Not religious doesn't necessarily mean atheist

[LuisDantas]

Apparently religious does not necessarily mean religious.

That is actually true.  "Religion" is an almost meaningless word these days, because people's core conceptions about its meaning are so often at odds with each other.

He's right. Not religious doesnt mean atheist.
And conversely, religious does not mean theistic.

Quite so. Personally, I find the second statement far more meaningful and useful than the first.

Yeah, that's the point. Atheists here get excited about reports that people are becoming less religious, but that doesn't mean all such people are becoming like them. Many are just exchanging one thing you reject for another thing you reject.

You will find examples of all sorts of things. Whether they are representative of actual trends, and whether they counter-evidence other trends, is another matter entirely.

Read the bolded folks. Yes, atheists can believe in astrology, but we don't get a lot like that here, do we?

Therefore...?

[Cyberman]

Yeah, that's the point. Atheists here get excited about reports that people are becoming less religious, but that doesn't mean all such people are becoming like them. Many are just exchanging one thing you reject for another thing you reject.

Read the bolded folks. Yes, atheists can believe in astrology, but we don't get a lot like that here, do we?

Not at the moment - I hope - but we have in the past.

[Harry Nevis]

---

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

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

---

We have many confessions, eye-witness testimony with corroboration and Christian witnesses.

It STILL adds up to zero, but there is a lot more than for jesus.

[John V]

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?

See the bolded. You consider astrology to fall within that category, right?

[FatAndFaithless]

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?

See the bolded. You consider astrology to fall within that category, right?

I'd agree with Hammy that non-religious generally means atheist (though I'm sure there are some exceptions like a Christian who considers their relationship with God to be entirely personal and not in line with any religion), but I think Hammy's overstepping a bit when they say "Non-religious means not believing in anything supernatural," because that's just not true.  You can be a non-religious atheist and still believe that ghosts exist, for example, or be non-religious and still buy into shit like healing crystals with magic powers.

[Brian37]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-mi...2017-10-20

Why millennials are ditching religion for witchcraft and astrology

Bottom line Alpha times change.  I no more like newer woo than I like old woo. 

It may surprise you as much of a hard time as I give you, I don't even like atheists attempts to create "Satanist" churches. They'd argue that it is not the same thing which is absurd to me knowing the word itself has long and ancient roots, and all they really are doing is simply looking at the bad behaviors of the past and creating a new moral code to compete with old ideas.

I've had pantheist and new age co workers, and while I do see attempts to reject the past in an attempt to be more inclusive now as a way to compete, I still have a problem with even this new trend.

They are ditching old religions because of the tribalism and bigotry. But in creating new beliefs, that also has the risk long term as becoming just as dogmatic and tribal centuries from now.

It should not even surprise anyone reading this, if in 500 years there is a Yoda religion or Star Trek religion or Harry Potter religion.

They are not looking for excuses to do bad things, they are rejecting the tribalism of the past, and while that is well intended, they are still suffering the same bad logic as antiquity. New or old, humans never consider that our morality isn't being handed to us, but already in us, and as secular as a new club may claim to be, it is still needlessly creating a moral list instead of valuing common law for everyone.

I attended a Unitarian Church in Lynchburg Va, we had liberal Christians, conservative Christians, Muslims and Buddhists, and atheists and even a lady who believed in the Egyptian God Isis. I am not kidding. They were all nice people, but no matter how much I liked them, it didn't mean they had evidence for their claims. 

So when you talk about new trends, I don't treat those any differently than the claims of antiquity. I simply see that as mundane human behavior of trying to invent a new utopia on an imperfect planet.

I have LITERALLY argued with atheists claiming to be "Satanists" and had them get upset with me when I tell them they don't need it. I am not talking about their legal rights, I am talking about them having a naked assertion regardless of if they think their interpretation does not include a spirit character. It is still to me trying to re invent the wheel, when our species behavior good or bad have always been in our genes.

Point is, old or new, no label has a patent on doing good or bad, and all this means is that humans compete to set themselves up as being more special than others.

[Whateverist]

Actually hammy, there is conclusive evidence that witches exist. Many practitioners of wicca and other religions are witches, the same way a follower of Christ is a Christian.

What there is no evidence for is witchcraft.

Or maybe there is evidence of self proclaimed witches practicing a craft but there is no evidence of it having any effect on anything.

---

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?

See the bolded. You consider astrology to fall within that category, right?

I think what you mean to say is that people who lack a religion are not necessarily skeptically inclined .. and I'm inclined to agree with you.  I also agree that we don't get many of those here.  Was there any other implication you were wanted to draw from that?

[downbeatplumb]

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.

You muggles are getting too close, something must be done.......

---

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?

See the bolded. You consider astrology to fall within that category, right?

Astrology is like a complex superstition, so kinda.

[Shell B]

Yeah, witchcraft typically involved Wiccan beliefs, which are quite religious.

[Succubus]

Read the bolded folks. Yes, atheists can believe in astrology, but we don't get a lot like that here, do we?

Correct. But then we don't tend see many atheist tarot readers either, or atheist alchemists, or... What's the point you're trying to make again, I must have missed it.