Should Freedom of Religion include Freedom from Religion?

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Theism includes Ghosts. Why else does it have a "Holy Ghost" as one of the fundamental Trinity?

///
Once long ago, I accepted a friend's invitation to go to church with them. We arrived a bit early. Within 10 or 12 minutes, I was asked "Have you got the Holy Ghost!? Have you got the Holy Ghost!?! Have you got the Holy Ghost!!?!! Have you got the Holy Ghost!!!?!!!" by 30 or 40 people of all ages. Some held both hands high as they said it, with the bible in 1 hand. Some held the bible in both hands just above the waist, squeezing it such that I wondered if they might squeeze it in 2.

<>

 

[Musika]

I didn't say "agnosticism" I said "aghosticism"...one who does believe in ghosts.

Sorry. I interpreted it as a typo since "aghosticism" has no usage outside of atheists trying to convene some point. However much of what I posted is relevant. It's quite easy to posit behaviours that distinguish atheism, agnosticism and theism, so that is clearly not a case of semantics.

As for aghosticism, the fact that you have to invent a word for a category that doesn't exist (either in those who disbelief in ghosts or those who lack a belief in ghosts) indicates you are playing with semantics. Interestingly enough if someone was to go out of their way to stress that their position is not precisely "disbelieving in ghosts" but rather "lacking a belief in ghosts", it would be interpreted as some sort of preemptive atheist defense. IOW the fact that ordinarily people don't go out of their way to maintain a distinct position of "lacking a belief in ghosts" but rather forthrightly saying "I don't believe in ghosts" indicates the semantic wrangling atheists have to entertain for the sake of maintaining a buoyant position.

 

[Seattle]

Sorry. I interpreted it as a typo since "aghosticism" has no usage outside of atheists trying to convene some point. However much of what I posted is relevant. It's quite easy to posit behaviours that distinguish atheism, agnosticism and theism, so that is clearly not a case of semantics.

As for aghosticism, the fact that you have to invent a word for a category that doesn't exist (either in those who disbelief in ghosts or those who lack a belief in ghosts) indicates you are playing with semantics. Interestingly enough if someone was to go out of their way to stress that their position is not precisely "disbelieving in ghosts" but rather "lacking a belief in ghosts", it would be interpreted as some sort of preemptive atheist defense. IOW the fact that ordinarily people don't go out of their way to maintain a distinct position of "lacking a belief in ghosts" but rather forthrightly saying "I don't believe in ghosts" indicates the semantic wrangling atheists have to entertain for the sake of maintaining a buoyant position.

No, it just shows that "atheism", for the most part, is just something contrived by "theists". It's usually an attempt to say that both "theism" and "atheism" are beliefs. That's just a theists argument. It just sounds silly to everyone else.

As does the concept of someone "rejecting" God. Some people believe in God. That's it. Most everyone else haven't "rejected" anything. They just haven't bought into the premise of God in the first place.

Sure it sounds silly to have to bring up unicorns or ghosts to make a point but it does serve a need made necessary by those who believe in God.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Sorry. I interpreted it as a typo since "aghosticism" has no usage outside of atheists trying to convene some point. However much of what I posted is relevant. It's quite easy to posit behaviours that distinguish atheism, agnosticism and theism, so that is clearly not a case of semantics.

As for aghosticism, the fact that you have to invent a word for a category that doesn't exist (either in those who disbelief in ghosts or those who lack a belief in ghosts) indicates you are playing with semantics. Interestingly enough if someone was to go out of their way to stress that their position is not precisely "disbelieving in ghosts" but rather "lacking a belief in ghosts", it would be interpreted as some sort of preemptive atheist defense. IOW the fact that ordinarily people don't go out of their way to maintain a distinct position of "lacking a belief in ghosts" but rather forthrightly saying "I don't believe in ghosts" indicates the semantic wrangling atheists have to entertain for the sake of maintaining a buoyant position.

///
Why does it irritate you so much that some people cannot believe your fantasy?

<>

 

[Musika]

No, it just shows that "atheism", for the most part, is just something contrived by "theists". It's usually an attempt to say that both "theism" and "atheism" are beliefs. That's just a theists argument. It just sounds silly to everyone else.

