To the atheists.

I don't think "religion" has a tidy definition that everybody would agree to. Most of the time, we just know it when we see it. In the case of Confucianism, I don't see it, but it's always listed among the major world religions for some reason. So what do I know?

@philochristos

Fair point,

I can only think of the 'one Metaphysical, Lack/Disbelief in God/s.

I still have more thoughts, but they ramble so much I'm not sure they're worth reading.

But I sometimes dislike deleting something once I've 'tried to coherent thoughts.

@MyRambling

Even if an atheist has metaphysical beliefs that amount to religious beliefs, unless those metaphysical beliefs are somehow part of what it means to be an atheist, the fact that they are religious in nature doesn't mean atheism is religious in nature. What metaphysical beliefs are both religious and entailed by atheism? philochristos #88

Philosophy is a tangle of threads, for me anyhow.

. . . I admit some people are pretty monotone with what they mean when they say they are an Atheist.

. . . . . . You are arguing that any metaphysical beliefs ought be separated from the term Atheist?

Given that Atheism is only making the one, that they either do not believe in God / Or lack any belief in God?

I suppose one might not call Theism a religion.

Nor Deism perhaps.

. . .

I suppose it's the undercurrents that one looks for.

As well as the need to identify, classify, and sort.

During years, movements, cultures,

I'd argue such undercurrents emerge, though maybe I am wrong, and they are merely stereotypes?

. . . But then not even all who claim to be Christians act perfectly the same. The vague identifiers are necessary.

During the Communist Revolution Years and Fears,

If someone said they were a Communist, it hinted something at their other beliefs and how they might act.

Even though the term Communist can not 'truly inform us on the 'Individual.

When someone says Atheist, what many other people infer for example (Not that their interference is reality) is that they also do not believe in Objective Good and Evil.

Even though the term Atheist can not 'truly inform us on the 'Individual.

. . . .

It's funny though, glancing at DART, Theism isn't an option for religion, though Atheism is.

. . .

"Why not just say there are some atheists who treat their atheism in a religious way rather than making the broader claim that atheism is a religion? Not all atheists are "religious" about their atheism, are they?" philochristos #18

I can imagine some ancient people, Romans for example, coming to some new land,

Inquiring on what the people believed.

"They do not believe in the Gods, my General."

Culture. . . Cults. A Cult is a 'bit synonymous with Religion, Though it is 'not.

Is what matters then whether one 'says their highest value is X?

Why must they 'explicitly say it?

Yet we have in the modern world perhaps, an odd dilution of Culture and Beliefs.

Easy travel, talk anywhere, ideas everywhere.

. . . If it were not so, maybe a number of American Atheists would be called Dawkinists.

But then even Zenoism/Stoicism required more than a 'single claim/disclaim, I think.

The Romans would see even vague beliefs such as no Gods, or Gods exist but we know nothing about them, as Religion perhaps.

Significant Idea/s, Culture.

@NobodyInParticular

"Grand Moff Tarkin: The Jedi are extinct. Their fire has gone out of the universe. You, my friend, are all that's left of their religion."

-A New Hope

Writing before one has the entire plot, sure makes for a strange looking glass.

Ought one take it as Jedi and Sith both possess the same belief in the 'existence of the force, even though their 'interpretations is different.

Science or Metaphysical claim?

Both maybe, to differing degrees.

See a flock of sheep.

They herd together for safety.

Religion is the result of intellect and conceptualisation and is often used as a herd label.

So a herd doesn't necessarily require unifying labels, it just makes them up.

There are other labels.

Confucianism has existed for more than 2500 years and is one of the most influential religious philosophies in the history of China.

Yeah the government forces folks. That's why they're a governed people.

Even atheists admit their beliefs.

It's actually, atheists admit their knowledge.

There is a good reason why they don’t. There is nothing to see there.

Even atheists admit their beliefs.

Yes we do. What's your point?

There is a good reason why they don’t. There is nothing to see there.

There are no beliefs to see there within atheism because that's not what atheism is. If an atheist expresses a belief it is by definition a belief expressed as an individual human being, not as an atheist.

Yup all of the above.

Do you agree that when atheists make positive claims, they have the onus of substantiating?

So all religion is created by humans. We create our beliefs. Nothing influences or move us. Is that right?

I wonder beliefs about the afterlife exist from experience as opposed to designing a vehicle called belief to cope with fears.

There is no collective expression in Atheism.

How come God doesn't talk to anyone from a burning bush anymore?

How come God doesn't talk to anyone from a burning bush anymore?

Who says he does not? When John wrote "Revelation" way back when, and said that nothing was to be added nor subtracted from the book [Revelation 22: 18] or that man would suffer plagues, most today believe he was referring to the entire Bible, thus sealing it from further revelation from God, but also ignoring that John's "revelation" stood alone as a single manuscript for the next 300 - 400 years before the Canon was organized by a bunch of guys [the Council of Nicaea] who also ordered the books as they did, OT and NT, and decided "Revelation" ought to be last, lamely because of that single statement by John [allegedly]. But all who believe that have, themselves, denied God further voice, and by what authority do they think they can tell God to shut it? None.

Do you agree that when atheists make positive claims, they have the onus of substantiating?

Of course, but that doesn't make their claim 'atheism'.

If a Pro lifer says Hitler was right, that doesn't mean Pro-life = fascism.

He had fibre broadband installed.

Though you would have expected Mr Omni to already have the ultimate in communication systems.

In fact, you would have expected him to have had the ultimate communication system back in his burning bush expressionist period.

And then he had Old Moses lugging tablets of stone up and down Mt Sinai...Could have just sent him a text...Or at least a letter.

Established concepts are, and relative to conditioning people will either take such concepts seriously or with a pinch of salt.

The God of Abraham had to use certain methods to communicate with Moses because it was initial contact. Once that contact established, then you can engage with it by chants, speaking, meditation, ritual, et cetera. All religions start in a localized area with shaman and then work their way out as people become more familiar with them and can access them through the astral.

Is saying the gods of theism aren't real a claim to be yet supported?

Yes they'll make that choice of salt, a little or a lot of salt, maybe a dab of peppa, whateva.

He could have just said Hi Moses I'm Godfrey, but my friends just call me God, then performed a few magic tricks as proof...Afterwards popping into town to meet everyone else, before setting off on a world tour...Though the spacecraft should have been a dead give away.

And being an omni-sensible bloke, he would have said that there is absolutely no need for any chanting and ritual adulation, because I will soon be thousands of light years away visiting Planet Wooo in the Eurillian Quadrant.

Bye have fun, live in peace and evolve gracefully.

Or...He could have said and done all the nonsense of the bible.

Or... It could just be made up tosh.

Option 1 is feasible, but logistically improbable.

Option 2 is feasible, but so stupidly and ridiculously un-omni.

Option 3 is currently best bet.

Is saying the gods of theism aren't real a claim to be yet supported?

It depends on how it was directed. If the idea being expressed is that these gods don't in fact exist then that is a claim burdened to be proven like any other. But most of the time people saying things like this aren't really saying that. They're not expressing a concluded fact about the cosmos, they're pointing to the irrationality of the person believing the thing they're asserting.

Every culture on the planet has a spiritual or religious background that predates written history. Its the atheist perspective this is based on mental illness, drugs or an atheist conman/ power monger.

Religion was made up as an opiate when 1/2 of all children died in early times.