quote:

Odd that no one has yet observed that calling for the destruction of Islamic State (IS) is a flagrant contravention of the freedom of religion provisions of the Constitution. My guess is that there is a feeling IS doesn't qualify as a 'real' religion, it's really a perversion of Islam ....... and so it doesn't count.

Strange that atheism is said to constitute a religion while IS doesn't ......

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

In what way is it a non sequitur, RO?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

So, in the exchange below ...

TheHeretic: Agnostics might get a pass, but ultimately, atheism is just as faith-based as any deistic ideology.

MusicMystery: Really. So is not believing in fairies a religion as well? And not believing in monsters under the bed?

... You'd be with TheHeretic, as MM sees it? Not believing in fairies, for instance, is a belief in the exactly the same sense as believing in fairies?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

So, in the exchange below ...

TheHeretic: Agnostics might get a pass, but ultimately, atheism is just as faith-based as any deistic ideology.

MusicMystery: Really. So is not believing in fairies a religion as well? And not believing in monsters under the bed?

... You'd be with TheHeretic, as MM sees it? Not believing in fairies, for instance, is a belief in the exactly the same sense as believing in fairies?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Odd that no one has yet observed that calling for the destruction of Islamic State (IS) is a flagrant contravention of the freedom of religion provisions of the Constitution. My guess is that there is a feeling IS doesn't qualify as a 'real' religion, it's really a perversion of Islam ....... and so it doesn't count.

Strange that atheism is said to constitute a religion while IS doesn't ......

I don't get this. The U.S. Constitution doesn't apply outside of the U.S. and its borders. Even if it did, I'm pretty sure that "Freedom of Religion" doesn't grant people the right to behead people or commit mass killings (one person's rights end where the next person's rights begin). I pretty sure you know all of that already so what is your point exactly? I mean, I get that you're being sarcastic - I just don't see where it's going. Is there someone around here who is defending IS's "right" to murder based upon religions freedom grounds? If there is, I missed it.

ETA: it is still early in the morning and the caffeine hasn't kicked in yet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

So, in the exchange below ...

TheHeretic: Agnostics might get a pass, but ultimately, atheism is just as faith-based as any deistic ideology.

MusicMystery: Really. So is not believing in fairies a religion as well? And not believing in monsters under the bed?

... You'd be with TheHeretic, as MM sees it? Not believing in fairies, for instance, is a belief in the exactly the same sense as believing in fairies?

Reading comprehension really sucks in this forum.

Obvious no -- which is why I raised the point.

Sorry rhetorical questions are a stretch for some.

That lack of belief = belief is preposterous, absurd, contradictory and contrived nonsense.

If you think dragons do not roam the earth, it's not a "religion." If you don't think vitamin C will make you taller, it's not a "religion." If you don't think dogs can fly, it's not a "religion." And if you don't think there's an old man with a long beard floating on a cloud, it's not a "religion" either.

Only the religious need to pretend otherwise, so they can make believe they are comparing apples to apples on a level logical playing field. They aren't. I've no problem with religion per se (and have spiritual beliefs), but religious belief and not thinking something is true are apples and oranges, not shades of the same tone.

That this could even be a topic for conversation shows how backwards we have become intellectually as a society.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

So, in the exchange below ...

TheHeretic: Agnostics might get a pass, but ultimately, atheism is just as faith-based as any deistic ideology.

MusicMystery: Really. So is not believing in fairies a religion as well? And not believing in monsters under the bed?

... You'd be with TheHeretic, as MM sees it? Not believing in fairies, for instance, is a belief in the exactly the same sense as believing in fairies?

Reading this exchange, I'm seeing that the word "believe" might be a bit problematic. To some extent, RO has a point in that everyone believes in something. I can say that I believe the sun will rise in the morning and I'll be alive tomorrow, but I won't really know for certain until tomorrow. But even that may not be a "belief" as much as a reasoned estimate and prediction based on known phenomena, allowing for some measure of variation and possibility of some unexpected (but physically possible) event taking place. Some might say they believe in themselves, or they might believe in their favorite sports team. The word "believe" gets tossed around quite a bit. Just like the opening line in The Godfather: "I believe in America."

I tend to identify more as agnostic. I won't really quibble over the differences between "atheist" and "agnostic," although in discussions like this, I find that the term "atheist" might tend to have a bit more political baggage which it gets associated with.

quote:

Lack of belief can only exist in the form of "no thought" process what so ever on the subject.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
The Western custom of neatly separating politics and religion is the platform that enables 'freedom of religion' and the many privileges that religions enjoy in the West. Is it to anyone's advantage to have this distinction further erased? Or has the line been so blurred already that the distinction no longer is relevant? (In which case, we need to rethink the whole concept of freedom of religion.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Lack of belief can only exist in the form of "no thought" process what so ever on the subject.

I think you're getting closer to the nub of it there, RO. But the big difference is that religious people generally put psychic energy into their religious beliefs. People who aren't religious generally don't. I don't go around 'disbelieving' in God, in exactly the same way that I don't go around 'disbelieving' in magic fairies - and for these reasons I never have a desire to go to any 'church of non-religious-belief'. Such thoughts, and any feelings that go with them, don't occupy me. Disbelief and non-belief are not the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Perhaps the example of IS is a tad mischevious, but often the extreme example makes the point clearer. One could substitute many other beliefs/movements in IS's place -the 'Rev' Jim Jones deluded movement, who persuaded all those poor misguided individuals to suicide in Jonestown is one that springs to mind. Or Hamas or Hezbollah or ......... In fact, any group or movement that straddles or blurs the line separating politics and religion will suffice.

