Theism isn't a belief system, religion, or faith either.

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. are belief systems, with specific ideas about morals, historical figures, etc.

But simply knowing someone is a theist tells you nothing about the details of what they believe, only that their answer to the question of, "Do you believe in (a) god(s)?" is "Yes."

And like theism, atheism isn't a belief system, religion, or faith. Knowing someone is an atheist tells you only that their answer to that same question is "No." Secular humanism, the Quakers, UU, etc. are what you might call atheistic/non-theistic belief systems/religions.

Can we end this silly debate now, once and for all?

But I dunno. :shrug:

because of the pascifism. So to paint anyone who is religious or of a religion (or not) as doing it for any particular reasons and acting in particular ways is wrong.

I think we agree. That painting anyone with a broad brush and ascribing and belittling their reasons for being so - is a falsehood.

Though I think Quakers are often very, very religious.

I am more interested in the notion of the intrinsic vs. the extrinsic people. If you are an atheist, muslim, christian for intrinsic reasons.. rather than for what you can get out of it socially - (be it power, cover for bullying & hate, to fit it, to fit out, etc.) that is what I think the discussion should be about. Though I admit I am again using a broad brush. It is not as if people who are very extroverted don't belong on the planet either or are necessarily wrong.

Again - it all depends on particular actions. Not who the person is.

You dig?

We'd really appreciate it.

Thank you.



edited to remove snark factor

personal.

Comments like:
"I am more interested in" or "what I think the discussion should be about" can be construed as an attempt to hijack the thread.

This is directed to no one in particular. It is just a little free from external thinking. I do so hope that a productive dialog can be had. It is so easy for people to find falt with others. It is ever so much more difficult to try to see past the issues we have with each other and work to get to the things we have in common. Call me a dreamer but I think we all have far more in common than the things we so often struggle over. I don't know. Perhaps if we were not so worried about being hurt or something we wouldn't feel the need to strike back when we believe we have been struck.

I dunno. I just work to find the common ground and try to work my way back to an understanding of where we differ. It works for me.

Sorry for rambling.

I think we're all very much on the same page and on the same side in the war against the Amerikkkan Talibornagain.

But I would like to hear from those who DO disagree with him.

Maybe we can finally agree on a starting point based on mutual respect before this gets any worse.

Something rises to the level of a religion when people deliberately come together in shared appreciation of a shared set of beliefs, rites, or practices. And even within that context it has to rise above a simple level of being a fan.

Theism is typically a idea found within religious groups but it in and of itself does not constitute a religion. Atheism can be part of a religious group. But in and of itself it is not a religion.

Are you saying that an individual who believes in one or more deities is not practicing religion? That it only becomes a religion when some unknown quantity of people come together to share a common belief, rite or practice?

I'm not trying to attack your position, just trying to understand it. I asked this in another thread but it's likely it got lost in the chaff.

Keep in mind that we do not live in a vacuum. A person that comes to believe in a deity typically does not do so within learning of it from someone else. A person sitting there contemplating an unknown deity does not yet constitute a religion. If the person spreads their idea of their deity and it begins to reach others then it begins to collect the attributes to rise to be a religion.

Now if the deity they believe in is part of an existing religion their acceptance of the claims may constitute becoming part of the religion. But the degree of ardor plays a roll in this. There really is a bit of "is it art" thinking present here. Sometimes a group may not hit all the marks and rise to the level of a religion. It may just be a bowling club after all ... so to speak.

You're merely making the technical distinction between theistic belief and religion. Theistic belief is simply the belief that there is at least one deity. Religion is the social pursuit or practice of a particular theistic belief. Yes?

But that is a fair assessment. Theism is just a factor. A single point of belief that can be part of a religious set of beliefs. On it's own it is just a recognition of a singular belief.

You propose that religion can be decoupled from the theistic belief such that an atheist can practice religion?

This I have a problem with because if you decouple religion from theistic belief so as to be inclusive of atheists (those who do not hold a belief in at least one deity) then all you are left with is a gathering together to celebrate or practice shared beliefs.

