Religion & Spirituality, really?

wretcheddomain

Maybe I'm the only one here who thinks this but does it really make sense to have Atheism & Agnosticism under the umbrella of Religion & Spirituality?

Just like Mr. Nugent was advocating that we submit a document to the constitutional convention concerning secularism, shouldn't we all band together to enforce ourselves into the name of a new forum called 'Religion, Spirituality & Atheism'.

Your views?

Turtwig

I was thinking more the Food & Drink category.

Sonics2k

Jernal wrote: »

I was thinking more the Food & Drink category.

Can we get a sub category called Baby Eating?

Amirani

I'd be strongly in favour of moving the whole Religion & Spirituality section from Soc to Rec. There's many appropriate places there. You've got Paranormal for general religious talk, Facial Hair & Hats for the Sikhs, and Zombie Survival for the believers of Easter.

Kidchameleon

Op firstly I agree. I think it shouldnt be in religion and spirituality, this has been braught up before. There should also be a sub forum where church bashing can go. It can be a bit annoying trying to discus secular issues with anti religion spouting off in the background

Hotblack Desiato

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Maybe I'm the only one here who thinks this but does it really make sense to have Atheism & Agnosticism under the umbrella of Religion & Spirituality?

I see your point. But if there was no religion, there'd be no atheism either, so atheism does belong under the R&S umbrella. Whether it's renamed to R,S&A is really only cosmetic, so meh.

wretcheddomain

ninja900 wrote: »

I see your point. But if there was no religion, there'd be no atheism either, so atheism does belong under the R&S umbrella. Whether it's renamed to R,S&A is really only cosmetic, so meh.

Some say the Blasphemy Law is only cosmetic but the point is that in principle it should be removed.

Atheism doesn't belong under the Religion & Spirituality section as Atheism is neither a religion nor a form of spirituality. Methinks this is common sense.

Given how it's important to normalise the word Atheism in society I see no reason why it deserves less attention in the forum title than the religions (which are in the title) and spirituality (which are also in the title).

In fact, Atheism is the only sub-forum of this forum that is not in the forum title. Why is this?

In other words, it would be akin to having the forum called Atheism & Spirituality and ignoring the religions in the title; I'm just reversing your logic (with atheism comes religion etc.) and hence it's only semantics. But we can see from this example that the religious would be up in arms as well and rightly so in my view.

Zillah

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Op firstly I agree. I think it shouldnt be in religion and spirituality, this has been braught up before. There should also be a sub forum where church bashing can go. It can be a bit annoying trying to discus secular issues with anti religion spouting off in the background

I like my anti religion spouting off in the foreground.

Hotblack Desiato

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Some say the Blasphemy Law is only cosmetic but the point is that in principle it should be removed.

(edited to clarify)
The blasphemy law isn't cosmetic though, it's making a statement that pro-religious speech deserves special protection, and anti-religious speech risks running foul of the law. However difficult the law may be to enforce, it is still wrong, and has a chilling effect on speech, as we've already seen on boards.

Atheism doesn't belong under the Religion & Spirituality section as Atheism is neither a religion nor a form of spirituality. Methinks this is common sense.

But if there is no theism there can be no a-theism. So it belongs under the same umbrella as religion does. Actually spirituality is the term I'd have trouble with, "wishy-washy pseudo-religious nonsense for people who reject dogma but want 'something' to replace it" is a bit long :pac:

So A belongs in the same place that R&S do, whether it's called R&S or R,S&A (or R&A )


Edit: As someone suggested before: Atheism, Religion, Spirituality and something beginning with E. Perfect!

wretcheddomain

ninja900 wrote: »

But if there is no theism there can be no a-theism. So it belongs under the same umbrella as religion does.

Alright - I can see I'm not going to get anywhere with you on this so we'll have to amicably agree to disagree.