So the point of it all is this: If we are going to apply the status of religion to any movement or set of beliefs on political grounds, are we going to assign all the rights and benefits normally (and many argue wrongly) offered to religions as well? Have people really thought through the consequences of such actions? If we are, does a group such as IS qualify? And who is to decide who qualifies and who doesn't?

The Western custom of neatly separating politics and religion is the platform that enables 'freedom of religion' and the many privileges that religions enjoy in the West. Is it to anyone's advantage to have this distinction further erased? Or has the line been so blurred already that the distinction no longer is relevant? (In which case, we need to rethink the whole concept of freedom of religion.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Lack of belief can only exist in the form of "no thought" process what so ever on the subject.

I think you're getting closer to the nub of it there, RO. But the big difference is that religious people generally put psychic energy into their religious beliefs. People who aren't religious generally don't. I don't go around 'disbelieving' in God, in exactly the same way that I don't go around 'disbelieving' in magic fairies - and for these reasons I never have a desire to go to any 'church of non-religious-belief'. Such thoughts, and any feelings that go with them, don't occupy me. Disbelief and non-belief are not the same.

Here again, the use of the term people who arent religious does not fit the elemental formula of the way beliefs leading to actions are processed in the human mind.

There may be some distinction between disbelief and non-belief, however it goes full circle and comes right back around to the fact that both required a "thought process" combined with the "will to action" as you said.

I suppose if someone lived on and island and was questioned and said "huh? I have no clue what are you talking about" (hence no conscious choice) some variant of no belief might apply, however I also think it would better fall under no knowledge at that point.

Otherwise lots of people regardless of how they label themselves on the religious issues really do not know what the arguments are or the depths of examination required to sort it out.

quote:

To try and explain that, I'll use Peon's idea.....
For Magic Faeries, I have a disbelief in. I have read about them, how they are supposed to exist, and I even followed the story of the Cottingly fairies (a hoax). For a disbelief, I just don't think about it on a day-to-day basis. Thought process completed and idea discarded and usually doesn't surface until someone happens to mention it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Lack of belief can only exist in the form of "no thought" process what so ever on the subject.

I think you're getting closer to the nub of it there, RO. But the big difference is that religious people generally put psychic energy into their religious beliefs. People who aren't religious generally don't. I don't go around 'disbelieving' in God, in exactly the same way that I don't go around 'disbelieving' in magic fairies - and for these reasons I never have a desire to go to any 'church of non-religious-belief'. Such thoughts, and any feelings that go with them, don't occupy me. Disbelief and non-belief are not the same.

Here again, the use of the term people who arent religious does not fit the elemental formula of the way beliefs leading to actions are processed in the human mind.

There may be some distinction between disbelief and non-belief, however it goes full circle and comes right back around to the fact that both required a "thought process" combined with the "will to action" as you said.

I suppose if someone lived on and island and was questioned and said "huh? I have no clue what are you talking about" (hence no conscious choice) some variant of no belief might apply, however I also think it would better fall under no knowledge at that point.

Otherwise lots of people regardless of how they label themselves on the religious issues really do not know what the arguments are or the depths of examination required to sort it out.

I disagree RO.
I think there is a fundamental difference between disbelief and non-belief even though there are both arrived at by a 'thought process'.

To try and explain that, I'll use Peon's idea.....
For Magic Faeries, I have a disbelief in. I have read about them, how they are supposed to exist, and I even followed the story of the Cottingly fairies (a hoax). For a disbelief, I just don't think about it on a day-to-day basis. Thought process completed and idea discarded and usually doesn't surface until someone happens to mention it.

For a non-belief, I do actually have a vehement, vociferous and daily thought process.
I disbelieve in god, as in, the imaginary omnipotent being somewhere up in the sky. I acknowledge that there was a man named Jesus living somewhere in the Middle East; but that he was a son of god, or some sort of prophet, I firmly do not believe in. In that sense, I could be labelled as an Atheist.
I do have a belief system but it is not based upon an omnipotent being somewhere or some person named in ancient scriptures.
The point here is that I think of this daily and at any point other people mention religion or god anything similar. My brain actively kicks-in to opposition.

I suppose the essential difference is, at least to me, one is actively not believing and the other is really passive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

To try and explain that, I'll use Peon's idea.....
For Magic Faeries, I have a disbelief in. I have read about them, how they are supposed to exist, and I even followed the story of the Cottingly fairies (a hoax). For a disbelief, I just don't think about it on a day-to-day basis. Thought process completed and idea discarded and usually doesn't surface until someone happens to mention it.

I'd go one further, FD. Suppose I were tell you that I believe in a God who is a giant plate of cod and chips. Let's call Him "Codchips". You haven't thought about this before now. Nor had I, before just writing it here. Do you believe in Codchips? I'm assuming that you, like I, if only for a split second, before arriving at the conclusion that Codchips doesn't exist. So does that make you and I disbelievers in Codchips, or non-Believers?

Obviously, a silly example, though deliberately so. Christianity has a lot of things going for it - not least, millions of believers over two thousand years - but I can't see how such things have a bearing on the logic that RealOne was presenting.