Since atheist and theist are exclusionary terms, the basis for those shared beliefs can not be the belief in at least one deity. That by default only leaves atheistic beliefs (beliefs that are not based on the belief in at least one deity).

I would say that the practice and celebration (sharing) of atheistic beliefs (again, beliefs not based on the belief in at least one deity) are more properly called community and not religion.

That is to say, religion is a subset of community which includes the theistic belief.

But they do happen. Unitarian Universalism is one such religion. While it's origins may be safely cached in the theistic branch of philosophy it's modern version carries no dogma and no creed concerning god. Theists and Atheists sit together in the pews. Their shared joy of the journey and an appreciation of tolerance being their common focus. They look to religious tradition for wisdom from the past and they look to science and reason to help find their way to the future.

Other groups are neutral to gods. Buddhists make mention of beings and concepts that lend themself to theistic thinking. But it is not required to think of them as real beings. They can be thought of as templates upon which to base one's studies. Tradition refers to them as deities but being adaptable modern Buddhism is not as concerned with the specifics as it is with the ideas.

A group of atheists gathering may simply be a social organization. There seems to be a regularly occurring nature in atheists that those that find the need to gather with other atheists carry with them a negative reaction to the idea of an organized structured with detailed expectations of behaviour. This could simply be the result of many atheists having had negative experiences with religion and rejecting any thing that smells of religion. Or it could be other factors.

But this does not mean that atheists cannot gather together and form a religion. Texas has a church called the Church of Freethought. It is a religion formed around ideas based on atheistic thinking. Secular Humanist organizations despite their attempt to distance itself from religious conotations brush up against the label religion on a regular basis.

However you did not address my points.

Do you agree with these statements?
* A theistic belief is the belief in at least one deity.
* An atheistic belief is any belief not founded on a belief in at least one deity
* Community is the coming together of some arbitrary number of individuals to share common beliefs and work toward common goals
* Religion is a special kind of community that includes a theistic belief

If so, then I am unable to see how an atheist community can also be a religious one (despite what they may call themselves, the legal code may allow or Justice Hugo Black may have written). While I do posit that communities do form which include both theists and atheists (and they are not rare), they can not be construed as being religions.

Lets break them down.

* A theistic belief is the belief in at least one deity.
OK, this one is correct. No arguments here.

* An atheistic belief is any belief not founded on a belief in at least one deity
Here problems start to arise. Atheism is simply the absense of a theistic belief. 'a' meaning without applied to theism. Without a belief in god(s). There can be individuals that have faith that there are no gods. But this is not necissary to be an atheist.

* Community is the coming together of some arbitrary number of individuals to share common beliefs and work toward common goals
Community need not share common beliefs. It does work towards common goals. But the impetus for this need not be shared by the members of the community.

* Religion is a special kind of community that includes a theistic belief
Religion is a specifl kind of community that includes shared beliefs, rites, or practices not necissarily theistic beliefs. These beliefs, rites, or practices are placed before the community as a point of ardor. An emotional dependence if you will upon these particular beliefs, rites, or practices.

We agree that a theistic belief is the belief in at least one deity.

We both agree that an atheistic belief is any belief that does not posit the existence of at least one deity.

But then you say "There can be individuals that have faith that there are no gods. But this is not necissary to be an atheist."

I had made no mention of faith. My statements were only concerned with the belief in at least one deity. Those that believe in at least one deity we label theists, those that do not believe in at least one deity we label atheists.

You said that community does not necessitate shared beliefs but it does necessitate working together toward common goals. I will concede this point. You are correct here.

I state that religion is a special kind of community (a subset of community) that includes all attributes of community plus a theistic belief.

You state that religion is a special kind of community that does require shared beliefs (unlike community) but does not require a theistic belief.

I can not agree with you here. While I agree with your further refinement of community into those communities that do and do not share common beliefs I do not accept that shared common beliefs constitute a religion.