Kidchameleon

Zillah wrote: »

I like my anti religion spouting off in the foreground.

get a blog so

Turtwig

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Alright - I can see I'm not going to get anywhere with you on this so we'll have to amicably agree to disagree.

Aumann's theorem says you can't.

GLaDOS

While atheism isn't a religion, most of the discussion here does involve religion. Seems like the appropriate place as far as I can see.

wretcheddomain

ScienceNerd wrote: »

While atheism isn't a religion, most of the discussion here does involve religion. Seems like the appropriate place as far as I can see.

If that argument held water then we should change the name of AH to Sex, Dole, and Rock & Roll...

Sulla Felix

Where do you suggest OP?
It's not really Recreational, so Rec is out. Most of us are at least of a scientific bent but really, it doesn't belong in there either.
Top level forum within Soc? I can hear the screams of persectution from here. :pac:

wretcheddomain

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Where do you suggest OP?
It's not really Recreational, so Rec is out. Most of us are at least of a scientific bent but really, it doesn't belong in there either.
Top level forum within Soc? I can hear the screams of persectution from here. :pac:

As I've already said, the most equal name for the forum would be:

Religion, Spirituality & Atheism

Sulla Felix

I think that makes as little sense as the current setup. If your complaint is that atheism has nothing to do with religion or spirituality, then lumping them all in together is redundant surely?

Dades

To suggest this forum belongs somewhere other than under Religion & Spirituality involves studiously ignoring the content matter.

From page one here:

• The Funny Side of Religion
• The Hazards of Belief
• Ongoing religious scandals
• It seems that the 'Blasphemy Law' could affect Boards
• Please do this Today to help Separate Church and State in Ireland
• Burka ban
• Respecting a belief because it is based on religion?
• Blasphemy Law in Ireland
• Where these Scientologists outside of the GPO yesterday?
• New huge 'Victory Christian Fellowship' centre being completed in Firhouse, Dublin
• Theists insist on labeling us ...
• Self defeating religious arguments

Our forum content in inextricably linked with religion and spirituality. To rename the whole section would only be to make some sort of a point, rather than serve any practical purpose. And people have no problem finding us - we're the busiest forum in this quadrant.

wretcheddomain

I probably should have clarified that I'm not in favour of moving Atheism & Agnosticism to another forum rather I think the name of the main forum should be altered to allow A&A to exist in its current location.

And yes - I think it should be re-named to make a point. The very fact we're the busiest quadrant of this forum and yet not mentioned in the overall forum title says it all as far as I'm concerned.

Given that hardly any threads are posted in Spirituality, why does Spirituality takes precedence over Atheism in the title, given that the Atheism forum is the most active? Surely the overall name of the forum should reflect the activity in the sub-forums.

Dades

My feeling is that you think we're hard done by, or unrepresented. If the category name were created with a view to excluding us that would be one thing, but it's a stock title.

If you look for podcasts relating to atheism in iTunes, you'll find them under "Religion & Spirituality", too. The same with my Internet radio searches. It's just a standard.

wretcheddomain

Dades wrote: »

My feeling is that you think we're hard done by, or unrepresented. If the category name were created with a view to excluding us that would be one thing, but it's a stock title.

If you look for podcasts relating to atheism in iTunes, you'll find them under "Religion & Spirituality", too. The same with my Internet radio searches. It's just a standard.

Doesn't make it right though.

Geomy

If it ain't broken, why fix it ?

wretcheddomain

Geomy wrote: »

If it ain't broken, why fix it ?

It is broken just the others haven't seen it yet. They have a faith-based attachment to the name of the forum.

Dades

You mean we, of little faith? :pac:

wretcheddomain

Nevermind little faith, it's the ones with no faith that I'm suspicious of! ;-)

Piliger

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Maybe I'm the only one here who thinks this but does it really make sense to have Atheism & Agnosticism under the umbrella of Religion & Spirituality?

