Amadd wrote on Oct 26^th, 2008 at 2:43pm:


What non-religious person? There were fair calls about atheists.

Amadd wrote on Oct 26^th, 2008 at 9:56pm:



Of course it is ridiculous to deny that atheism is a religion. That is if denier is not an atheist, if denier is an atheist then it is quiet normal because atheism is religion of denial.

You may be have noticed that the circles that fit in squares have diameters EQUAL or less then the side of those squares while squares that fit in circles have diagonals EQUAL or less then diameters of those circles. EQUAL or less not just less.

freediver wrote on Oct 26^th, 2008 at 5:03pm:


I'm sorry, FD, but outside the Judeo Christian tradtion, you're not making a lot of sense.

When you use the word Atheist, you just mean one who actively denies the existence of the God that you know exists and that you believe in.

That is totally different to how an atheist sees it (or at least my view). Basically, atheist is the default point of view, and if you want to be religious, you select from the Pick and Mix box which includes Allah, Jehovah, Cthulthu, Krishna, Ganeesh and friends.

The way I personally see it is that we all start off by assigning anthropomorphic values to just about everything. It's natural to do so. A child plays with anthropomorphic toys.

"Henry pulled trucks in the forest. He loved the peace and quiet but he didn't see many people. Sometimes working in the forest could be very lonely. " (Henry is an anthropomorphic train.)

Even as adults, we often think in terms of anthropomorphic idioms, for example we assign the word 'want' to inanimate objets. "This door doesn't want to budge"

This is paralleled by the development of society. Primitive religions tend to be animist in character. It's similar to pantheism in a way although individual animist religions vary considerably. They believe that everything has a soul or spirit, or at least key objects that influence their lives, such as the sun, forests, rivers, mountains (particularly volcanoes).

Religious positions seem to start off with Animism, progress to polytheism, then monotheism, then atheism. It's a kind of cultural evolution.

Now depending on where you stand on that scale, you would define each of the other religious positions differently.

Your definition of atheist is relative to your own position as a monotheist, and specifically a Christian monotheist. In the same way, an atheist might look at a theist totally differently, as a result of 'his' own viewpoint from the religious grid.  

In the same way, an animist might say  that you deny the fact that a rock has an evil spirit, where it is obvious that it fell on his great aunt, killing her instantly.

In that situation, you probably wouldn't use the word 'deny' either.

For right or for wrong, we all hold different views of the world. As long as we're comfortable with our own world views and religions,  let's move on and realise that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that situation, as long as we don't harm people.

Variety is a good thing.  

We've heard stories about 19th century missionaries who have gone to Africa and administered medicines to sick natives. If the native died, the accusation would ring out that the missionary had killed the patient with his magic.

A story about one of my long dead relatives: In the 16th century in Scotland, a woman was gravely ill. Another woman tied a single grey thread around her according to folk customs and recited a 'lucky spell'. People will do just about anything when someone is dying. The woman died (nobody could really help her). The village priest (whatever the correct term is) heard of this, and after a  series of events, the hapless woman was hanged.

The two stories serve to show that no matter how much better you think your own religious system is, in the end it comes down to people - and people are pretty similar creatures the world over.

We are all capable of both incredibly good acts and incredibly evil acts. Christianity, takes this good part of human nature and personifies it. It acts to put a focal point on the good aspects of our nature. As long as we apply good common sense and moderation, religion can be a very beneficial thing for society.

My personal view is that religion is more good than bad. I'll support it. I'll even donate money to it, but I don't believe in gods myself.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2008 at 10:32am:

Perhaps 'mean' is the wrong word. What I'm trying to say is that is what you understand. You're coming from a position of Christianity.

- any sort of god?
So do you deny the existence of Ganeesh?

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2008 at 11:04am:


Ganeesh/ Ganesh/ Ganesha or Lord Ganesh is a Hindu God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganesha

This wiki link seems accurate enough.

Who is Jehovah?

You really are silly trying to play semantics over this FD, trying to classify people as agnostic, rather than atheist is quite pointless.

Most sentient beings appreciate that they have no totality of knowledge, so accept the possibility that things beyond their comprehension are inevitable.

So because I choose to say that I have never heard a concept for god, from any religion, that I do not find preposterous, and personally consider the probability of their being a god figure that would resemble any human concept offered by these religions, as approaching zero, but also accept that I cannot prove the non-existence of imaginary beings, then I should be regarded as agnostic.

Sure, call me agnostic if you like, but as I hold no belief in any god concept I know of, I will stick with atheist as my own self description, if that is alright with you?

You see by my working definition, many animists are atheist. They might believe that objects, animals and people have spirits, but they don't believe in a supreme being that created the world/ universe. Some of them have creation stories (such as many Aboriginal beliefs) that involve mythical creatures involved in specific tasks, like the rainbow serpent creating landscapes.

The definition I've used all along is : One who lacks belief in gods

You might say that the spirits qualify for the definition of god. It depends on your definition.

Your definition is one that I don't buy into. The word deny is the sticking block.

Unless we use common definitions, and probably common perspectives, there is no way we could agree on this.

1. Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism. (I define it in the broad sense)  

2. Someone who believes that there is no God.

3.A person whose worldview embraces Atheism [noun] [OW]. The natural condition of all humans at birth and prior to indoctrination in or self-invention of Theism. Atheists claim there is no proof for God[s]. "Strong" Atheists claim God does not exist. "Weak" Atheists do not deny the possibility of God[s], or that proof might eventually be discovered.  (That one's a humdinger!)  

4. Someone who denies the existence of god

5. A person who does not believe that deities exist; one who lacks belief in gods; A person who believes that no deities exist; one who denies the existence of all gods

Take your pick, but I'd get a move on because the cows are about to come home