On edit: Running with your definition of religion as a special type of community that shares common goals, beliefs, and rituals, then what do you consider a religion that also requires the theistic belief? By your definition, this is a special type of religion (a subset of religion). I'm just curious as to what you would label such a group.

First let me say that my comment about faith was preemptive and not indicitive of anything that has already been said.

I am also wary of the wording you are using for atheists. Technically correct it may be misleading. A belief that is devoid of any belief in god can be said to be an atheistic belief. But this definition seems different than the one we are agreeing on for the theist. In their case we only deal with the belief of whether there is a god or not. Attendent beliefs do not cloud the matter. An atheist simply does not believe in god(s). I would prefer to leave the statement at that point and address other beliefs as a seperate issue.

I do not believe I have enough understanding of your objection to the definition of religion. It is the shared sense of commitment and emotional strength of reliance on the beliefs, rite, practices that cause a community to rise to the level of a religion.

Let me say this. It is not a pair of sticks bound together in which we find the holy. It is in the interaction between people of shared beliefs and passions that the holy is found. In a broad sense spiritualism could be said to be the shared appreciation of the things that bind us together. This is the thing that binds a group together to become a religion. Whether that shared sense of connectivity is based on a love for a god or a shared sense of humanity does not make a difference. It is the same sense of awe and connectivity. And that is what makes a religion.

:shrug:

Ie trying to find common ground.

Some people refer to a sense of the holy. I am merely trying to show that the same sense of connectivity that those that use such words are found and held in high esteem by others. The labels may make such discussions difficult. Atheists tend to balk at words such as holy or spiritual. But they may in fact be having similar emotional experiences concerning certain events or activities. Rejection of a label does not mean that at the base the same feelings are not being felt.

... important distinctions.

It doesn't seem at all useful, to me, to employ uncommonly broad definitions of words such as "religion" and "holy" in a discussion of what distinguishes theism and atheism.

The result is not increased consensus but a loss of clarity that, it seems to me, leaves no one satisfied. Religionists find their identities reduced to cheap semantics, atheists find themselves lumped in with a group they wish to have no part of.

Baffling.

Its the ardor and emotional aspect that raises the destinction. Its not just a bunch of cynics sitting around grousing about the things they all hate.

Its the combination of beliefs, principles, or practices held in such high esteem that differentiates it from a bowling team or a community of any like minded individuals.

... for the position that atheism is a religion.

I have made a strong(ok this is presumptive on my part, forgive me) case that atheists can form a religion but not that simply being an atheist places one in a religion. It is a very specific difference.

Atheism is not a religion. Period. Atheists can be part of a religion. Atheism can be part of a religious groups tenents. But atheism in and of itself is not a religion.

... an extent that it ceases to be a useful term, for atheists and the religiously-inclined alike.

I am more the willing to change my position if you can point out flaws. I readily admit I am using broad definitions. But broad definitions still are definitions.

Furthermore I find that the interpretations I am using seem to be in agreement with the origins of the words. Religion for example



This seems to eminently agree with my broad use of the word.

I suspect that many words and ideas have become tainted or corrupted by dominant groups. Religion is just such a word. It literally got owned for centuries by a dogmatic group. The trappings and implications of those groups have become associated with the word and the concept. But this does not mean this is as it should be. A group of atheists that gather together to share in their joy of life and their shared understanding of what it means to be connected to one another in this life is as much a religion as the Catholic church is. An atheist sitting on the corner grumbling about all the religious billboards cropping up in town is not a religion.

... day or two.

It's a bit late (in my time zone) for me to rehash it all now. So I'll ask that you review some of our previous conversations, or await a more detailed answer tomorrow.

I will add, though, that I find this statement to be incredibly revolting:



Offensive, really. And quite surprising.

It could use clarification. I suspect based on your reaction that either I did not do a good enough job presenting the idea or there is something you are misinterpretting. We can work it out.

... is irreparably flawed.

NT!

of course it would depend on the type of Buddhism, but Buddhism itself is rather flexible in how it can be adapted to many different beliefs and non-belief. To give an example of Japan, most members of the native religion Shinto are also members of the Buddhist Relgion.

