Why has religion retained its appeal?

[RootsBooster]

Why is your example relevant in any way?

 

Neither claim is validated because someone believes in it or not, it doesn't matter what a witch, wizard, atheist or religious person says.

 

From past experience I can tell you now, Danot does not understand like for like comparisons and has a tendency to expand upon variables that were never asserted in the first place.

[danot]

From past experience I can tell you now, Danot does not understand like for like comparisons and has a tendency to expand upon variables that were never asserted in the first place.

Just like Robin has done below you mean? Perhaps you didn't notice it?

 

The fact that the terms atheism and religion exist does absolutely nothing to validate either claim.

 

Does the fact that the the term wizard and witch exist mean that either of those claims are validated?

[Robin-H]

Just like Robin has done below you mean? Perhaps you didn't notice it?

 

I was using an analogy to explain that the premise that just because a term for things exist, it doesn't validate them.

 

Do you think it does?

[RootsBooster]

Just like Robin has done below you mean? Perhaps you didn't notice it?

 

What are you talking about?

[danot]

Why is your example relevant in any way?

 

Neither claim is validated because someone believes in it or not, it doesn't matter what a witch, wizard, atheist or religious person says.

I feel It's quite relevant to the point made by dutch. Whereas you obviously feel it's not relevant to your opinion of that point. Difference.

[Robin-H]

I feel It's quite relevant to the point made by dutch. Whereas you obviously feel it's not relevant to your opinion of that point. Difference.

 

You asked me why I felt that the existence of the words atheism and religion does nothing to validate either claim. I explained by giving an example that just because a word for something exists, it of course does not follow that the thing has to exist (obviously). The fact that someone believes in something or not does not validate or invalidate the claim either.

 

I answered your question. If I misunderstood and you were asking something else in relation to what dutch has said, then perhaps you'd care to rephrase the question.

[danot]

What are you talking about?

 

Robin used examples that were not like for like and the wizard and witches comparison had nothing whatsoever to do with my initial example. I even emboldened it for you. Didn't you notice?

 

---------- Post added 07-08-2018 at 21:57 ----------

 

You asked me why I felt that the existence of the words atheism and religion does nothing to validate either claim. I explained by giving an example that just because a word for something exists, it of course does not follow that the thing has to exist (obviously). The fact that someone believes in something or not does not validate or invalidate the claim either.

 

I answered your question. If I misunderstood and you were asking something else in relation to what dutch has said, then perhaps you'd care to rephrase the question.

To be clear. I was referring to the point made by dutch- Atheism is religious, although, my personal take on that is he/she meant the position is God related.

[Cyclone]

There is attachment, the non cyclist says there is a bicycle but I refuse to get on it.

When that attachment is gone that person is neither a cyclist or non cyclist. They can then cycle or walk without identifying with the bicycle, it is a greater freedom than the cyclist who can't walk or the non cyclist who can't cycle. Any form of attachment to religion takes the freedom away. Rejection is also a form of attachment.

Edit, it may be a negative attachment but if I force you to believe in God you will be clearly attached to the issue.

 

This is just nonsense.

 

Your claiming that despite cycling someone isn't a cyclist. And that despite not cycling they aren't a non cyclist.

You're having to redefine how English works in order to try to force a lack of belief in gods to mean that someone believes in gods.

 

---------- Post added 08-08-2018 at 08:55 ----------

 

RootsBooster. An atheist is religious. Take away religion and he cannot be an atheist. Bring back religion and he can be an atheist again. He is not free.

 

An atheist is religious in the same way that a vegetarian is a carnivore.

 

---------- Post added 08-08-2018 at 08:57 ----------

 

Perhaps not believing in magic also means that you believe in magic?

And not believing in fairies means that you believe in fairies?

 

Perhaps dutch doesn't believe that he's talking rubbish, which actually means he believes he's talking rubbish.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Cyclone

[Robin-H]

Robin used examples that were not like for like and the wizard and witches comparison had nothing whatsoever to do with my initial example. I even emboldened it for you. Didn't you notice?

 

---------- Post added 07-08-2018 at 21:57 ----------

 

To be clear. I was referring to the point made by dutch- Atheism is religious, although, my personal take on that is he/she meant the position is God related.

 

Perhaps you’d care to expand on that a bit. It still makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

An atheist is an a-theist. It is an absense of belief in gods or deities. To be religious you have a belief in a god or deity. In what possible way is an atheist religious.

[dutch]

Why does not cycling have to be a choice? Millions of people get up every day and don't cycle, without the option even entering their minds. Because not cycling is the default state when someone gets up in a morning, they're already not cycling.

Take away all the bikes and everyone's not cycling.

 

Just like I was born without theistic beliefs and remained that way, it wasn't a choice.

The funny thing about your claim is that the word 'atheism' literally means without theism, that's what the 'a' prefix means, sans. So without theism, everyone is literally an atheist! There just probably wouldn't be a word for it (which I think is what you're inadvertently basing your argument on).

 

Ignoring all this for a second and pretending that atheism does have to be a choice, how does that make it a religion? If I choose not to wear a hat, is non hat wearing also a religion?

 

You are referring to the innocent beauty of a child after birth. Do you call a newborn baby an atheist? I don't think so.

The literal meaning of the word atheist, does it also apply to animals, trees, flowers? Are they atheist too?

 

Waking up from the unconscious mind is a process. A baby is born, it has no education, it does not yet identify with mind, in its unawareness it is in touch with the universal consciousness but the child is not aware of this.

The child starts slowly to become aware, it is obsessed with the world around and wants to learn. After the child starts to walk and talk the parents and society try to pump loads of information filling that child's brain with all sorts of educational and social knowledge. As soon as that happens we start to become disconnected from consciousness and start to focus on our brain mind processing this information.

Now religion comes knocking on the door saying, hey you got a problem? feeling separated from god? don't worry we fix it for you.

Or it doesn't come knocking but then the child stays in complete unconscious ignorance of the existence of religion, this void from religion did not come from some intelligent insight or understanding. In order to be consciously free from religion you first need to learn what it is.

 

Dropping religion does not need to be a choice. It can drop by itself through understanding and pure natural insight seeing what it is. Not from ignorance not knowing what religion is.

 

The unconscious atheist not thinking about it lives a happy life unaware of what is out there.

The conscious atheist not thinking about it lives a happy life knowing what religion is, and dropped it out of being fully aware seeing, fully understanding what religion is.

 

Some atheism comes out of fear, being frightened about it, not understanding it, even looking at it can induce horrible painful feelings. many twisted emotions break to the surface even thinking about it.

I'm sorry but this is not living. This atheist has changed into a frightened stressed conflict deep inside themselves. This atheism did not come from some joyful deep insightful understanding.

Edited August 8, 2018 by dutch