As does the concept of someone "rejecting" God. Some people believe in God. That's it. Most everyone else haven't "rejected" anything. They just haven't bought into the premise of God in the first place.

Sure it sounds silly to have to bring up unicorns or ghosts to make a point but it does serve a need made necessary by those who believe in God.

To get back to Stranger's image definition of what atheism "simply" is, all that you say above would be plausible if atheists displayed sufficient self control to leave the belief issue at "some people beloeve in God". Instead, what we see is a whole bevy of ideas and beliefs springing from the atheist position as they attempt to talk about what God, et al, "really" is.
IOW atheists display a whole range of behaviours that clearly take the issue beyond mere semantic wrangling.

 

[Musika]

///
Why does it irritate you so much that some people cannot believe your fantasy?

<>

Its more when people insist on repeatedly attempting to discuss things while abandoning critical thinking that irritates me.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Its more when people insist on repeatedly attempting to discuss things while abandoning critical thinking that irritates me.

///
You do not understand critical thinking. I cannot claim you abandoned it for I strongly suspect you never practiced it.

Nearly everyone in this subforum demonstrates critical thinking.

Yet your problem is an inability to accept that some people cannot believe your fantasy.

<>

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

To get back to Stranger's image definition of what atheism "simply" is, all that you say above would be plausible if atheists displayed sufficient self control to leave the belief issue at "some people beloeve in God". Instead, what we see is a whole bevy of ideas and beliefs springing from the atheist position as they attempt to talk about what God, et al, "really" is.
IOW atheists display a whole range of behaviours that clearly take the issue beyond mere semantic wrangling.

///
Why bring that into another thread. People participating in this 1 may not have seen it.
Your dreamworld does not apply here.
It is clearly you & other theists who take things beyond what they should be.
Wake up & look into a mirror.

<>

 

[Seattle]

To get back to Stranger's image definition of what atheism "simply" is, all that you say above would be plausible if atheists displayed sufficient self control to leave the belief issue at "some people beloeve in God". Instead, what we see is a whole bevy of ideas and beliefs springing from the atheist position as they attempt to talk about what God, et al, "really" is.
IOW atheists display a whole range of behaviours that clearly take the issue beyond mere semantic wrangling.

This thread is too long. I can't recall what Stranger's image definition is.

Atheists don't have "a position". Atheists aren't a group. It's not even a "thing". I don't eat olives. I don't have anything else in common with others who don't eat olives.

The only reason you hear from those who don't agree with the concept of a "God" is just that this viewpoint has been thrust on the overall society for so long that there is bound to be some push-back, now that people can do it without being ostracized or thrown in jail, etc.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

This thread is too long. I can't recall what Stranger's image definition is.

Atheists don't have "a position". Atheists aren't a group. It's not even a "thing". I don't eat olives. I don't have anything else in common with others who don't eat olives however.

The only reason you hear from those who don't agree with the concept of a "God" is just that this viewpoint has been thrust on the overall society for so long that there is bound to be some push-back, now that people can do it without being ostracized or thrown in jail, etc.

///
The image is in another thread.

Now that some of us can speak out, many theists call many atheists militant simply because we stand up for ourselves.

<>

 

[Musika]

This thread is too long. I can't recall what Stranger's image definition is.

My bad, it was in the other thread. IIRC, it was sometging along the lines of atheism simply disbelieving people who claim God exists

Atheists don't have "a position". Atheists aren't a group. It's not even a "thing".

.... yet they have websites, literature, philosophy, social movements, memes, jokes, etc etc that you see similarly associated with many other "things".

I don't eat olives. I don't have anything else in common with others who don't eat olives.

Perhaps that would be valid if you could about your position distinct from memes, literature, philosophy, etc of olive consumption, but as it stands, I fail to see the relevance.

The only reason you hear from those who don't agree with the concept of a "God" is just that this viewpoint has been thrust on the overall society for so long that there is bound to be some push-back, now that people can do it without being ostracized or thrown in jail, etc.

... what a coincidence ...

 

[Jan Ardena]

What do you call someone who doesn't believe in ghosts?

You tell me.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

///
If you cannot understand what it means to not believe god does not exist, you are a lost cause. It certainly is not a reason to not believe in god.
As usual, you have it backward.