Considering the set of all possible beliefs B, a theistic belief t is the belief in at least one deity. We can therefore posit T as the set of all possible theistic beliefs. T is a subset of B. I would argue that atheism A is the absolute complement of T. Thus A=B-T such that A is the set of all beliefs unconcerned with the existence of at least one deity. The intersection of A with T is the empty set.

My belief that peanut butter and jelly sandwich tastes better if the bread is lightly toasted is an atheistic belief. It is a belief that does not require the existence of at least one deity.

From this I would simply say that a theist is any person who holds a subset of beliefs from both A and a subset of beliefs from T. An atheist is a person who holds only beliefs from A.

If you and I disagree on this then we disagree on a pretty fundamental level. That doesn't change the fact that I have a great deal of respect for you, but it would mean we have wildly divergent worldviews.

But I see the parsing as prone to misinterpretation or manipulation. It is in essence correct and I have no fundamental argument with it.

Because I see your stated positions to be so vague and meaningless that they can not help but be misinterpreted or manipulated.

:P

Yes, I am arguing to crank open the meaning of religion compared to what many here believe it to mean. But I also believe that the precident for this is arleady present in our language, dictionaries, and (IMO) most importantly the origins of the words meanings.

See, I believe that we can not appreciate our commonalities unless we understand AND appreciate that which makes us different. And to do that we must rigorously define it.

would not fall into the category of a religion. It does not rely on the emotional aspect of connectivity and instead makes use of tools such as reason and rational thought. This keeps it removed from religious implications because of a selfimposed stoicism.

For what it is worth I am in agreement with your statement.

If there existed a set of beliefs like liberal causes, or beliefs in the advantages of democracy, then those beliefs could be shared by the set of people who don't believe in god and the set of people who do believe in a god or gods?

I don't buy it. It's theoretically possible, but it never REALLY happens, does it?

To say that a belief "not founded on a belief in at least one deity" simply confuses "founded". Lots of beliefs exist that are not dependent on WHY the individual believes, and therefore one can't attribute "founded" to them.

Two people may believe in human rights, although one believes such rights derived from god and another believes they come from a different source. When someone thanks god for his meal, he is not only believing that the pbj sandwich is tasty, but that it's tastiness is due to an overt act of god. The atheist also believes the sandwich is tasty. Same beliefs, different "foundations."

I think the neutral set consists of those beliefs that are not "there is/is not a god".

That is why the application of definition of atheist and theist tells one nothing of interest about politics or gastronomy.

To refer to the absolute complement of the set T of all beliefs in at least one deity; i.e. the theistic beliefs. The absolute complement would be the set A of all beliefs that do not require at least one deity.

You expect others to apply their critical thinking skills when discussing complex subjects.
:spank:

Gawd forbid that we think critically about complex subjects. Oh wait -- for some people he does! :-)

I agree with the OP, which makes it clear that "relating to or characteristic of atheism or atheists" is, by proper defintion, is no more and no less than a negative response to a question:

"But simply knowing someone is a theist tells you nothing about the details of what they believe, only that their answer to the question of, "Do you believe in (a) god(s)?" is "Yes."

And like theism, atheism isn't a belief system, religion, or faith. Knowing someone is an atheist tells you only that their answer to that same question is "No.""

If knowing someone is an atheist or theist tells you nothing, then there simply isn't anything "relating to or characteristic of atheism" beyond the mere fact of the negative response. "Atheistic" is misleading, implying an "atheistic" that is either more or less than "atheist" or "atheism".

You didn't post enough paragraphs, I want to see how much more mileage you can get out of that one definition.

"That one definition"? "Didn't post enough paragraphs"?

Whatever.

I tried to stay out of this but neither atheists nor bowling clubs can form a religion as it's defined.

I did a quick search and while I detest dictionary fundamentalists, I can find nothing to back up your definition.

Here's one example of what I found:



The search results are here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=iXg&lr=&client=opera&rls=en&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:religion

I share your distress at having to turn to a dictionary but ... well there it is.


