Atheists don't have to share religious beliefs, but they also don't have to share ill will, either: Regina Brett | cleveland.com

Every church in every town across America has message boards out front proclaiming their sermon for the week. They ring bells on the weekends to let people know they're open for service. They host radio sermons every morning, plaster my cable TV on Sundays, not to mention exhibiting the exact same behavior in purchasing billboards that people get upset at the atheists for. This behavior by churches doesn't cause anyone to bat an eye, but when done by an atheist group which actually needs some advertising since very few are aware of its existence it causes an uproar.

I'm not a fan of some of the more controversial billboards, but I find them less offensive than about 90% of the billboards on the highway for movies that were in theatres six months ago and telling me which exit the next adult video store is at.

We all have, and in this fact that is indisputable, just a very short time to co-exist during this temporal stay on earth. Why not just try to get along, be friends, and try to find commonalities to discuss without insulting eachothers personal beliefs and convictions?

This is rather rich consider the stated purpose of most of these adds is for people to be able to identify other people who share their beliefs so they can get together and establish a sense of community. They're not telling you that you can't advertise for your church, why not let them have their group and advertise for it in kind. That seems to be in the live and let live spirit you're embracing above.

Once again, Andrew...please try to let it go. All of us are entitled to our own beliefs which should be respected. No need for 'billboards' or proselytizing, because they are a waste of time besides often causing more division than unity. No matter how any of us are led to believe...and indeed we are...by 'Whom" for some, and by 'themselves' for others, it's always best to be respectful of each other and to try spend our earthly time in endeavors that actually benefit our brothers and sisters..:)

Almighty God does not require any man-made advertising or billboards. One is either led to believe...which is a solely a gift of grace...or he is not. Check out my home page for some excellent newsvine groups if you're actually interested in doing something constructive for your fellow man..:)

Almighty God does not require any man-made advertising or billboards.

No, He doesn't require it. But it's a nice touch.

:-)

No need for 'billboards' or proselytizing

If you have a small group drawing from a rather dispersed crowd of potential members you've got to advertise your product some way. The truth is most people simply don't know that atheist and humanist groups are out there whereas most of us are confronted with churches on our drive to work each morning. I think a lot of the groups could be less confrontational about it, but certainly don't begrudge them a right to advertise in some manner.

If you have a small group drawing from a rather dispersed crowd of potential members you've got to advertise your product some way. The truth is most people simply don't know that atheist and humanist groups are out there whereas most of us are confronted with churches on our drive to work each morning. I think a lot of the groups could be less confrontational about it, but certainly don't begrudge them a right to advertise in some manner.

Very eloquently stated, Andrew

Advertise, yes. But don't claim you're not, when you are, just because Christians advertise and you don't want to be mistaken for a religion in peoples' minds. That smacks of hypocrisy when one of the chief arguments Atheists give is that they don't proselytize and they don't meet as groups. If you want to meet as groups or advertise, why not own up to it?

And that Atheism or Humanism and how to contact such groups with such affiliations would be unknown in America in this day and age when GOOGLE, the Internet, and Wikipedia are all prevalent and common is so highly unlikely as to be completely improbable

So by all means advertise. Just don't claim you don't do it, when you do. Or knock the relgiious for doing it, when you do the same things.

But don't claim you're not, when you are, just because Christians advertise and you don't want to be mistaken for a religion in peoples' minds.

Well, I'm not and I have no association with these groups. I don't claim to share any of the same goals or motivations as the people who are running these groups. Putting up a billboard that has a website on it is also a little different from the proselytising of Christian groups which includes going door to door, preaching on street corners, and sending missionaries to every corner of the earth. Some of these billboards are a form of proselytizing, but certainly not on the scale of a concerted effort to convert the world that say the Mormons have. You'll probably notice that not a lot of people complain about the proselytizing of the Unitarians - it's really the more active invasive forms of proselytizing that people have a problem with.

And that Atheism or Humanism and how to contact such groups with such affiliations would be unknown in America in this day and age when GOOGLE

One must first know or suspect that something exists before you can think to actively search for it, and frankly a lot of people don't even consider that there are atheist groups around until they see these billboards.

One must first know or suspect that something exists before you can think to actively search for it, and frankly a lot of people don't even consider that there are atheist groups around until they see these billboards.

Andrew? Are you saying that there are atheists in the United States or even Canada, who don't know that they are atheists? Anyone who is conscious enough to know that they personally don't believe in GOD, is smart enough to know what that unbelief is called.

Well, I'm not and I have no association with these groups. I don't claim to share any of the same goals or motivations as the people who are running these groups.

I didn't accuse you. I was speaking generically. Of those who are engaging in the activity you defend.

Putting up a billboard that has a website on it is also a little different from the proselytising of Christian groups which includes going door to door, preaching on street corners, and sending missionaries to every corner of the earth

Usually Christian billboards give information such as the address of the church or website with an invitation to visit the church.

All members of The Church, that is the entire body of believers in Jesus Christ worldwide, are commanded to preach and publicize the Gospel unapologetically throughout the world as a commandment given to us by Christi Himself.

- it's really the more active invasive forms of proselytizing that people have a problem with.

