Opera Nut

I read that stuff and it's interesting. It also clarifies what's going on.

The problem I have with the humanist versus theist bit is the emphasis on labels.

The analysis makes it sound like if I was a strict humanist and I heard somebody in a U-U function mention "The Goddess" or "Gaia" or "Nature Spirits", I would immediately run out the door. Me, or a hypothetical humanist.

It wouldn't bother me, because I DO NOT KNOW if there is a God or not. I guess that makes me an agnostic. My fallback position until God shows up is that I am an atheist. Maybe the humanists should go hang out with Humanist ministers (I know one who goes to a U-U congregation I am familiar with) and just leave the pagans/deists in the U-U church.

I myself took the class in feminism/study of goddess worship, "Cakes for the Queen of Heaven" many years ago. I found it interesting. I think of myself as one who is spiritually seeking, but if you asked me if I was spiritual, I would say no, because I cannot believe in New Age stuff.

Emotions are not rational but they can be managed rationally. For instance, I have the emotion of love. I love my family because I have rational reasons for loving them. They have been nice to me and shown me by their actions that they love me. I have been nice to them as well. So the love itself is not necessarily rational, in that its somewhat arbitrary the person that we choose to love, but the reciprocity of the love is like a contract.

And I probably derailed this thread so badly that.............whatever.

My brain is tired from explaining itself.

AspenMama

Secularity.com links with other singles sites. Therefore, you'll find that kind of thing from members who are there from other sites.

Theophonos

Well that's too bad, I had my hopes up when I went to the main page and saw:andIt does give one the impression that you won't have to wade through listings of people saying they are atheists only to find they aren't.

truthie

Inspired by Theophonos' post.

Truthie's impression: great, that is so cool, finally a place where you can contact religious-free non-theists.
Let me check it out.

Non-theist Buddhists?
Pantheists?
"Non-supernatural Neopagans and Wiccans"?

Why do they do that? Is it because they are trying to gain more members? Perhaps, there is a higher interest on commercialization than on the "religious-free" slogan? :huh:

Do they even know that by associating non-theists with non-theist Buddhists, pantheists, "non-supernatural Neopagans and Wiccans", ignorant people may believe that these people are atheists or part of some kind of "atheist umbrella"?

I must say, either a) they do not know what atheism, Neopaganism, Wicca, pantheism or Buddhism entails or b) their interest is on gaining more members, regardless of the contradictions that are clearly seen on the web site. :banghead:

I just wish they were more honest.

T.

AspenMama

Truthie,
Well, I do know an atheist who is also a pantheist, and, a non-supernatural wiccan, who is also an atheist. I don't see any contradictions, nor do I think "ignorant people" will think there's an "atheist umbrella".

I know one of the administrators a bit-- If you like I'll send him a note to come visit here again and add his comments. And if I can't get a hold of him, I'll copy something I found from the site explaining the set up a bit.

WNCAtheists

For those who know so much, and deride so well:

I know one of those, who was an original member of MMOH's Texas group of atheists.

I've met some of these folks too.

"Atheism" is nothing more than a lack of belief in god(s), so that umbrella already covers a fairly larger crowd than you are considering.

I must say, I'm sot sure that you do.
Neopaganism and Wicca both may be adhered to for nothing more than an aesthetic, or social cliquishness. No bizaar beliefs required (might I add that there are Catholics who don't believe in god(s))

True and pure pantheism, (god is all) is functionally indistinguishable from atheism - talk with a pantheist about anything other than the "god" question, and you'll probably not know the difference.

And as for Buddhism, "the Buddha" though deified by some sects, was an original author of some of the arguments that I bet you've used before:
You're not like everyone else, why do you expect everyone else to be like you?
Ayone who is willing to describe themseves as an atheist is A-O.K. in my book.
Why don't you try meeting them before you start judging them.

Darrell

truthie

Excuse me?
What is your problem?

When did I judge any of those people? Or did I write a statement on dogmatic atheism? :banghead:

Of course I know that atheism is nothing but the lack of belief in gods!

Now, maybe for you any person that calls him/herself an atheist regardless of the fact that the person worships gods/god is still an atheist for you. In that, I disagree.

Now, let's see, there are secular Neopagans, those who are not religious, quite unusual and contradictory regarding what Neopaganism entails. Non-supernatural Wiccans? They can call themselves Wiccans whenever they want to, according to what Wicca entails; they are not Wiccan per se. It does not make sense unless; they are just using the term ‘Wiccan’ for sheer amusement.
It is like a Christian that does not believe in Jesus Christ.

Non-theist Buddhists? Buddhism is still a religion.
When it comes to pantheism; Which pantheists are they referring to? Those who are religious and see god/gods behind all, or those as in the World Pantheist Movement?

My problem with them (the makers of the web site) is that if they claim that the site is 100% religious-free, then why should they involve non-religious people? It is the dishonest and obvious contradiction that bothers me. That is all.
They can include all the religious people and theists they want, but then maybe they should change their slogan to "50% religious-free" site.

T.

Jinksy

Uh... can we say 'no true Scotsman'?

Talking Rain

The only requirement to be an atheist is not to believe in a god or gods. The person referenced above says they believe in god, therefore they are not an atheist. It is in the definition, it doesn't fit the fallacy.

Jinksy

So they do. Woops :huh: