Not religious doesn't necessarily mean atheist

[Edwardo Piet]

It's true. Non religious does not necessarily mean atheist. There are Buddhists that are very religious and yet don't believe in or worship any gods. But they still believe in supernatural bullshit like full blown literal karma and reincarnation.

The way I see it religious=you believe in something supernatural and follow it as your 'religion'. Most, but not all religions have gods.

Non-theist however... does necessarily mean atheist.

This is nothing new and I don't see the point of the OP. The dictionaries agree with this. It's nothing new or interesting.

EDIT: Wait, I got this backwards. Religious doesn't necessarily mean theist. Non-religious absolutely does mean atheistic because non-religious means not believing in anything supernatural including gods. What the fuck are you talking about OP?

Oh, unless you're including deism. Like I guess you could be a deist without really being religious. Or a pantheist without really being religious. But the OP example is about pseudo-science and woo, which is irrational cultish and like religion . . . but it's not technically religious. Because 'pseudo-scientifi'c and 'paranormal' is different to 'supernatural'. At least paranormal and pseudo-scientific nonsense doesn't claim to be outside of nature. It's supposed to just be 'ooooh spooky shit'. But not outside of nature.

---

From my perspective, ditching one irrational belief system for another is not conducive to rational thought or critical thinking processes, meaning that witchcraft is no more representative of reality than christianity.

But there is much more evidence for witches then for Jesus.

Actually there's the exact same non-number. (zero isn't a number).

---

This is why wicca never succeeds or fails as a cultural phenomena[...]

I cannot grasp the concept of something never succeeding nor failing when failure itself is the absence of success

And if absence of success is not a failure, then your inaction is a success

It's why I'm so lazy all the time. I need to actually figure out a worthy goal I'd deem to be desirable and worth achieving before I can have a meaningful sense of ambition. Ambitiousness is a strong motivated desire for success but if I have no goals I already have what I want, which is nothing, thereby I am a success by default. I can't be a failure if I have no goals to fail to achieve Because ultimately failure is a lack of success, not an absence of success, so success can be an absence of a lack of success by default