Proselytizing is proselytizing. Atheists, if they are honest, will own up to what they are doing with these billboards. And what they are doing as Reality Check has expounded upon so thoroughly on this thread is attacking Christianity under the guise of non-belief.

Are you saying that there are atheists in the United States or even Canada, who don't know that they are atheists?

I'm saying there are plenty of atheists who don't know there's a humanist groups in existence, let alone in the area where they live where they can meet with like minded people.

Proselytizing is proselytizing.

Hardly. For one this is more advertisement than proselytizing. They're not seeking to convert, but to aggregate. Secondly, a billboard is not a missionary knocking on your door or a pamphlet stuck in your mailbox. It is unobtrusive. All advertising is most certainly not created equal.

I'm saying there are plenty of atheists who don't know there's a humanist groups in existence, let alone in the area where they live where they can meet with like minded people.

Andrew,

You're implying that Atheists, somewhere perhaps in rural locales, don't either possess a computer or the intellectual curiosity necessary to find out about Atheism and Atheist groups in their area, if they are at all interested? Once again that seems most unlikely when Atheists pride themselves in their own intelligence and reason.

Also, why would Atheists seek to "aggregate"? That seems to fly in the face of the Atheists' own sacred tenets that they don't need to meet together like other religions, increase their numbers as other religions, or share common beliefs with each other?

Again, not begrudging Atheists their right to advertise, only suggesting that they be more open about their motives. Look at me, expecting transparency from a group of GOD deniers.

Secondly, a billboard is not a missionary knocking on your door or a pamphlet stuck in your mailbox.

Not that there is any thing wrong with a Christian proselytizing, a missionary knocking on one's door or a pamphlet stuck in one's mailbox. Why anyone would find the latter invasive or obtrusive is beyond me. It's just a piece of paper. That's making the claim that junk mail is invasive or obtrusive.

Again, Atheists are as free to use high profile billboards as Christians are. Is it foolish to expect Atheists to be above board?

Most of the groups I belong to are the result of advertisement rather than my own intellectual curiosity and google. I'll see a flier for a book club at the local book store, or a add for a fair in the local paper, or see people participating in a dance class on Essex St.

Frankly I'm a rather busy, and sometimes socially lazy, so most of my social activities are a result of serendipity and someone elses concerted effort to advertise.

Also, why would Atheists seek to "aggregate"?

We're a social species, and a sense of community can be an important part of life. A lot of us think that's one of the few things most religious institutions managed to get right.

Frankly I'm a rather busy, and sometimes socially lazy, so most of my social activities are a result of serendipity and someone elses concerted effort to advertise.

Once again, Andrew, you're point is well taken. People are lazy and may more respond to opportunities in their environments sooner or rather than their own initiative or curiosity.

We're a social species, and a sense of community can be an important part of life.

Except Atheists claim that they are ideological islands unto themselves and never meet together to share ideas. They even deny that their ideas are alike when non atheists can see that they are..

A lot of us think that's one of the few things most religious institutions managed to get right.

Us? Who is "Us"? So I can give credit where credit is due.

Jedipunk,

I like having discussions with kids on their missions if I have the time.

They must get an earfull!

Except Atheists claim that they are ideological islands unto themselves and never meet together to share ideas. They even deny that their ideas are alike when non atheists can see that they are.

Not really. At least not so far as I can see. I hold to you the same challenge I held to Reality Check: Can you list any of the unifying tenets of atheism, aside from non-belief in deity?

Jedipunk,

The best compliment I have received from one is that i gave them a religious discussion rather than them being told the way they worship is wrong. They say they get that a lot from non-mormons.

Being a mainline Christian I can imagine the persecution that Mormons might receive from other Christians. Yet, I think they nicer than the Jehovah's Witnesses that have come calling. The young Mormons missionaries I have met, usually in twos, struck me as being sincere believers, that is, sincere in their beliefs.

The Lyamhound,

Not really. At least not so far as I can see.

Might be time to get those new contacts. The list is innumerable. Have you never heard Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and lately Sam Harris? They are the Sacred Patron Saints of Atheism. Most Atheist religious doctrine or ideological dogma ascends from, and is currently channeled through these three.

But to start you off. They are unified in their belief that Atheism is not a religion.

The list is innumerable.

Then you should be able to come up with one (I see you tried; I'll decimate that assertion in a moment).

Have you never heard Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and lately Sam Harris?

I've heard of them, but have not read their writings. Still, perhaps you could enumerate some of their shared belief and value systems. Do they all share the same stance on polygamy, homosexuality, circumcision, gender relations within marriage, child-rearing, or drug use? Gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium? Do they all hew to the same "religious" constructs that could be said to arise from the presuppositional position of atheism (existentialism, social constructivism, secular humanism, nihilism)? Are those agreements more than incidental--that is, do those agreements arise directly from their atheism, or could someone else--say, a pantheistic Buddhist like myself, or a Christian who believes in an old Earth and evolution, or a Christian (like a Quaker or a progressive Episcopalian, say, who supports gay marriage)--reach the same conclusion by way of the same logical constructs?

They are the Sacred Patron Saints of Atheism.

I know a good number of atheists who place little stock in them.

Most Atheist religious doctrine or ideological dogma ascends from, and is currently channeled through these three.

According to whom?

But to start you off. They are unified in their belief that Atheism is not a religion.

I am with them in that, and I'm not even an atheist (though, as a pantheist, I don't believe in a personal deity). I bet we could even find some Christians who agree with that.

Atheism is best contrasted with theism, which is also not a religion. After all, both you and the Shinto are theists, but I doubt that there is much else in common; that is to say, you aren't members of the same religion, because the particulars of your beliefs about deity don't match up in a way that amounts to a unified belief system.

Of course, I already won this debate with you more than a year ago, Rank on Rank. Here are links to my part of the original discussion:

#c10204912

#c10226215

#c10227450

#c10229048

#c10234267

But we needn't rehash old debates to show where I've already directly contradicted what you're asserting. Just above, in my post to Reality Check, I talk about some of the same things:

As I point out above, atheism is NOT a religion for the same reason theism is not a religion. Merely believing in [G/g]od(s) (or not) does not really amount to a worldview, a set of beliefs or values, or a reasonable definition of apostasy. It simply offers a foundational posit from which one might, down the road a ways, derive those things. One might believe in [G/g]od(s), for example, without making any assertion as to the supremacy or goodness of the deit[y/ies] in question; one might disbelieve in [G/g]od(s) and, from there, arrive at the opposing poles of objectivism or social constructivism.

Now . . . Do you have other, BETTER examples as to the particular beliefs that might unify atheists?

My links don't seem to have posted. Let's see what happens if I just do one:

#c10226215

If that works, scroll down from there. If it doesn't, go to my page, look under my comments in October of 2009, and scroll down to . . . well, any of my various arguments in there.

Plan C: I re-post the entire text of our dispute (my text is in bold):

I think that atheism is probably as much a religion as theism is . . . but I don't think of theism as a religion. There are any of a number of theistic religions--Judaism, Christianity, Islam, even (arguably) Hinduism (though I'd be cautious about applying that label for reasons noted above). But theism itself--the mere assertion that some sort of being preceded the universe as we know it--isn't so much a religion as a presupposition, because it doesn't, of itself, logically lead to a set of behavioral constructs and beliefs about purpose or nature of the universe (beyond a vague assertion that it's designed).

#5.6 - Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:22 PM PDT

Rank on Rank

thelyamhound

"I think that atheism is probably as much a religion as theism is"

Thank you!

But theism itself . . isn't so much a religion as a presupposition, because it doesn't, of itself, logically lead to a set of behavioral constructs and beliefs about purpose or nature of the universe (beyond a vague assertion that it's designed).

You're right again.

• !

#5.9 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:27 AM PDT

thelyamhound

Me: "I think that atheism is probably as much a religion as theism is"

You: Thank you!

Me: But theism itself . . isn't so much a religion as a presupposition, because it doesn't, of itself, logically lead to a set of behavioral constructs and beliefs about purpose or nature of the universe (beyond a vague assertion that it's designed).

You: You're right again.

By saying I'm right, though, you ARE conceding that atheism is NOT a religion, for the same reason that theism is NOT a religion. It's simply a root understanding about the universe from which religion would be derived.

Secular humanism, objectivism, even existentialism might be considered religions, and those are arguably atheistic (though I'd say secular humanism is ultimately derived from Judeo-Christian values, and Hans Jonas drew an interesting parallel between existentialism and gnosticism). That is to say, there are groups of atheists with shared normative values or ontological theories that could qualify as religious in nature. But that's quite different from suggesting it's a religion.

• !

#5.10 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:23 AM PDT

Rank on Rank

"By saying I'm right, though, you ARE conceding that atheism is NOT a religion,"

Ilyamhound

Actually, I thought it was you who was conceding that it was. That is whether or not : "It's simply a root understanding about the universe from which religion would be derived."

• !

#5.11 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:48 AM PDT

thelyamhound

You appear to be skimming posts, rather than reading them thoroughly, before you reply. In any case, you're not paying much attention to that to which you're agreeing. For instance:

I think that atheism is probably as much a religion as theism is . . .

I essentially point out that atheism and theism could be equally defined as religions. And you agree. Then I go on to note:

but I don't think of theism as a religion.

. . . with which you also expressed agreement. I illustrate why that's the case down here:

There are any of a number of theistic religions--Judaism, Christianity, Islam, even (arguably) Hinduism (though I'd be cautious about applying that label for reasons noted above). But theism itself--the mere assertion that some sort of being preceded the universe as we know it--isn't so much a religion as a presupposition, because it doesn't, of itself, logically lead to a set of behavioral constructs and beliefs about purpose or nature of the universe (beyond a vague assertion that it's designed).

The part which you specifically agreed with, that you quoted in your response, was in bold. Atheism isn't a religion because theism isn't a religion--again, because neither fits the FIRST dictionary definition of religion. I'll print them yet again:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

Neither belief in deity nor non-belief in deity leads to what we see above; only when that belief, taken as a presupposition, leads to some outline of both a working theory or origin and purpose and the outline of a moral philosophy does it become religion.

