Leaving the community

wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:21:10 GMT, Brooks Hagenow
wrote:




I am hardly a priest. I would like to make a correction though.
Revisiting that site I found showing only 2.5% of the world's population
were athiests I realized I don't actually know what an athiest is.
Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they
say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
falling, which I find surprising.




I don't know what your point is, but I do know that the percentage of
atheists in the U. S. is said generally to be about 10%, or 4 times
the world percentage, assuming both numbers to be correct (an
assertion of which I am uncertain)

I'm curious to know what conclusions one can draw with either of these
facts (assuming they are both correct).

I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".

Definition #4 in the following:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion


As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no
holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
religion..

Most of these aren't mentioned in any definition of religion with which
I'm familiar. Religion is a system of beliefs, not artifacts. Atheism,
even modern philosophy, are all religious in nature despite the claims
of the believers in these belief systems.


Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label
atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate
themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend
that atheism is anathema to them.

A curious contradiction, to say the least.

I find it equally curious that atheists, philosophers and others try so
hard to avoid the term religion. Why are they so ashamed of their beliefs?


Matt

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:04:56 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:

wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:21:10 GMT, Brooks Hagenow
wrote:




I am hardly a priest. I would like to make a correction though.
Revisiting that site I found showing only 2.5% of the world's population
were athiests I realized I don't actually know what an athiest is.
Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they
say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
falling, which I find surprising.




I don't know what your point is, but I do know that the percentage of
atheists in the U. S. is said generally to be about 10%, or 4 times
the world percentage, assuming both numbers to be correct (an
assertion of which I am uncertain)

I'm curious to know what conclusions one can draw with either of these
facts (assuming they are both correct).

I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".

Definition #4 in the following:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion


As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no
holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
religion..

Most of these aren't mentioned in any definition of religion with which
I'm familiar. Religion is a system of beliefs, not artifacts.

That's why the image of the virgin mary on a grilled cheese sandwich
was bid up to $69,000 on eBay.

Atheism,
even modern philosophy, are all religious in nature despite the claims
of the believers in these belief systems.


Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label
atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate
themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend
that atheism is anathema to them.

A curious contradiction, to say the least.

I find it equally curious that atheists, philosophers and others try so
hard to avoid the term religion. Why are they so ashamed of their beliefs?



They're not. They are ashamed to be associated with what you call
religion, and the inhumane acts committed in its name.

wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:04:56 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:


wrote:


On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:21:10 GMT, Brooks Hagenow
wrote:




I am hardly a priest. I would like to make a correction though.
Revisiting that site I found showing only 2.5% of the world's population
were athiests I realized I don't actually know what an athiest is.
Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they
say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
falling, which I find surprising.




I don't know what your point is, but I do know that the percentage of
atheists in the U. S. is said generally to be about 10%, or 4 times
the world percentage, assuming both numbers to be correct (an
assertion of which I am uncertain)

I'm curious to know what conclusions one can draw with either of these
facts (assuming they are both correct).

I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".

Definition #4 in the following:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion



As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no
holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
religion..

Most of these aren't mentioned in any definition of religion with which
I'm familiar. Religion is a system of beliefs, not artifacts.


That's why the image of the virgin mary on a grilled cheese sandwich
was bid up to $69,000 on eBay.

You keep confusing fanatics with people who hold a genuine faith in a
higher being. It really isn't that complicated. It is obvious that
you've had a bad experience with organized religion at some point, but
that is no reason to paint the whole world with your brush. Since we're
in a flying forum, have you ever had a bad experience while flying? Do
you even fly? If so, did you give up on flying because of one bad
experience ... or one bad controller ... or one bad fellow pilot?



Atheism,

even modern philosophy, are all religious in nature despite the claims
of the believers in these belief systems.



Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label
atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate
themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend
that atheism is anathema to them.

A curious contradiction, to say the least.

I find it equally curious that atheists, philosophers and others try so
hard to avoid the term religion. Why are they so ashamed of their beliefs?




