Quote:The beauty, sublimity, and wonder of nature have been justly celebrated in all of the religious traditions of the world, but usually these traditions have focused on beings or powers presumed to lie behind nature, providing nature’s ultimate explanation and meaning. In a radical departure, Donald A. Crosby makes an eloquent case for regarding nature itself as the focus of religion, conceived without God, gods, or animating spirits of any kind, and argues that nature is metaphysically ultimate. He explores the concept of nature, the place of humans in nature, the responsibilities of humans to one another and to their natural environments, and offers a religious vision that grants to nature the kind of reverence, awe, love, and devotion formerly reserved for God.

(February 3, 2016 at 4:31 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(February 3, 2016 at 3:53 am)MTL Wrote: I have to say I agree.

I fully understand why people hear "anti-theist" and take it as,
"I'm anti-any-PERSON-who-believes-in-god",
but since a theist is by definition someone who supports Theism,
it is supposed to be understood that it is their chosen belief to which I, as the Anti-Theist, object.

A black person does not choose to be black,
so to say someone is "anti-black people" is pretty clearly hateful;

but a theist chose their theist philosophy,
and it is implicit that the "Anti-Theist" is taking issue specifically with that CHOSEN aspect of that person's thinking;

it is implicit that it is their VIEWS that I am against,
not the individual themselves.

PERFECT. Everyone, read this, and tell me whether you're an antitheist or not.

Thank you MTL. With your permission, I think I'll add that to my description.

Quote:

---

EP, early in your last reply to me, you said,

Quote:I wouldn't qualify as an antitheist by their definitions either.
While we're at it, I wouldn't consider myself an atheist, if I went by some people's definitions of the word.

and then near the end of the reply, you said this to me:

Quote:you are contradicting yourself. You cannot both be an antitheist and not be one. You either are or you aren't. Make up your mind about it.

It is YOU who contradicts yourself.

First, you acknowledge that by others' definitions, you are not an atheist,
....implying that you indeed consider yourself as an Atheist....just not by someone else's definitions;

but then when I say  that I consider myself an Anti-Theist,
you chastise me simply because I simultaneously acknowledge that I don't fit some people's definition of such.

---

Quote:

---

Moving on:

You said, in response to my quote:

Quote:Belief in God of that sort would be devoid of any meaning - inconceivable.

It is hardly inconceivable.  It's called Deism.  If you find it inconceivable then you are extremely limited.

I can easily conceive of it:

God might well exist...

...but that doesn't necessarily mean that ANY of the Religions of the world actually have ANYTHING to do with Him.

I'd actually be tickled pink to discover that was the case.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:Excited Penguin said,


It is not, in fact, possible to have faith in God without religion, since the two mean exactly the same
(with religion holding some further linguistic meaning, of course).
They certainly should(see above).

Are you trolling me???


I don't have any idea why you would say that God and Religion are the same thing,
as if it is an inflexible fact that you, personally, amongst all of humanity,
have proof of.

---

Quote:

---

That's the entire problem with Religion, EP:

EACH Religion believes it IS synonymous with God,
and believes all the other religions of the world are wrong

...yet none of them can prove it.

I don't see why in the world you think it is "inconceivable" that there could be a God,
and have that God have absolutely zero do to with mankind's idiotic religions.

That's precisely what Deists DO believe.

And if I woke up tomorrow, to a world where every Religious nutjob had spontaneously converted his thinking over to Deism....I would be a happy camper.  I would never try to convince a Deist that God doesn't exist.

Deism essentially makes Religion into a defanged snake.

It's Faith without Dogma:

Simply believing that God exists...

...but rejecting all Holy Writs, all concept of Sin, Heaven or Hell, Afterlife, Saviours, Prophets, Commandments, Worship and Rituals, etc....as very likely being nothing more than arrogant, presumptuous, useless, manmade lies...

essentially making NO assumptions about God,
and assuming that most religions are man-made nonsense;

....but NOT automatically assuming that just because religion is nonsense,
that that necessarily means that God doesn't exist, and we simply don't know any of His actual parameters.

---

Quote:

---

I'll finish responding a remaining point, and then I'm off to bed.

Quote:Excited Penguin said,

They also define religion thusly:


Therefore, their definitions of faith seem just fine to me, I can't see why you take issue with them.

I was going to cite their definition of Religion as being inadequate, too, actually.

Religion, by its very nature, is almost always an unproven belief STRUCTURE
specifically about God (or about some mooted Spiritual realm)
which is shared and in one way or another perpetuated by a group of people.

The problem with the dictionary's definition is:

- Mere "belief" does not always necessarily shared, nor is it always necessarily perpetuated;

- nor does every religious belief include a requirement of "worship".

It is a very bad definition, IMO.

---

(February 3, 2016 at 5:19 am)MTL Wrote:

(February 3, 2016 at 4:31 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: PERFECT. Everyone, read this, and tell me whether you're an antitheist or not.

Thank you MTL. With your permission, I think I'll add that to my description.

I guess that'll learn me to keep my mouth shut.

(February 3, 2016 at 4:58 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(February 3, 2016 at 4:50 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Let me tackle this one more time. By religious observance or institution, surely, you mean religious observance and institution that doesn't involve a belief in God(s)? Because otherwise your statement doesn't make any sense.

No, I don't mean that at all, I mean exactly what I said.

Some people think that the religious institutions or observances are the operative part in any harm done, not the belief in the gods.  They can be concurrent or separate.  For you and I, the belief is operative, for you, the belief and the religion is operative, and for Evie the religion is operative.

(February 3, 2016 at 5:24 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I think EP is drunk.  His quoting pattern has changed.  He isn't directly quoting anyone, simply cutting and pasting instead of using the quote button.  This has the added benefit, from his standpoint, of not presenting an alert on the quoted person's page, so that they might not know they have an answer from him.

Or maybe he just likes it that way, for whatever reason ... ?  

ETA: ninja'ed by Evie

(February 3, 2016 at 5:28 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:
Without the belief in the gods, the religious institutions and observances wouldn't exist(when talking about theistic religions).
Without the religious institutions and observances, the belief in the gods wouldn't make any sense.