• !

#5.12 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:06 AM PDT

Rank on Rank

I still think you're right "atheism is probably as much a religion as theism", and whether you think atheism is a religion is fundamental to it being a religion as you understand the word.

Atheism does lead to a theory of origin, "evolution", and purpose "self actualization or fulfillment", and the outline of a moral philosophy "secular humanism". Ergo, it is a religion!

• !

#5.13 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:51 AM PDT

thelyamhound

But not all atheists are secular humanists, Rank; Ayn Rand, Nietzsche, and Sartre, for instance, were by no means secular humanists. David Hume wasn't a secular humanist.

Nor do all (or even most) atheists, in my experience, hold "self-actualization" to be a primary value.

And I gave you a dictionary definition of the word. If you disagree with that, your beef is with literacy, not with my opinion.

• !

#5.14 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:03 PM PDT

Rank on Rank

Why do you have a chip on your shoulder? I have no beef with you.

• !

#5.15 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:27 PM PDT

thelyamhound

I'm just noting that by the dictionary definition, neither theism nor atheism are religions. From theism, we derive Shintoism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc.; from atheism, we derive existentialism, secular humanism, statism, objectivism, etc. Any of those might be described as religion.

Likewise, my pantheism is a cosmological, rather than theological, view; it only becomes religion when, in trying to determine best what I believe to be true might guide me in my own moral agency, I adhere to any of the many faith systems that explain and/or derive from that system.

Any other view directly contradicts the literal meaning of the word religion as codified.

Thelyamhound,

I see you haven't changed a bit. And I held out such hopes. But I can't tell you how flattered I am that you recall our previous discussions. What I seem to recall is you getting angry with me because I wouldn't go aong with your line of reasoning.

I'm just noting that by the dictionary definition, neither theism nor atheism are religions. From theism, we derive Shintoism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc.; from atheism, we derive existentialism, secular humanism, statism, objectivism, etc. Any of those might be described as religion.

So we agree that Secular Humanism is a religion. That makes all atheists who are of the secular humanist persuasion, and they seem to be increasing in number especially now that they have begun to proselytize, members of a religious group. A great many atheists subscribe to secular humanism. They would be astonished that you agree that they are at all religious. Yet you have proved here that they are. So dictionary definitions are not the definitive or conclusive answer to whether atheism is a religion. Indeed, theism is a religion also. It is just is not well defined.

Nor do all (or even most) atheists, in my experience, hold "self-actualization" to be a primary value.

Would that not depend on how one defines "self actualization"? For some success would be self actualizing enough, and you can't tell me most atheists are not interested in their own personal success.

Why do atheists and their pantheistic alliies object rabidly to atheism being classified as a religion? They are just as passionate about their beliefs as any other religious person. Atheism is just as doctrinaire, in many cases. I think Reality Check is correct in his theory of 'Fake' and 'Real Atheism. You, who are not an atheist, by your own admission, have spent extraordinary lengths of time and effort to prove here that Atheism is not a religion. '

Atheism is best contrasted with theism, which is also not a religion. After all, both you and the Shinto are theists, but I doubt that there is much else in common; that is to say, you aren't members of the same religion, because the particulars of your beliefs about deity don't match up in a way that amounts to a unified belief system.

You've asserted that both the Shinto and Christian religions are theistic. We need not be of the same branch of religion as each other, but we both hold a common reverence and respect for GOD in the latter case, or gods in the former. There is the common theistic belief in deities/Deity that receive our acknowledgment, prayers and worship. Likewise the atheistic believe religiously no god exists. It cannot be less than a religion because, science neither establishes nor disestablishes the existence of GOD, excluding the Theory of Intelligent Design , of course.

Thus, atheism is a religion because to believe there are no gods/GOD when impartial Science has offered no such proof takes even agnosticism, which truly is not a religion, into the realm of faith, belief without scientific proof, making Atheism a religion, indeed.

Because no Atheist can say "I don't believe in GOD/gods because Science has proved conclusively that there isn't one." He/she must admit "I 'believe' there is no GOD." Even further, she/he must admit "because Science offers no conclusive proof, I myself choose to believe that there is no GOD".

Do they all share the same stance on polygamy, homosexuality, circumcision, gender relations within marriage, child-rearing, or drug use?

Do all theists share the same stance on all of those issues?

I know a good number of atheists who place little stock in them.

I know of good number of theists who place little stock in the Bible. What does that prove? Nevertheless, most Atheists revere their 'patron saints'. I think you know they do.

Jedipunk,

I think Human Secularism is not a religion but a philosophy or, more simply, a way to approach life and living.

Not according to Thelyamhound. He has concluded HS a religion. How is your opinion superior to his on this question?

Since I have no knowledge (read evidence) that the unicorn exists then I have no reason to believe it exists. Since I have no evidence that the god exists then I have no reason to believe he exists. To reject the posiblity that something exists without evidence of existence does not require beliefs or faith. People do it all the time: fairies, zeus, allah, etc.

People don't spend their time actively rejecting the possibility that zeus, fairies, or unicorns exist as Atheists do spending their time rejecting GOD. Remember Reality Check's argument on fake and real atheists.