From http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/religion



The key issues to my claim are of course the 4th definition and the origin of the word. A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held with ardor and faith. From the word religare which means to tie back or more specifically to gather. A religion is that which gathers people together to share in ardor and appreciation of a particilar set of principles, cause, or system of beliefs.

Sorry, but that's way too broad of a definition to be useful.

Using one vague definition renders the term meaningless.

a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Looks pretty specific to me. I will admit it is open to wide interpretation. But not so wide that we can derive no sense of understanding from it. I find it a rather succinct and accurate definition. It avoids the pitfalls of social hijacking that often can occur. It allows for the multiplicity of belief systems that can arise.

Compared to the multitude of definitions from many different sources that I found by simply Googling it, yes.

Second entry on the list from the people at wikipedia


Sacred means to hold something in high regard. It is quite arguable that that there are a multitude of things that people can hold in high regard that do not require a theistic stance to do so. And as it says "or" the presence of any of those three would suggest that a group could well be a religion. Particularly if they form a set of moral codes and practices based on the things they hold sacred.

It further goes on to throw the door wide open to a seeking of relationship to the universe. And even commenting on how many possible iterations and forms a religion can take.

From the third entry www.modernhumanorigins.com/r.html


Forces that transcend the everyday material world. Sounds like the inter-connective web of life would fit that definition.

Fifth entry from www.carm.net/atheism/terms.htm


Loosely specific system of code of ethics, values and belief. Seems to agree with my position.

Sixth entry from www.csa.com/hottopics/religion/gloss.php


Most... most means specifically not all. And it does seem to acknowledge a broad range of definitions.

Seventh entry from www.albany.edu/sourcebook/app6.html


Self referential. Useless for the purposes of our discussion.

Eighth entry supposedly from Oxford English Dictionary. I will post both it and the entry I found at the actual Oxford site.
From www.ecotao.com/holism/glosoz.htm


From http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&field-12668446=religion&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname


Ninth entry from www.elissetche.org/dico/R.htm


This one seems to clearly side with my open interpretation. Even the sense of sacred can be construed to include matters held in high esteem and do not necessitate divine or theistic positions.

Entry ten from www.summit.org/resource/dictionary/


This one seems to spell it out the best. Can't say I disagree with it at all.

There are entries that do tie religion to specific theistic claims. But I think a careful reading of them all will show that a great deal of latitude is seen in our modern understanding of religion.

"Sacred." "Divine." "Holy." "Deity." "Worship." "Faith." "Supernatural beings." "Supernatural agency." "Controlling power."

Not a lot there that would seem to encompass atheism.

it fit your definition.

The common denominator in almost all of those definitions is that religion is based on spirituality.

And while I'm sure YOUR definition of spirituality is no doubt different than mine, I do not accept that atheists possess that particular quality and therefore, would not be able to form a religion based on it.

But they are still definitions.

Let me ask you this. How do you feel when you are with a group of people that you share a large number of positions with and have little to no anxiety being around? That is a sense of connectivity. It is quite comfortable for some. It is that which many call their sense of spirituality. It's nothing magical. It is just a sense of belonging and acceptance. Its an emotion.

That is what a religion is about. Taking that sense of connectivity and promoting it. Creating a group specifically for the promotion of that sense. Some people call it spirituality. And of course the word has become entwined with the explanations that arise to clarify what their sense of connectity is about. Gods, souls, and all manner of explanations are given. Doesn't mean they are right. Doesn't mean the sense of connectivity is any less meaningful.

If it's just with one person, I call it chemistry.

I don't consider it spiritual when a song raises the hair on the back of my neck.

I call it an overwhelming appreciation of beautiful music.

I don't attribute any of those feelings to spirituality.

I don't have to in order to appreciate them.

I am not one to use the word spirituality to describe my sense of well being around others of a like mind. But this does not mean that it is not the same sense of emotion and connectivity a believer feels when they are with others of their kind.

