Mat Wilder

So atheists are "progressing evolution" (whatever that means) towards a broader definition of the word religion?

So basically what means the same thing?

usartist

You do not have a theist religion.

The reason you harbor for living your Life, and the activities you practice to continue your life make up the aspects of your personal atheist religion.

usartist

Yes.

Eventually, it will be an atheist world.

Would you not agree with that?

When that occurs, by your method of recognizing religion as being the, "belief and worship," religion will no longer exist.

People will form relationships, and do their jobs, because...

By my method of recognizing religion as a behavioral training program, religion will continue to exist, beyond the existence of theism.

People will form relationships, and do their jobs, because they contribute to the better progression of human evolution.

usartist

Really you have no idea what that means?

What's up with the Darwin Fish?...What is that all about?

Eudaimonist

But why, in your view, does the word "religion" carry this alleged magic? What is it about using not using the word "religion" that causes the organization to suffer? Are there other words that would be a good substitute?

usartist

Good question. The 'magic,' better termed as 'expedition,' is because religion is an intrinsic human practice.


Everyone has 'religion.' No person is pure 'secular.' Religion is how people conform to the society. 'Secular,' requires the person to recognize his personal religion in order to think beyond it.

Recognizing atheist organizations as religions will assist the leaders to establish specific ideology to maintain consistent intentions of the organization. As it is now, atheist organizations struggle, because they cannot descriminate. The organization I belong to, NYC-Atheists, the leader brags that the organization is secular; in that, even theists are welcome to membership.

Let's suppose a theist or two pays there dues, and become members. during the discussion session, one of the theists makes the statement,"You know, you would all do much better if you just took the time and realized that God loves you, and he is always there for you."

He may get a laugh or two for that statement. The next meeting he attends he makes another statement, ""You guys really should try listening to God, he cares very much..."

The other members are going to begin to question this theists motives, but they really cannot do anything about it, because the charter of the organization cannot abridge a member's opinion. And, an opinion, is all the member is imposing.

Hopefully, that is an obvious example. It is also an example of how theists can dismantle atheist organizations. Suppose the demographics of the atheist organization favors the theists members of twenty to ten atheists. All twenty members vote in favor of electing their theist buddy, president.

A less obvious problem is when atheist organizations eventually do build a substantial membership of atheist members, materialists and spiritualists are not going to be able to compromise on certain issues. This will lead to further misunderstandings.

The best situation is to maintain a certain amount of division, so each ideology can pursue the better progression. Materialists are going to have an agenda different than what spiritualists contend. It's an apparent division already, and forcing the ideologies to compromise does not benifit eigther.

Hopefully this demonstrates why a secular organization fails in such endeavors.

The only secular organization that does succeed is republic-democracy government. And notice how the Constitution does not define the individual until the Fourth Amendment, where it defines the Rights of the accused. Basically the First Amendment places us all in seperate religions, because a single opinion is of no value in a democracy until at least one other person agrees with that opinion.

breathilizer

You are so full of it...

All I've observed from you since you've been here at this site is an attempt to redefine the word "religion." By your interpretation of the word, the government would be a religion, the NRA, the March of Dimes, N*Sync, your job. But, I don't think anyone here is buying it. Religion, as it is defined today, means a belief in god. If you don't like that definition, don't use the word.

Hyndis

Err, that whole EAC thing was a joke...

Atheists are not trying to take over the world. We'd merely like it if religion weren't shoved down people's throats, and that people would actually think using their own brain. Various secular groups like this are for defensive purposes against various evangelical types that like to go around and convert the evil heathens, or something like that...

But seriously, I don't have any idealogy, unless you count my political views which have nothing to do with this topic.

The reason why various secular groups have a good deal of trouble is because of all of the religious propoganda and brainwashing. Many churches preach about how Christianity is the only source of morals in the world, and therefore those who are not Christian are evil as they lack morals. And there was that whole decades long thing about those "evil, godless commies" that demonized both socialism and atheism, and part of the purpose of atheistic groups is to simply point out that we're not evil and that we infact do actually exist!

You'd be amazed at how many people claim that there is no such thing as an atheist...yourself included.

Newton Joseph

Theists, have an imaginary ideology, that they maintain a relationship with. Sometimes they claim to "Love" God.


DO YOU HAVE A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS?
By Newton Joseph

One thing in common with all Christians they say they have a personal relationship with Jesus. When Christians pray to Jesus they are in effect speaking to Jesus. Christians have been doing this for most of their lives and think nothing of it. However to hear Jesus talk to you --one who is invisible and who aledgidly died two thousand years ago is schizophrenic.

EverLastingGodStopper

Ironically, I also looked up "apologia" and it's defined as "a formal written defense of something you believe in strongly." I had hoped this thread would be about positive (strong) atheism, or perhaps be something along the lines of "The Case Against God." http://www20.brinkster.com/atheology...gainst_god.htm

I would think that in a formal written defense of any position, that words should be used as they are defined.