I think we are all atheists towards all of the same gods, except one. I have one more on my list that I do not think exists than you do.

I am not an atheist of any sort. I believe Allah exists. So that argument doesn't work on me.

Being passionate about something does not make it a religion. The twilight series has more passionate fans and makes more money than any atheism movement. Is that a religion?

I agree that merely being passionate about anything does not make it a religion. Yet passion is oftentimes an essential ingredient to religious belief. Belief in Vampires could be regarded as a religion.

I think we have had this discussion before. But "believing there is no god" is not like "believing there is a god" as the prior wording makes it sound like the atheist are actively believing in something "no god." We are not.

Or you may have had that discussion with someone else. It's just a familiar one. Yes, all atheists are actively believing there is no GOD. To say to oneself or to anyone "I have no belief in gods" means, despite the syntactic gymnastics "I believe in no GOD(s)" That is how it is understood.

I conclude based on lack of evidence that something does not exist then I am "believing" it does not exist. I have not belief in its existence.

Or you may be denying the evidence. But you have the right to do that. A believer would say there is abundance evidence for a Creator. You have chosen to conclude despite the evidence of your biological life and all you see around you that there is no GOD. So the evidence, a universe full is at your disposal. Yet you because of your religion reject them.

Also to say I don't believe or I have no belief in anything means you believe the opposite is the case. If you have no belief in gods, then you believe no gods exist. Moreover, one can believe that God exists and have no belief in GOD, no faith in Him.

And since you have concluded god has not been disproven then that would also mean god's existence has not been proven, so everyone (christians included) should be agnostic according to you.

How is that according to me? But yes, everyone who depends on Science like atheists make a claim that they do to know if GOD exists should be an atheist.

The Exception is, now brace yourself, this will come as shock to you:. CHRISTIAN belief in GOD is based on Biblical FAITH, and as such is not subject to the confines of physical science.

But many catholics share the same stance on the tenets of their religion. Jesus, Mary, Trinity, etc.

What do you mean by that?

Essentially, you are trying to equivocate . . .

Oh please. It's too early in the morning. . . .

And since you have concluded god has not been disproven then that would also mean god's existence has not been proven, so everyone (christians included) should be agnostic according to you.

Correcting: How is that according to me? But yes, everyone who depends on Science like atheists make a claim that they do to know if GOD exists should be an agnostic.

I see you haven't changed a bit. And I held out such hopes.

I can only imagine what sort of quivering nothing I would have to be to have "changed" to your satisfaction. I say that only because the only hostility I ever observed in our exchanges was your refusal, not to capitulate, but to engage.

But I can't tell you how flattered I am that you recall our previous discussions.

I rather enjoyed our previous discussions. It was you, not I, who abandoned them.

What I seem to recall is you getting angry with me because I wouldn't go aong with your line of reasoning.

Not at all. I became frustrated that you didn't actually refute, or even address, my points of reasoning, yet allowed the line of inquiry to die rather than admit that you had no rejoinder.

I'm not concerned that you don't agree with me; I'm concerned that you believe your mere disagreement with my line of reasoning constitutes a valid refutation of same.

So we agree that Secular Humanism is a religion.

In my opinion, yes.

That makes all atheists who are of the secular humanist persuasion, and they seem to be increasing in number especially now that they have begun to proselytize, members of a religious group.

In my opinion, yes. To sum up the important moving parts of my argument, I would never suggest that atheists are not religious; what I would suggest, rather, is that their religion is not atheism. By that same token, I would suggest that your religion is not theism (and you have all but confirmed that suggestion, whenever you have responded to the question, "What is your religion?" not with, "Theism," but with, "Christianity.").

A great many atheists subscribe to secular humanism.

Just as a great many theists subscribe to Christianity. That doesn't make all theism Christianity, or all atheism secular humanism (and, like Christianity, secular humanists can be divided into numerous sects with wildly different doctrines).

They would be astonished that you agree that they are at all religious.

Perhaps they would. Why would you think it was any more my mission to please an atheist than a theist, a secular humanist than a Christian? I'm not even particularly concerned with "pleasing" fellow pantheists when it comes to getting to the kernels of truth suspended in the morass of being. Truth supersedes pleasure (though pleasure, applied after the fact, can perform the necessary task of taking the edge off of truth).

Yet you have proved here that they are.

I have indicated here that secular humanism fits enough of the definitions of religion that one could reasonably posit that it is one.

So dictionary definitions are not the definitive or conclusive answer to whether atheism is a religion.

Perhaps not, but any "answer" would at least require recourse to those definitions. Otherwise, we'd have to assume that anything we're looking at is anything we say it is. I could say that atheism is a duck, and you would have no basis on which to contradict me.

Indeed, theism is a religion also. It is just is not well defined.

Again, I disagree. But you're welcome to make a case to the contrary. Start with this: Is it your contention that you and a Shinto practitioner--both theists, though you are monotheistic and our hypothetical Shinto polytheistic--are practicing the same religion?