They're not. They are ashamed to be associated with what you call
religion, and the inhumane acts committed in its name.

Committed by a very few on the fringes. If the atheists and
philosophers did any research at all, they would know this. If every
person in the world who professes a religious belief or affiliation was
a wanton killer as you suggest, the world would have long ago ceased to
be inhabited by humans. Since the majority of the population claim some
religious belief, if each person killed even one other person, there'd
be nobody left in less than a year.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:04:56 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:


wrote:


On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:21:10 GMT, Brooks Hagenow
wrote:




I am hardly a priest. I would like to make a correction though.
Revisiting that site I found showing only 2.5% of the world's
population
were athiests I realized I don't actually know what an athiest is.
Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site
they
say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
falling, which I find surprising.




I don't know what your point is, but I do know that the percentage of
atheists in the U. S. is said generally to be about 10%, or 4 times
the world percentage, assuming both numbers to be correct (an
assertion of which I am uncertain)

I'm curious to know what conclusions one can draw with either of these
facts (assuming they are both correct).

I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".

Definition #4 in the following:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion



As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no
holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
religion..

Most of these aren't mentioned in any definition of religion with which
I'm familiar. Religion is a system of beliefs, not artifacts.


That's why the image of the virgin mary on a grilled cheese sandwich
was bid up to $69,000 on eBay.

You keep confusing fanatics with people who hold a genuine faith in a
higher being. It really isn't that complicated. It is obvious that
you've had a bad experience with organized religion at some point, but
that is no reason to paint the whole world with your brush. Since we're
in a flying forum, have you ever had a bad experience while flying? Do
you even fly? If so, did you give up on flying because of one bad
experience ... or one bad controller ... or one bad fellow pilot?



Atheism,

even modern philosophy, are all religious in nature despite the claims
of the believers in these belief systems.



Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label
atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate
themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend
that atheism is anathema to them.

A curious contradiction, to say the least.

I find it equally curious that atheists, philosophers and others try so
hard to avoid the term religion. Why are they so ashamed of their
beliefs?




They're not. They are ashamed to be associated with what you call
religion, and the inhumane acts committed in its name.

Committed by a very few on the fringes. If the atheists and
philosophers did any research at all, they would know this.

Where is your authority for this contention? For every one you can
provide, I can provide you a counter-authority.

If every
person in the world who professes a religious belief or affiliation was
a wanton killer as you suggest, the world would have long ago ceased to
be inhabited by humans. Since the majority of the population claim some
religious belief, if each person killed even one other person, there'd
be nobody left in less than a year.


Matt

Yet,no matter what religion or denomination you belong to, in all likelihood
it has engaged in persecution, violence, and religious intolerance. And
that's the reason why the Founders wanted religion (knowing its gory
history) out of government and government out of religion.
*********

By the time a boy has been two years in a church school he is immunized
against religion.
-- Colin Gordon

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:15:31 -0500, " jls"
wrote:

Yet,no matter what religion or denomination you belong to, in all likelihood
it has engaged in persecution, violence, and religious intolerance. And
that's the reason why the Founders wanted religion (knowing its gory
history) out of government and government out of religion.
*********


Amen to that, brother.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:12:23 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:

Committed by a very few on the fringes. If the atheists and
philosophers did any research at all, they would know this. If every
person in the world who professes a religious belief or affiliation was
a wanton killer as you suggest, the world would have long ago ceased to
be inhabited by humans. Since the majority of the population claim some
religious belief, if each person killed even one other person, there'd
be nobody left in less than a year.


Matt


Hitler was only one person. He was responsible for the death of 6
million Jews.

It's not the number of people who commit the atrocities that's
significant, it's the number who die.

Millions upon millions have died thanks to religious beliefs, in
barbaric fashion for the most part.

And it's happening today.

But hose with their heads buried in the religious sands (or in
anatomical locations where the sun don't shine) just never see it.

== cfeyeeye writes:

But hose with their heads buried in the religious sands (or in anatomical
locations where the sun don't shine) just never see it.

Why are you picking on the prostitutes? What do they have to do with it?


--
PGP key at http://www.longhands.org/drg-pgp.txt Key Id:0x507D93DF

Matt Whiting wrote:

wrote:


snip

Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label
atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate
themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend
that atheism is anathema to them.

A curious contradiction, to say the least.

I find it equally curious that atheists, philosophers and others try so
hard to avoid the term religion. Why are they so ashamed of their
beliefs?



Not ashamed of their beliefs, but perhaps reluctant to be lumped in with the
sheep mentality of the 'religious'?

It sounds like you would define religion as a belief system to explain that
which we do not _know_. By that definition certainly everyone must be
'religious'. It is only recently that I have heard of this definition (and
I find its timing a bit suspect). Previously it was belief in a higher
power and/or an afterlife that defined one as 'religious' or not.

But even using this new idea I still see atheism as different from religion
in the way faith is applied. Religious faith does not allow for much
critical thinking and certainly doesn't tolerate dissent. Whereas atheistic
'faith' accepts change as it happens.

There are certainly things I have to take on 'faith'. I don't _know_ the
universe was created by the big bang. But my acceptance of the theory will
be gladly changed in an instant if the physicists come up with something to
refute it tomorrow. I used to believe in the steady state universe and I
experienced no trauma in making the change. In fact I relish the thought of
learning new things about us.

Contrast that to the adherence to dogma required by 'religion' and perhaps
you can begin to understand why I wouldn't want to be associated with the
same group that put Galileo in jail and wouldn't admit their mistake for
_hundreds_ of years.


--
Frank....H

Frank wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:


wrote:



snip

Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label
atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate
themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend
that atheism is anathema to them.

A curious contradiction, to say the least.

I find it equally curious that atheists, philosophers and others try so
hard to avoid the term religion. Why are they so ashamed of their
beliefs?




Not ashamed of their beliefs, but perhaps reluctant to be lumped in with the
sheep mentality of the 'religious'?

It sounds like you would define religion as a belief system to explain that
which we do not _know_. By that definition certainly everyone must be
'religious'. It is only recently that I have heard of this definition (and
I find its timing a bit suspect). Previously it was belief in a higher
power and/or an afterlife that defined one as 'religious' or not.

I didn't define it, I just posted a reference to the definitions. I
don't know how often the dictionary writers change the definition of
religion, but it has had multiple definitions for as long as I can
remember (35+ years).

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Frank wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:


wrote:



snip

Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label
atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate
themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend
that atheism is anathema to them.

A curious contradiction, to say the least.

I find it equally curious that atheists, philosophers and others try so
hard to avoid the term religion. Why are they so ashamed of their
beliefs?




Not ashamed of their beliefs, but perhaps reluctant to be lumped in with
the
sheep mentality of the 'religious'?

It sounds like you would define religion as a belief system to explain
that
which we do not _know_. By that definition certainly everyone must be
'religious'. It is only recently that I have heard of this definition
(and
I find its timing a bit suspect). Previously it was belief in a higher
power and/or an afterlife that defined one as 'religious' or not.

I didn't define it, I just posted a reference to the definitions. I
don't know how often the dictionary writers change the definition of
religion, but it has had multiple definitions for as long as I can
remember (35+ years).

Matt

Here's the Am. Heritage definition:
rel., relig.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as
creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized
system grounded in such belief and worship.

You can define it as you wish; many unscrupulous people do.

Atheists are non-religious. They have no deity to worship; do not
ordinarily attend church or revere the priesthood; are not particularly
organized or split up into quarreling denominations; and don't take their
beliefs on faith but rather depend on their observations, especially
scientific observations.

I have never known an atheist who considered himself anything but
irreligious. Any atheist would consider himself slurred to be referred to
as a religious person.

So htf somebody can say atheism is a religion is to me incomprehensible.