<>

Unfortunately, atheists have messed with the meaning and definition of their designation so much, the real meaning seems to have been lost, or buried.
Maybe that is the underlying intention. Who knows. But I find when meanings become lost like that, the best course of action is to revert to the original meaning.
The meaning that sparked the present day confusion.

You think it is backwards because you don't want any trace of God to be left in yours, and others psyche.
The reality is, there is God, there are people who accept and believe in God, and there are people that don't.
The idea that God does not exist, or there is no evidence for God's existence, or there are no satisfactory explanation that give reason for believing that God exists, all amount reasons
why you don't believe in God. That you are trying to gain the upper-hand by making it about God's existence, and evidence of such that fits your personal criteria, amounts to nothing but
another reason why you don't believe in God.

When it comes to God, you are an atheist. That is all.

jan.

 

[iceaura]

.... yet they have websites, literature, philosophy, social movements, memes, jokes, etc etc that you see similarly associated with many other "things".

Most don't.
Some do.
Some just call themselves Taoists or the like, some are called by others Animists or the like - they belong to different groups than the "literature" ones.

 

[iceaura]

Maybe that is the underlying intention. Who knows. But I find when meanings become lost like that, the best course of action is to revert to the original meaning.

Because the intentions of the Holy See, the Spanish Inquisition, and the English witchhuntings are your preferred alliance?

That you are trying to gain the upper-hand

Not the upper hand - just out from under.
Why else would anyone need reasons not to believe in Jan's God?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Unfortunately, atheists have messed with the meaning and definition of their designation so much, the real meaning seems to have been lost, or buried.
Maybe that is the underlying intention. Who knows. But I find when meanings become lost like that, the best course of action is to revert to the original meaning.
The meaning that sparked the present day confusion.

You think it is backwards because you don't want any trace of God to be left in yours, and others psyche.
The reality is, there is God, there are people who accept and believe in God, and there are people that don't.
The idea that God does not exist, or there is no evidence for God's existence, or there are no satisfactory explanation that give reason for believing that God exists, all amount reasons
why you don't believe in God. That you are trying to gain the upper-hand by making it about God's existence, and evidence of such that fits your personal criteria, amounts to nothing but
another reason why you don't believe in God.

When it comes to God, you are an atheist. That is all.

jan.

///
Before I have stated you assume things you cannot know & other such. Now I will state it even plainer. You are lying. Again & again, you say things about me & others which are not true. We tell you it is not true but evidently you do not care.
What compels you to lie so much?

<>

 

[Jan Ardena]

Before I have stated you assume things you cannot know & other such. Now I will state it even plainer. You are lying. Again & again, you say things about me & others which are not true. We tell you it is not true but evidently you do not care.
What compels you to lie so much?

You're an atheist. Why is that a lie.
An atheist is a person who does not believe in God. Why is that a lie?
If there is, by your criteria, no evidence that God exists, then that is a reason why you do not believe in God. Why is that a lie?

Atheists say a lot of things about what atheist means. So much so that it has become needlessly confusing.
So for clarity I resort to the original, or grammatical meaning of the term. Why do I need your permission to do so?

Do you accept how I describe theism?

jan.

 

[Seattle]

You tell me.

jan.

You don't call them anything.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

You're an atheist. Why is that a lie.
An atheist is a person who does not believe in God. Why is that a lie?
If there is, by your criteria, no evidence that God exists, then that is a reason why you do not believe in God. Why is that a lie?

Atheists say a lot of things about what atheist means. So much so that it has become needlessly confusing.
So for clarity I resort to the original, or grammatical meaning of the term. Why do I need your permission to do so?

Do you accept how I describe theism?

jan.

///
Why is it so difficult for you to accept that there are people who cannot believe your fantasy?

<>

 

[Seattle]

My bad, it was in the other thread. IIRC, it was sometging along the lines of atheism simply disbelieving people who claim God exists


.... yet they have websites, literature, philosophy, social movements, memes, jokes, etc etc that you see similarly associated with many other "things".


Perhaps that would be valid if you could about your position distinct from memes, literature, philosophy, etc of olive consumption, but as it stands, I fail to see the relevance.


... what a coincidence ...

I don't have a philosophy, social movement, etc. regarding olives and I don't have one regarding God. Maybe some people who don't eat olives are so organized, most aren't.