Athiesm & Non Religious

[Malus 12:9]

This is for maybe explaining my answer to the Katzperson's poll.

What is the difference between athiesm and just not being religious?

 

[michel]

This is for maybe explaining my answer to the Katzperson's poll.

What is the difference between athiesm and just not being religious?

Malus, you are pulling our leg ?
Atheistne who believes that there is no deity.
Religiousf, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances.

Basically, you can disect 'religious' as much as you like, but it always seems to come down to the belief in one or more deities.

That's your difference. BUT

Have a look at http://www.cavillconnections.co.uk/religion.htm

 

[nutshell]

Maybe a better question is what's the difference between religious and spiritual.

 

[Valjean]

There are millions of devoutly religious Buddhist atheists.

How are you defining "religion" malus, and what is your understanding of atheism and its relation to religion?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Basically, you can disect 'religious' as much as you like, but it always seems to come down to the belief in one or more deities.

So, you've disected Daoism, Pantheism, religious humanism, and religious naturalism and decided that they have no right to be termed "religious"? How could you participate in these forums for so long and still arive at such a conclusion?

 

[Katzpur]

So, you've disected Daoism, Pantheism, religious humanism, and religious naturalism and decided that they have no right to be termed "religious"? How could you participate in these forums for so long and still arive at such a conclusion?

I think that we theists are so used to thinking inside the box that we just don't stop to consider other points of view. When I started my poll, I tried to think of every conceivable combination of words to cover all of the "possibilities," and ended up omitting a whole bunch of them. I can understand quite easily how someone could be spiritual and yet not religious. I know many such people. But I really don't see how there could be many "devoutly religious Buddhist atheists." I think the whole thing gets down to how we're defining our terms. I have a hard time separating the word "spiritual" from a belief in a higher power. By "higher power," I don't necessarily mean the Christian God. This power could just as easily be polytheistic or pantheistic. But I don't see how an atheist could be devoutly religious. I've always been of the opinion than humanists specifically rejected the idea of a higher power. Now I'm starting to wonder. If you could explain (ideally without excessive sarcasm ) it would be much appreciated. I'm entirely open to learning something new.

 

[Katzpur]

This is for maybe explaining my answer to the Katzperson's poll.

What is the difference between athiesm and just not being religious?

I think a lot of people who believe in the existence of God are neither religious nor spiritual.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have a hard time separating the word "spiritual" from a belief in a higher power. By "higher power," I don't necessarily mean the Christian God. This power could just as easily be polytheistic or pantheistic. But I don't see how an atheist could be devoutly religious. I've always been of the opinion than humanists specifically rejected the idea of a higher power. Now I'm starting to wonder. If you could explain (ideally without excessive sarcasm ) it would be much appreciated. I'm entirely open to learning something new.

Perhaps we can reopen the topic in another thread, but the issue is really rather basic: I do not have a hard time separating the word "spiritual" (or religious) from a belief in a higher power.

 

[Fluffy]

I define a religion to be any system which involves a belief for something that has not been percieved with the five senses.

Atheism is not a religion in my book.

 

[Valjean]

I define a religion to be any system which involves a belief for something that has not been percieved with the five senses.

Atheism is not a religion in my book.

So a belief in radio, bacteria or X-rays qualifies as a religion?

 

[Engyo]

But I really don't see how there could be many "devoutly religious Buddhist atheists." I think the whole thing gets down to how we're defining our terms. I have a hard time separating the word "spiritual" from a belief in a higher power. By "higher power," I don't necessarily mean the Christian God. This power could just as easily be polytheistic or pantheistic. But I don't see how an atheist could be devoutly religious. I've always been of the opinion than humanists specifically rejected the idea of a higher power. Now I'm starting to wonder. If you could explain (ideally without excessive sarcasm ) it would be much appreciated. I'm entirely open to learning something new.

I agree it is about defining what you mean by "higher power". For most Buddhists, this consists of a (series of) law(s) or principle(s), which is(are) the basic operating system upon which life "runs". There is no personality involved; there is no thing or entity to which one can appeal. There is only the way life works. The more closely attuned to this operating system your actual day-to-day life is, the less "friction" you generate. Friction in this case is defined as suffering (in all of its myriad forms). When one has completely and absolutely attuned onesself to this, one has attained enlightenment. No friction, no suffering.

If you want to call this law or principle a higher power, I guess you could do so. I don't like to, because that terminology gives an image of some other entity, which has some sort of volition one way or the other. In this case, it is purely about function; there is no volition involved. No "one" is making any sort of decisions to one side or another; there is no appeal process. The law or principle underlies the workings of all life, from the tiniest microbe, to life as yet undiscovered by humans.

All of the trappings of Buddhism are "expedient means" to help us dispel our illusions, and bring our ways of life into line with, or harmony with, the basic operating system of all life. There is no need for, or possibility of, an outside arbiter or a governing entity, to bend the rule(s) or the operation in our favor. We are the ones with the volition, the free will, the power of choice to make the necessary changes. It's all on each of us, as an individual, to save ourselves. No one CAN (let alone will) do it for us; we ourselves have the power to save ourselves alone. I can't save you, you can't save me. I can assist you, but you must do the work for yourself.

 

[Fluffy]

So a belief in radio, bacteria or X-rays qualifies as a religion?

If one had no way of experiencing these things via the five senses (we do so the point is moot) then this would certainly be a belief.

However, I would put emphasis on the word "system" in my definition. Believing in a god and nothing much else wouldn't really be a religion either. However, what is the difference, in the abscence of all evidence, between believing in a religion that dictates certain morals, because of the absolute nature of its god, and believing that cleaning ones food will keep one healthy even though the bacteria that formulate the basis of such a belief (like the god in the other example) is not experienceable.

 

[westifer]

I define religion as worshiping something.