What I am trying to say is that it is not the notion that it is a spirit or soul that creates meaning for the believers. It is the active experience of that sense of connectivity. They have attributed it various things such as souls and such. But it is the essence of the experience that gives it the primacy and impact.

Because I think what they feel has to do with a spiritual belief, not just a sense of shared emotion.

That reminds me of the question that we get asked by believers; "How can you appreciate beauty if you're a materialist?".

I can appreciate all of those things, with or without other atheists, and still not feel it necessary to equate it with religion.

You are confusing the belief with the believer with the motivation for belief with the neurochemical and biological byproducts of experience affirming belief. You may be doing this on purpose so as to blur the distinctions that some would use to divide us, but I just don't see it as helpful. Sorry.

:P

:-)

I was always hot for Spock while my friends preferred Kirk.
:evilgrin:

I will grant that. People do not come equipped with devices to tell them the cause of experiences. They are left to their own means to determine what is at cause for them.

Have you ever sat in a room with a group of praying Muslims? Or perhaps a Baptist revival. Few things could be procedurally opposite. Yet both of these can create in people (even nonbelievers) a tremendous sense of impact.

We are social creatures. Part of what makes us tick is working together as a group. Cohesion is an aspect of that. Thus we seem to be wired to take note of actions which the herd is partaking in. A tremendous drive to move with the group comes from our basic instincts. It is this that the praying Muslims or the jubilant Baptists tap into.

It is this that gives them a sense of realness to their particular beliefs. It is this which gives them the conviction that exemplifies their particular beliefs.

It is this sort of shared experience and group mind that I suspect defines a religion. And as all things real it has shades of grey. The only clear boundaries being at the extremes.

Perhaps religion is difficult to identify because it is an arbitrary attempt to place a mark on this natural gradient of our social nature. Somewhere between the total indifference of a sociopath and the total overwhelming sense of connection of a self proclaimed prophet lies the point of demarcation.

(I forgot what it's called-no disrespect meant).

I felt embarrassed to be witnessing something so personal and so alien to me.

That, to me, is religion.

And an atheist can never experience that with other atheists because we lack belief in whatever it is that causes that.

I'm as romantic and sentimental as the next person (well, maybe not Sal), but religion I cannot do.

That is the ardor I am speaking of. Raising the issues and shared beliefs to a sufficiently high level. The shakers and rollers are an extreme. The question is where does the other end of the spectrum lie.

It's not just the ideas and beliefs that a group shares. It has to be taken into consideration what level of emotional import they have to the group. Thus most atheists groups simply will not rise to that level. We just don't get that excited about our situation.

It's impossible to experience that without some sort of spiritual belief.

We've got nothing.

Religion is their gig, and I'm happy for them, but I don't feel like I'm missing a thing.

First of all, I have both sat in a room with a group of praying Muslims and attended a Baptist revival, as well as Catholic masses, Quaker get togethers (don't know what to call it) and other mainstream religious services. None of them as a believer, but there to support my friends. If you are implying that as a hardcore materialist that I couldn't possibly understand what you're talking about, then you've picked the wrong person to try and foist that nonsense on.

Trying to understand and draw communion from religious beliefs is great. But if you're going to understand religion then you have to draw boundaries, you have to define what you are trying to understand first.

You are doing more than making assumptions, you are mashing together assumptions, observations, and conjecture. You are confusing biology, psychology, social psychology and sociology. Because you are not testing it in any way, because you have no way of comparing it to reality independent of your own beliefs then what you end up with is at best poetry and Depak Chopra drivel at worst.

We agree that it is best to move forward from our commonalities and we should seek to find those commonalities wherever we can, but I feel that your way trivializes the beliefs of religious and atheist alike.

I did not claim the things you seem to be trying to say I did. At least they were not my intent.

I am trying to say that the emotional component of these events form part of the necissary aspect of the religion. Without that furvor it is just a group of like minded individuals.

The point of that post was simply to show and demonstrate emotional aspects of various religions. Not to draw any mystical Depak Chopra esque meaning from them.