Just like Mr. Nugent was advocating that we submit a document to the constitutional convention concerning secularism, shouldn't we all band together to enforce ourselves into the name of a new forum called 'Religion, Spirituality & Atheism'.

Your views?

It should be under Science and technology, or under the Society grouping.

wretcheddomain

Piliger wrote: »

It should be under Science and technology, or under the Society grouping.

I'm starting to think Bargain Alerts due to the massive saving one gets on converting to Atheism; given a lifetime of not putting money into those dreadful bags and baskets they pass around the church pews.

Geomy

I remember one time some guy made a suggestion about having the Atheism forum in with Science.

His excuse was something to do with Atheists being very intelligent.....

He got away easy enough because he was an apprentice, if he was a thiest and said that. ....

wretcheddomain

Geomy wrote: »

I remember one time some guy made a suggestion about having the Atheism forum in with Science.

His excuse was something to do with Atheists being very intelligent.....

He got away easy enough because he was an apprentice, if he was a thiest and said that. ....

I'm one of those who actually does believe that, proportionally speaking, atheists are more intelligent than believers. I don't even think it's controversial at this stage. It may well be elitist and arrogant to suggest it, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Geomy

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I'm one of those who actually does believe that, proportionally speaking, atheists are more intelligent than believers. I don't even think it's controversial at this stage. It may well be elitist and arrogant to suggest it, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Maybe more intelligent, but I find a lot to intellectual people can be right idiot's.
Take alcoholics and addicts, a lot of them are quite intelligent but can't put down the drink and drug's. ..
Why is that ?

Brian Shanahan

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Where do you suggest OP?

I'd rename it "Atheism & delusions caused by too much partaking of the special mushroom omlette". It'd have the virtue of honesty if not of brevity.

Geomy

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I'd rename it "Atheism & delusions caused by too much partaking of the special mushroom omlette". It'd have the virtue of honesty if not of brevity.

I hear it's a good season for the shrooms lol

Hotblack Desiato

Geomy wrote: »

Take alcoholics and addicts, a lot of them are quite intelligent but can't put down the drink and drug's. ..
Why is that ?

They're just taking the 'you're here for a good time, not a long time' idea to the max :pac:

Or perhaps they're greatly troubled by the ultimate futility of existence, without god n'all.

That's not how I see it though, every day is a little victory against entropy, enjoy it.

endacl

ninja900 wrote: »

I see your point. But if there was no religion, there'd be no atheism either, so atheism does belong under the R&S umbrella. Whether it's renamed to R,S&A is really only cosmetic, so meh.

Nah. If there was no religion, there'd 'only' be atheism. We probably wouldn't have a word for it though.

Pherekydes

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I'm one of those who actually does believe that, proportionally speaking, atheists are more intelligent than believers. I don't even think it's controversial at this stage. It may well be elitist and arrogant to suggest it, but that doesn't make it wrong.

People consistently mistake education for intelligence. I'm no more intelligent now than when I was a brainwashed catholic, just better educated.

wretcheddomain

Pherekydes wrote: »

People consistently mistake education for intelligence. I'm no more intelligent now than when I was a brainwashed catholic, just better educated.

Yes but that's why I deliberately said 'proportionally speaking'.

Moreover, I'll clarify even further that it wouldn't surprise me that, proportionally speaking, atheists are more intelligent & more knowledgeable than theists.

Geomy

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Yes but that's why I deliberately said 'proportionally speaking'.

Moreover, I'll clarify even further that it wouldn't surprise me that, proportionally speaking, atheists are more intelligent & more knowledgeable than theists.

Knowledgeable about what ?
Botany, archeology, finance, aquaculture. ....

Pherekydes

Geomy wrote: »

Knowledgeable about what ?
Botany, archeology, finance, aquaculture. ....

Well, religion anyway.

wretcheddomain

Geomy wrote: »

Knowledgeable about what ?
Botany, archeology, finance, aquaculture. ....

