That or Peter, James and Paul had visions of an angel they called Jesus who they thought was crucified by the devil in the firmament, and the next generation turned that into a historical narrative. — Marchesk

Interesting. Where did you find this hypothesis?

Christians and Muslims have yet to progress away from their immoral thinking. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I would say that the muslims are even more backwards than christians. Christianity today is just a new pantheon religion, but a pantheon of interpretations of God.

but a pantheon of interpretations of God. — Gus Lamarch

I agree. 3,000 gods and counting, while none admit that a genocidal god id a prick of a god.

Fascist like genocide..

Regards
DL

We were talking about Pan-psychism earlier.

For the sake of argument if we assume there was god or gods, and if he/she ran scenarios through his/her head (like a business planner or war planner), do those scenarios happen in reality or just in his/her head? or both?

I would argue both.

I suppose if there was a god he/she could predict and run the collision of all the particles in the scenario. The scenario would have all the feelings of all people. Atleast thats my guess.

I don’t think of atheism as an ideology. Atheism means you don’t believe in fairytales. While we still don’t understand everything, including death, we have to make up the fairytales to explain it.Simply because you don’t know it does not mean you have to fear it

I would argue both. — christian2017

All that is said of imaginary gods is speculative nonsense.

Even if your god were real, he should be rejected for the satanic prick that he is.

Would you follow Hitler out of fear?

Why, if not fear, do you follow a genocidal god?

Regards
DL

I don’t think of atheism as an ideology. — Becky

If you do not, then you live in a plethora of conflicting definitions.

Have a look at the dogs breakfast of terms and I hope you cannot blame me for trying to simplify the language.

Since following an ideology is a prerequisite of religion, atheism can be considered a religion, since atheists draws on philosophical ideologies to guide ideas, behaviors, and actions, like that of any religion. That is why atheist churches are called atheist churches.

---------------

Atheists Are Sometimes More Religious Than Christians
A new study shows how poorly we understand the beliefs of people who identify as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular.

Americans are deeply religious people—and atheists are no exception. Western Europeans are deeply secular people—and Christians are no exception.

These twin statements are generalizations, but they capture the essence of a fascinating finding in a new study about Christian identity in Western Europe. By surveying almost 25,000 people in 15 countries in the region, and comparing the results with data previously gathered in the U.S., the Pew Research Center discovered three things.

First, researchers confirmed the widely known fact that, overall, Americans are much more religious than Western Europeans. They gauged religious commitment using standard questions, including “Do you believe in God with absolute certainty?” and “Do you pray daily?”

Second, the researchers found that American “nones”—those who identify as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular—are more religious than European nones. The notion that religiously unaffiliated people can be religious at all may seem contradictory, but if you disaffiliate from organized religion it does not necessarily mean you’ve sworn off belief in God, say, or prayer.

The third finding reported in the study is by far the most striking. As it turns out, “American ‘nones’ are as religious as—or even more religious than—Christians in several European countries, including France, Germany, and the U.K.”

“That was a surprise,” Neha Sahgal, the lead researcher on the study, told me. “That’s the comparison that’s fascinating to me.” She highlighted the fact that whereas only 23 percent of European Christians say they believe in God with absolute certainty, 27 percent of American nones say this.

Simply because you don’t know it does not mean you have to fear it — Becky

I agree. I hold no such fear of the unknown.

Regards
DL

I would argue both.
— christian2017

All that is said of imaginary gods is speculative nonsense.

Even if your god were real, he should be rejected for the satanic prick that he is.

Would you follow Hitler out of fear?

Why, if not fear, do you follow a genocidal god?

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

i disagree.

Another way to look at it is to conclude that atheists aren't godless, they merely refuse to call what they worship 'god'.

Another way to look at it is to conclude that atheists aren't godless, they merely refuse to call what they worship 'god'. — Tomseltje

Insightful.

We all hold so kind of ideal human or god in mind. We all, in that sense, have a god.

Atheists tend not to be loose enough with their definitions. I do not blame them as believers do the same thing.

I think the world is full of agnostics, and we just are too insecure to admit it if we happen to be religious.

Our tribes rule us, be they right or wrong. Polarization.

You might enjoy this presentation.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=counterfeit+god&&view=detail&mid=2AA2BD4518A0DED948212AA2BD4518A0DED94821&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcounterfeit%2Bgod%26FORM%3DHDRSC3

Regards
DL

Atheists tend not to be loose enough with their definitions. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Atheists would say anyone who says that is too loose with their definitions. Every human who ever lived or ever will live is definitively a believer or an atheist. If atheists too are believers of sorts because they believe something, then theism is defined so broadly as to be utterly meaningless.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities. It isn't a question of being too strict with definitions of those deities: that is what the word means if it is to mean anything. That I can conceive of a sixty-foot flying pig says nothing about what I believe in.

i disagree.
— christian2017

You show your low I.Q.

Strange you do not deny Yahweh's genocidal and infanticidal nature, yet call that evil prick good.