It would be a rare group of atheists indeed that rise to the emotional level to temper their shared beliefs into a religion. I cannot think of one right now. So it is not my claim that an organized group of atheists constitutes a religion. There simply is not enough ardor present.

It is the emotional aspect that is the fire that turns a collection of beliefs, principles or ideas into a religion. Without it you just have a community.

We were talking about beliefs and which groups of people hold them. It's fine to say that emotional intensity is a part of religion but you are saying it is the defining part regardless of beliefs (or lack thereof).

I have an incredible emotional intensity towards the progressive rock group Yes' album Drama. Under your definition of religion, if I hook up with a group of like-minded people who also experience intense emotions when listening to Drama and we also partake of the ritual playing of the album then this constitutes a religion. With or without the machine messiah.

Let me say that I am not asserting these issues. This is exploration. Testing limits.

So let us see if we can figure out what about a band fan club does not set it up as a religion.

First off why is it not a religion? Or rather is it conceivable that a group of individuals could be so taken with a particilar style performance or musician that it may rise to religious portent? Consider some of the fans of Elvis. It is not too far a leap to see them as worshipping Elvis.

Admittedly it would require a fanaticism of extreme intensity to rise to a level of religion. But it does seem to be possible.

1) Exploration of ideas is cool. I like that. But it really, really, *really* sounds as if you are making assertions. That's not cool because it undermines the assertion that we've all been trying to make the last few weeks, that trotsky is making at the start of this thread and that I am making in my set theory example. That whether a person is a theist or an atheist only tells you one thing about them -- whether they believe in at least one deity (or not). That is the only nugget of knowledge you can extract from the statement "I am an atheist" or "I am a theist".

2) Your band club example is meaningless because we have yet to come to a mutually acceptable definition of religion. And once again, even if you did not intend it, you are making an assertion albeit an implict one.
Contained therein is the assumption that some people can worship Elvis as well as the implicit assertion that religion has anything to do with the non-theistic.

How do you mean that term 'worship'? The meaning of reverance for a deity or the practice of religion or extravagant respect/devotion to an object or person? Many religious people would find the latter definition to be blasphemous. And there is the crux of the problem. You are playing fast and loose with vaguely defined words of which can be twisted to mean whatever is convenient. Some people of which we have experience at DU do this out of bigotry, but if we do so it is intellectually dishonest. Until we have nontransitive definitions of our terms, it is also pointless.

Guy, it is nearly 3AM here so I need to turn in. I suspect that you and I have two very different modes of thinking about the world. Using Myers-Briggs terminiology (for what it's worth, I'm well aware of the valid criticisms of the MBTI, used for illustrative purposes only), I'm an IN type and you seem to be a ES type. We're going to take two very different paths on this but I would urge you to clearly delineate your assertions from your speculation. I'd also urge you to keep the message as simple as possible. "The only thing you can tell about an atheist is they don't believe in a god." I think we all (us atheists) agree on that and the fact that theists so often conflate our lack of belief in a god with issues ranging from morality to psychological well-being should move us to make that simple assertion the cornerstone of our message. The single most important thing for theists to understand about atheists.

And I do appologise if I shifted from assertive mode to exploratory mode and did not make it clear enough. But I do suspect that there is an idea here that bares examination.

That is PERFECT!

Ok, what happened to Bart and the chalk board. Beautiful.

I don't see how anybody can disagree with you.

I'm saving your op for future reference.

Sorry, trotsky, we hijacked the HELL out of this thread.

But look on the bright side, no flames or deleted posts yet.

I think it's very illustrative in its own way - if atheists themselves can't even agree on what a religion is, how can we constitute our own religion???

We're harder to herd than Democrats.

And one that makes your argument re: Atheism's non-faith status the most clear. Kudos!

The only thing that you may want to look at is the Quaker's status as believers in non-deities. I don't think that's true. (Although there is a nontheistfriends.org site where those who don't believe in God can convene and follow the Society of Friends beliefs.) But, individual beliefs (much like UU) are diverse, and many are, actually Theist.

Anyhow, here's an interesting site re: Quakers and their history:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/quaker.htm