EverLastingGodStopper

We're dealing with a person who joins communities for the sole purpose of railing against them.

Last time I saw him on a board, he was saying stuff like this:
Source: http://www.atheistnetwork.com/module...ndicantatheist


I am sharing this with you here at IIDB because you should know... I mean, I have interacted with this person both online and offline; he's not here to make atheist friends or build atheist community.

I enjoy a good debate, I like seeing various points of view on many subjects. But when the person you are engaged with refuses to accept fundamental truths, such as word definitions, the discussion is pointless.

Any Mod can PM me at any time for more information, because I am backspacing like crazy, trying to share what I know without breaking any rules of the board.

Tom Sawyer

Actually, you are wrong here. Religion means the belief and worship of the supernatural. It may be that it had a different definition in the past, but that's not what the word means now. It's like if you say that a guy is gay - you are saying that he is a homosexual. You may have meant it to mean that the guy is happy, but everyone listening to you will assume that you are saying that the guy is a homosexual, since that is what the word means. If you don't like that then use another word, since the definition of the word has changed from it's original meaning.

It's the same thing with religion. The definition today involves the supernatural. If you're going to use the word with it having a meaning that does not involve the supernatural, then you are misusing the word and should pick another one - I'd suggest something like ideology. When you use the word religion, your sentences are akin to saying "the glass dropped the spoon" to mean "I'm going for a drive". It makes sense if you define the words to mean something other than everyone else accepts their meaning as, but it won't make sense to anyone else since you're using the language incorrectly.

To your other point, I agree that most atheist organizations are a bit pathetic when compared to religious organizations. That's becase the only thing binding us together is what we aren't, as opposed to what we are. With no central definition of what the organization is about, there's no consistency about its purpose from person to person, so you just get a big clusterfuck. If you want to join an organization that is for something, then there are many of them out there for you to choose from amongst your other interests apart from lack of religion.

Yggdrasill

usartist, you are using a very uncommon (if not unique) definition of religion, so when an atheist says he/she doesn't have a religion, just remember that the atheist is using the normal definition of a religion, so the atheist is correct, insofar that the atheist is not a part of a god-believing organisation with a fixed set of rites, beliefs, etc.

The atheist will probably agree to having a religion if you tell the atheist of your definition. But mixing the definitions is not allowable, you couldn't say: "There! You have a religion! You believe in god!", because that is not a part of the definition you agreed to use. Your definition of religion is so nebulous that would make discussing whether or not someone has a religion like talking about whether or not someone (who is alive) has a nervous system.

Mentalepsy

I thought usartist had left. Then I disappear for a few days, and when I return he's back at it.

In case I've missed the big moment, has he yet made it clear, on any thread on this board, why it is so critically important that we all accept his definition of "religion-" a definition that is so esoteric and so broadly inclusive as to be essentially useless? Or why the formation of "atheist churches" is likewise important?

King Rat

He hasn't decided yet if his computer is secular or not...

Not to my satisfaction. It seems terribly important to him, I hope he figures it out.

Eudaimonist

Perhaps instead it's because atheists are bound together by nothing except a lack of belief in divine beings? That leaves plenty of philosophical diversity, and perhaps not enough common ground to form a ideology that provides group cohesion. I personally am of the view that secular groups should be far more specific about their worldview and values, such as what happens among secular humanists, objectivists, and eudaimonists. A shared ethics or spirituality (a shared vision) is probably necessary to get the kind of dedication that leads to long lasting groups.

Also, I think you underestimate just how difficult it is to attract atheists to a group by declaring that it is a "religion". Try contacting members of atheist organizations with your intent to start an "atheist religion", and see how far you get. The vast majority of atheists -- perhaps all -- would be repelled by this label. I don't see why you think this word contains some sort of magic to motivate atheists to join and stay with an organization.

usartist

Exactly, but the leaders of the organizers cannot do that as of yet, because they are so desperate for membership. And if they do set a more dfinite and descriminate agendga it begins to loose its "secular agenda."

So, the solution is for atheists to recognize that atheist groups are religions. Because as long as atheists harbor resentment towards the word "religion," the organizations suffer.

From what I understand most theists would agree that atheist organizations are religions. And this is somewhat confirmed by internet search engines categorizing "atheism" as a "religion." And, when someone asks you what your religion is they are not going to understand what you are talking about until you tell them you are an atheist.

usartist

Who are you to say what is a fundamental truth?

What makes you an expert on the subject of religion. What are your credentials?

Mat Wilder

How can you have an agenda if you have no committments to anything?


Why do we need atheist groups? What's wrong with more narrowly defined groups, if they work better?

EverLastingGodStopper

www.onelook.com
For purposes of a message board discussion, I rely on the dictionary as my final authority on the definitions of words.