Regards
DL. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

We've discussed this stuff before. You didn't like my answers. Just because i have a low i.q. doesn't mean you have to make fun of me. How do you feel about pan-psychism? Plato had his own form too. There are over 11 different forms.

Atheists tend not to be loose enough with their definitions. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I'm not sure that is what causes it. I see some other probable causations. Though generally several atheists arguments seem to apply the following kind of logic: "some people claiming to be mathematicians told me pi is 5, I tried it with a circle and it doesn't make sense, this proves pi does not exist, so we should get rid of all math."

Not saying that in general non atheist logic is any better though.

Since following an ideology is a prerequisite of religion, atheism can be considered a religion — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Not if there are other prerequisites for religion atheism does not fulfill.
Concrete example perhaps:
Having apples is a prerequisite for being an apple tree, a fruit scale may have apples, but if it does that doesn't mean that thus a fruit scale is an apple tree.

i disagree. — christian2017

With what, goof?

Regards
DL

Having apples is a prerequisite for being an apple tree, a fruit scale may have apples, but if it does that doesn't mean that thus a fruit scale is an apple tree. — Tomseltje

Think of ideology as a fruit and you are there. Push your analogy just a touch further and look at the forest of fruit trees instead of just the one fruit tree.


Regards
DL

you replied to this statement earlier.

Think of ideology as a fruit and you are there. Push your analogy just a touch further and look at the forest of fruit trees instead of just the one fruit tree. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Don't red herring me. We have a severe problem of recognition, I wasn't providing an analogy, I was providing a concrete example of how ridiculous your previous assertion turns out when applying the same logic on a more concrete example. But apparently you didn't get it so I'll try explain the problem some other way.

If we choose define something by having a certain set of properties, and we recognize that something as such by it's full set of properties, you cannot sensibly conclude that we are dealing with that something if it only has one of the properties rather than the entire set. Yet this is what you reasoned by stating:

Since following an ideology is a prerequisite of religion, atheism can be considered a religion — Gnostic Christian Bishop

So either you meant instead "Since following an ideology is the only prerequisite of religion, atheism can be considered a religion" or you left out crucial information pointing out that atheism also fulfils the other criteria to constitute as a religion.

So the real question you seem to be avoiding is: What do you consider to be the full list of prerequisites of religion?

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities. It isn't a question of being too strict with definitions of those deities: that is what the word means if it is to mean anything — Kenosha Kid

You mean to say that deities are defined as those things atheists don't believe in?
How odd, usually human beings tend to define concepts by the way in how they are believed rather than how they are disbelieved. If we go on that kind of logic a pear is an orange as neither is believed to be an apple.

You mean to say that deities are defined as those things atheists don't believe in? — Tomseltje

No, hence that is what I did not say.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities. It isn't a question of being too strict with definitions of those deities: that is what the word means if it is to mean anything — Kenosha Kid

You may not have meant it this way, but it seems to me that this is what it effectively states.

That (atheism, defined as simply a lack of beliefs in deities) is what the word (atheism) means if it is to mean anything. Hence the word 'deities' also only means something as defined by 'that what atheists don't believe in". As by your choice of defining the word 'atheist' you also defined the word 'deities' to mean just 'that what is not believed by atheists". If there are additional meanings of the word, you should at least have left out the word 'simply', as obviously then it isn't as simple as you are proposing.

Hence the word 'deities' also only means something as defined by 'that what atheists don't believe in". — Tomseltje

Language need not be circular, it is mostly hierarchical. Deities is defined without the need for atheism. Whether a deity is believed by one, most, all contingently, or all necessarily, the word can be rendered meaningful, the meaning depending on the claim, not its sceptics.

So the real question you seem to be avoiding is: What do you consider to be the full list of prerequisites of religion? — Tomseltje

I do not avoid it. All a religion is, is a tribe or group. religio has a definition of being secular.

This link shows an atheist preacher that knows that she is running what they used to call mystery schools.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRtJPSmI9pY

I have modernized my wording but if you do not wish to ----

Regards
DL

Deities is defined without the need for atheism. — Kenosha Kid

Not if you insert words like 'simply' pretending that that's all there is to it.

I take it you meant 'also' rather than 'simply'.

Unsure what "simply" you are referring to.

I do not avoid it. All a religion is, is a tribe or group. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Well in that case, a bunch of kids gathered in a group to play with marbles also constitute as a religion, as they are a group.

I didn't ask for a youtube video about someone elses ideas, I asked for your definition.

Ah, I see.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities. — Kenosha Kid

Yes, I suppose by definition it isn't simple. Maybe a little bit pedantic..? :p

Or merely Dutch bluntness combined with a low tolerance for vagueness or sloppiness.

Or merely Dutch bluntness combined with a low tolerance for vagueness or sloppiness. — Tomseltje

Bully for you, big boy! I'm happy to be called out where an error exists and will correct/clarify as necessary, although in this case if you didn't catch my actual meaning you're a bit thick. Your intolerances however are purely your problem. Presume me disinterested in them.