That's why I keep using phrases such as 'generally speaking', 'proportionally speaking', etc. It's impossible to screw down specific parameters but on a mass scale, I believe the results would pan out as I've hitherto stated in my earlier posts.

Geomy

wretcheddomain wrote: »

That's why I keep using phrases such as 'generally speaking', 'proportionally speaking', etc. It's impossible to screw down specific parameters but on a mass scale, I believe the results would pan out as I've hitherto stated in my earlier posts.

Is there more atheists on this planet than theists ?

Turtwig

Geomy wrote: »

Is there more atheists on this planet than theists ?

If you include grains of sand that don't believe in God? Yes.

wretcheddomain

Geomy wrote: »

Is there more atheists on this planet than theists ?

Gosh, this is getting pedantic. I'll lay it all out, just for you of course. I'm referring to:

- Those who emancipated themselves after being brought up with a religious conviction.
- Hence, mostly referring to those in the West rather than in places in China where the state religion is for all intents and purposes atheism.
- Speaking proportionally, these atheists as previously mentioned would have to be more rational as they reject the concept of faith. In addition, learning more about multiple religions helps one reach this conclusion.
- As such, we can say that atheists, as specifically described above, are, proportionally and generally speaking, more intelligent than theists.
- This category includes the 95+% of scientists in the American Academy and their European equivalents which all happen to be atheists.

Brian Shanahan

Geomy wrote: »

Is there more atheists on this planet than theists ?

Yes there are, because everybody is an atheist in one shape or form (every single person in the world has at least one god they don't believe in), while not everybody is a theist (some of us treat all gods equally and don't believe in any).

Geomy

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Gosh, this is getting pedantic. I'll lay it all out, just for you of course. I'm referring to:

- Those who emancipated themselves after being brought up with a religious conviction.
- Hence, mostly referring to those in the West rather than in places in China where the state religion is for all intents and purposes atheism.
- Speaking proportionally, these atheists as previously mentioned would have to be more rational as they reject the concept of faith. In addition, learning more about multiple religions helps one reach this conclusion.
- As such, we can say that atheists, as specifically described above, are, proportionally and generally speaking, more intelligent than theists.
- This category includes the 95+% of scientists in the American Academy and their European equivalents which all happen to be atheists.

And what about agnostics ?

wretcheddomain

Geomy wrote: »

And what about agnostics ?

You know what, I'll write a thesis on the subject and send it to you. You can ask me all the questions at the viva voce.

Geomy

wretcheddomain wrote: »

You know what, I'll write a thesis on the subject and send it to you. You can ask me all the questions at the viva voce.

Lol I know what you mean, sorry I remember onetime Zombrex nearly had spontaneous combustion or short circuit from me asking questions etc

Im still not sure whether he was a computer generated member or really human lol

In fairness he answered questions without any judgement or attack on the members intelligence or grammar ability.

I hope he's doing alright, I learned a lot from his post's. ...

wretcheddomain

Geomy wrote: »

Lol I know what you mean, sorry I remember onetime Zombrex nearly had spontaneous combustion or short circuit from me asking questions etc

Im still not sure whether he was a computer generated member or really human lol

In fairness he answered questions without any judgement or attack on the members intelligence or grammar ability.

I hope he's doing alright, I learned a lot from his post's. ...

Well, he's gone now and I've since replaced his post as Top Poster on these fora. In essence, I'm Zombrex 2.0.

Welcome to my era.

MrPudding

wretcheddomain wrote: »

In essence, I'm Zombrex 2.0.

No you aren't.

MrP

Geomy

MrPudding wrote: »

No you aren't.

MrP

Oh yes he is :-D

endacl

Geomy wrote: »

Is there more atheists on this planet than theists ?

ARE there more. This atheist do be knowin' more about the grammars and suchlike!

robindch

^^^ Unless wildly amussing, commenting on forum grammer and orfograthy is a mod-level priviledge