Here's a harder one--neither jedipunk nor I believe in [G/g]od(s); while I consider myself a pantheist and he considers himself an atheist, we share that one foundational assumption, the same one he shares with all other atheists. Is it your opinion that, because we share that same foundational assumption as thoroughly as you and the Shinto share its opposite, he and I are also practitioners of the same religion?

Nor do all (or even most) atheists, in my experience, hold "self-actualization" to be a primary value.

Would that not depend on how one defines "self actualization"?

Perhaps.

For some success would be self actualizing enough, and you can't tell me most atheists are not interested in their own personal success.

No more or no less than any Christians, Buddhist, or Jews (the three groups with whom I've had the most experience) are interested in personal success. It certainly doesn't strike me as being at the center of atheistic thought. Taken to its logical extremes, philosophical naturalism arrives at the same conclusion as pantheism--that the self is an ephemeral collection of desires, intimately tied to the body, likely to evaporate upon extinction.

Why do atheists and their pantheistic alliies object rabidly to atheism being classified as a religion?

Because I've explored life both with and without religion, and have seen the differences in enough relief that precision of terms is highly important to me. To extend my interest in precision into my other interests, I would say that, as an actor and writer, it is of utmost importance that words say quite specifically what they intend to say.

I might suggest that, as a religious person, you are unduly sanguine about the misuse of terms you should probably grant a bit more importance than you do.

They are just as passionate about their beliefs as any other religious person.

Anyone who has beliefs is likely to be passionate about them, at least so far as they are active, not passive, beliefs. Belief in deity, in and of itself, is rather passive; I'd suggest that non-belief in deity is even more so. Active beliefs derived some distance therefrom may be classified as religious, but those are derived from the foundational assumptions, not simply restatements thereof.

You've asserted that both the Shinto and Christian religions are theistic.

As "assertions" go, that's up there with "water is wet." Both acknowledge deity; both are, therefore, by definition, theistic.

We need not be of the same branch of religion as each other, but we both hold a common reverence and respect for GOD in the latter case, or gods in the former.

Not necessarily. You both share a common acknowledgment of/belief in [G/g]od(s); reverence and respect differ in particulars.

There is the common theistic belief in deities/Deity that receive our acknowledgment, prayers and worship.

Actually, many theistic religions posit deity as antagonistic forces, arising from the physical universe rather than giving birth to it. As such, there isn't even agreement as to the matter of creation amongst theists.

Likewise the atheistic believe religiously no god exists.

Actually, no. Many atheists will assure you that they have no positive belief that [G/g]od(s) do not exist. Non-belief in [G/g]od(s) is not the same as belief that there are no [G/g]od(s).

It cannot be less than a religion because, science neither establishes nor disestablishes the existence of GOD, excluding the Theory of Intelligent Design , of course.

The theory of intelligent design is certainly a viable philosophical theory, but positing it as science is fundamentally dishonest. Otherwise, agreed. One can say, however, that one is left with two options of foundational assumption (having established some tacit assumption that we are even here to make that call, that what we perceive with the senses qualifies as even a marginal facsimile of truth)--that there is something or someone either outside of what we can perceive or invisibly binding all that we perceive (the question of something vs. someone is the question that gives rise to theism vs. pantheism/panentheism, but that's as much, I think, as we need to say on that, unless you still have questions), or that there is not. Empiricism cannot answer the question of whether there is or isn't deity, but it can determine what the evidentiary basis is, or would be, for deity.

Thus, atheism is a religion because to believe there are no gods/GOD when impartial Science has offered no such proof takes even agnosticism, which truly is not a religion, into the realm of faith, belief without scientific proof, making Atheism a religion, indeed.

Except that, as noted, the atheist doesn't necessarily believe that there are no [G/g]od(s). I would even go so far as to say that, as a pantheist--that is, a believer in something that is patently not god--I am more certain than the average atheist as to the absence of deity. But even that posit isn't, in itself, religious, because it contains no value judgment--no prescribed set of duties, no assertions as to origin, and so on.

Because no Atheist can say "I don't believe in GOD/gods because Science has proved conclusively that there isn't one." He/she must admit "I 'believe' there is no GOD."

Unless, of course, he is not a "hard" atheist, and, rather than believing there is no deity, he simply resigns himself to the indisputable fact that empirical observation offers no basis for belief, and that he will withhold belief until such time as it does.

Even further, she/he must admit "because Science offers no conclusive proof, I myself choose to believe that there is no GOD".

Belief, being an assertion of truth based on the appearance of the evidence and the individual's capacity to discern the veracity thereof, is not subject to volition. The definitive argument on that could take a whole book; better to point you to where I've already made that argument, and you can determine whether you can offer rejoinder:

Do they all share the same stance on polygamy, homosexuality, circumcision, gender relations within marriage, child-rearing, or drug use?

Do all theists share the same stance on all of those issues?

No, which is just one of many reasons I don't hold theism to be a religion.

I know of good number of theists who place little stock in the Bible. What does that prove?

That not all theists share the same set of values, and hence do not share a religion, because theism, in itself, is NOT a religion.

Nevertheless, most Atheists revere their 'patron saints'. I think you know they do.

That has not been my experience. Of course, unlike you, I know a pretty good number of atheists from my daily life, and don't experience them primarily through internet debate sites.

