by mainstream religion as not belonging to that religion. So in that case you need to define religion on a denominational basis. So yes, I think one can defend that theism is a religion given the right conditions. Though I must admit that it is a bit awkward most of the time. Especially when living in a country with a significant percentage of theists, as the term is then a bit non-descriptive.
On the other hand defending atheism is a religion is much easier than defending that theism is a religion if you define atheism like I did. It features many common elements between people that can be called religious for some of them. If you define atheism your way than you are correct.
Peace!
Agreed with that.
Still, I'd like to write a little reply to mr. SkeleTony. (A lot of text coming up...)
The OP asked if anyone had been offended by God and several people then chimed in with their proclamations of theism or atheism and my post was in direct response to those who had erroneously equated "atheism" with "not religious".
Fair enough.
You wrote to my point that there was a difference between atheists and non-theists:
You would be wrong on that count. "Nontheism"/"non-theistic" is a synonym for "atheism"/"atheistic" and atheism quite literally means "without gods". The term for being without religion is 'areligious'. The prefix 'a' in both cases means "without".
You might be right theoretically, but in practice this just doesn't work. If a person tells me he is an atheist he would be like WTF if I asked him if he was a Buddhist. If he told me he was a non-theist I might still ask. In practice there is a difference, even though theoretically there is not. And now we're at it are you a Buddhist?
To my point that I think that often atheism can be called a religion you wrote:
Not successfully they cannot. NO ONE can make that argument because it does not exist and leads to absurdities which even YOU would not grant. For example, is THEISM "a religion"? Of course it is not. Like "atheism" theism only pertains to belief in gods, regardless of religion or lack thereof.
It's all a matter of scale. When is a religion still a religion? You're trying to make an arbitrary border. Being Christian is a religion? Or is being Roman Catholic a religion? Or is Theism a religion? One can be all three at a time... Usually you can just say that being Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu is the level that you identify with, but this doesn't always really work, especially with sects that are disregarded by mainstream religion as not belonging to that religion. So in that case you need to define religion on a denominational basis. So yes, I think one can defend that theism is a religion given the right conditions. Though I must admit that it is a bit awkward most of the time. Especially when living in a country with a significant percentage of theists, as the term is then a bit non-descriptive.
On the other hand defending atheism is a religion is much easier than defending that theism is a religion if you define atheism like I did. It features many common elements between people that can be called religious for some of them. If you define atheism your way than you are correct.
Peace!