Again, for some reason, links not posting on this page.

I've only written two articles, so it should be easy to find. Go to my face page, then look for Belief and Volition: Truth, Choice, and Epistemology. There, all arguments as to why belief has nothing to do with choice are laid out. If you can contradict that argument . . . well, you'd be the first, and I'd be impressed.

And sorry, Rank on Rank, that you consider my insistence that words have meaning, and that we are obligated to defer to that meaning, to be hostile. Aside from that, I can't imagine what you'd hoped had "changed." I'm inclined--and I do apologize for any presumption on my part; I certainly make no claim to be free of bias--to think that the only "change" that would suit you is either that I proclaim agreement with your on assertions, or that, rather than illustrating and demonstrating my reasoning for those positions, I simply say, "Well, that's okay; we just disagree!" Mind you, it IS okay that we disagree, and I don't see any reason that we mightn't be friendly rivals; and even your having no rejoinder to my points doesn't "prove" that my points or correct or that yours are wrong. But to quit an argument when you've run out of rejoinder, rather than admitting that you have run out, and then to claim that the one who had the intellectual fortitude and moral courage to make an argument was being hostile strikes me as precisely the kind of passive-aggressive hemming that separates the two sides of any given issue . . . a matter of particular urgency when the subject at hand is the nature and fate of the physical universe (and what, if anything, lies behind, underneath, and/or above it).

And sorry, Rank on Rank, that you consider my insistence that words have meaning, and that we are obligated to defer to that meaning, to be hostile.

Thelyamhound,

No it was rather your earlier tone and your verbal abuse arising out of your "frustration"which I interpreted as hostility. Words mean different things to different people and to different kinds of people. Even the same words like religion, faith, God, love, hate have various interpretations and connotations depending upon the speaker and the listener, or writer and reader.

Aside from that, I can't imagine what you'd hoped had "changed."

That the past rancor would not be repeated and that we could communicate as adults and not resort to name calling, twisting the other's words and arguments, or thinly veiled sarcasm..

I don't see any reason that we mightn't be friendly rivals; and even your having no rejoinder to my points doesn't "prove" that my points or correct or that yours are wrong.

But to quit an argument when you've run out of rejoinder, rather than admitting that you have run out, and then to claim that the one who had the intellectual fortitude and moral courage to make an argument was being hostile strikes me as precisely the kind of passive-aggressive hemming that separates the two sides of any given issue . . .

Is it passive aggressive not to want to be treated to (your) anger/frustration and (your) verbal abuse?

I can only imagine what sort of quivering nothing I would have to be to have "changed" to your satisfaction.

With the New Year people make resolutions to better themselves in some way.

I say that only because the only hostility I ever observed in our exchanges was your refusal, not to capitulate, but to engage.

You only say that because you were on the giving end of the hostility.

I rather enjoyed our previous discussions. It was you, not I, who abandoned them.

I would “abandon” any conversation in which I sense even a modicum of mutual respect was lacking.

I'm concerned that you believe your mere disagreement with my line of reasoning constitutes a valid refutation of same.

Disagreement is even more likely when there is confusion of terms. Even the dictionary is no longer sufficient to clarify the meanings of certain words. Words which have metaphysical or spiritual meanings for example. Hence our discussions will fall into this category.

I dislike argument for argument sake. If there is a point of disagreement. I don’t feel the necessity to prove the other person wrong. People's opinions and attitudes are notoriously resistant to change. And I don’t have all day to quibble about the varied definitions of specific words and to walk a person through my arguments or positions who would rather not see their merits.

So we agree that Secular Humanism is a religion. / In my opinion, yes.

That makes all atheists who are of the secular humanist persuasion . . . members of a religious group./ In my opinion, yes. To sum up the important moving parts of my argument, I would never suggest that atheists are not religious;

I think that statement to be startling in its breadth given the fact that atheists say they are not religious.

what I would suggest, rather, is that their religion is not atheism. By that same token, I would suggest that your religion is not theism

I disagree for reasons presented in my previous posts.

(and you have all but confirmed that suggestion, whenever you have responded to the question, "What is your religion?" not with, "Theism," but with, "Christianity.").

I don’t recall being asked what my religion was in this discussion. However, Christianity is merely "my brand" of Theism. Even as Objectivism may be someone else’s brand of Atheism.

They would be astonished that you agree that they are at all religious./ Perhaps they would.

Why would you think it was any more my mission to please an atheist than a theist, a secular humanist than a Christian?

I did not realize that you were on a mission too. To be frank, so am I.

I'm not even particularly concerned with "pleasing" fellow pantheists when it comes to getting to the kernels of truth suspended in the morass of being. Truth supersedes pleasure (though pleasure, applied after the fact, can perform the necessary task of taking the edge off of truth).

Here’s a great example of the meanings of words. When you use the word ‘truth’ you have a very specific idea in your mind. I can tell you that your definition is sincerely and intelligently derived, our definitions of truth radically differ.

I have indicated here that secular humanism fits enough of the definitions of religion that one could reasonably posit that it is one.

Yes, and I think that was rather courageous of you given what your atheists friends must think.

Indeed, theism is a religion also. It is just is not well defined./ Again, I disagree. But you're welcome to make a case to the contrary. Start with this: Is it your contention that you and a Shinto practitioner--both theists, though you are monotheistic and our hypothetical Shinto polytheistic--are practicing the same religion?

Now where was that even implied in my response? Why you would even think that any Christian would think that his faith was identical to Shintoism I question?

Here's a harder one--neither jedipunk nor I believe in [G/g]od(s);

Isn’t that the meaning of the word "pantheism"? The belief in many gods? How is that you side in with atheists, and now believe there to be no gods?

while I consider myself a pantheist and he considers himself an atheist, we share that one foundational assumption, the same one he shares with all other atheists. Is it your opinion that, because we share that same foundational assumption as thoroughly as you and the Shinto share its opposite, he and I are also practitioners of the same religion?

My time is to valuable to me to waste it on answering absurdities. Isn't yours to valuable to waste asking them?

No more or no less than any Christians, Buddhist, or Jews (the three groups with whom I've had the most experience) are interested in personal success. It certainly doesn't strike me as being at the center of atheistic thought. Taken to its logical extremes, philosophical naturalism arrives at the same conclusion as pantheism--that the self is an ephemeral collection of desires, intimately tied to the body, likely to evaporate upon extinction.

But what if you’re wrong about that? The afterlife I mean.

Because I've explored life both with and without religion, and have seen the differences in enough relief that precision of terms is highly important to me. To extend my interest in precision into my other interests, I would say that, as an actor and writer, it is of utmost importance that words say quite specifically what they intend to say. I might suggest that, as a religious person, you are unduly sanguine about the misuse of terms you should probably grant a bit more importance than you do.

You might suggest that, but you would be wrong. I simply don’t strife about words other people use.

You've asserted that both the Shinto and Christian religions are theistic.

As "assertions" go, that's up there with "water is wet."

I was merely stating your assertion there so I could comment on it The “Water is wet” rejoindre wasn't called for.

Actually, many theistic religions posit deity as antagonistic forces, arising from the physical universe rather than giving birth to it. As such, there isn't even agreement as to the matter of creation amongst theists.

Is there a point here that you are trying to make. Do atheists have a common agreement as to the matter of creation?

Many atheists will assure you that they have no positive belief that [G/g]od(s) do not exist. Non-belief in [G/g]od(s) is not the same as belief that there are no [G/g]od(s).

Atheists have not impressed me with regard to their understanding of what faith is or Deity. How much less in their belief that no God exists?..

It cannot be less than a religion because, science neither establishes nor disestablishes the existence of GOD, excluding the Theory of Intelligent Design , of course. / The theory of intelligent design is certainly a viable philosophical theory, but positing it as science is fundamentally dishonest.

No, I am impressed by the Science of Intelligent Design. The evidence for Evolution is dishonest.

Except that, as noted, the atheist doesn't necessarily believe that there are no [G/g]od(s).

Do the atheists you are familiar with know that?

I would even go so far as to say that, as a pantheist--that is, a believer in something that is patently not god--I am more certain than the average atheist as to the absence of deity..

How can you be so certain? You may elaborate in full.

Unless, of course, he is not a "hard" atheist, and, rather than believing there is no deity, he simply resigns himself to the indisputable fact that empirical observation offers no basis for belief, and that he will withhold belief until such time as it does.

Basis for belief in GOD doesn’t come from empirical observation. It comes by divine revelation.

Belief, being an assertion of truth based on the appearance of the evidence and the individual's capacity to discern the veracity thereof, is not subject to volition.

See, here, a simple word like “belief” and the meaning you ascribe to it though intelligently phrased, is meaningless to me when referencing Deity with all due respect to you. I have my own definition.

The definitive argument on that could take a whole book; better to point you to where I've already made that argument, and you can determine whether you can offer rejoinder:

No, which is just one of many reasons I don't hold theism to be a religion.

Which is why I do.

I know of good number of theists who place little stock in the Bible. What does that prove? That not all theists share the same set of values, and hence do not share a religion, because theism, in itself, is NOT a religion.,

Neither do all atheists share the same stances because Atheism in itself is a Religion.

Nevertheless, most Atheists revere their 'patron saints'. I think you know they do. / That has not been my experience. Of course, unlike you, I know a pretty good number of atheists from my daily life, and don't experience them primarily through internet debate sites

You mean they are less detestable in real life?.

No it was rather your earlier tone and your verbal abuse arising out of your "frustration"which I interpreted as hostility.

On the one hand, I'm inclined to wonder what sort of sheltered world you live in that you would consider anything I've said to you as being abusive. Feel free to reprint any offending phrases, and I'll gladly consider whether I've anything for which to apologize.

Then again, I think that someone who would say this of atheists . . .

You mean they are less detestable in real life?.

. . . has a lot of nerve calling me on supposed verbal abuse.

Words mean different things to different people and to different kinds of people. Even the same words like religion, faith, God, love, hate have various interpretations and connotations depending upon the speaker and the listener, or writer and reader.

To a degree, which is to say, within particular parameters. But again, words denote particular properties; if the definition for religion doesn't exclude somethings and include others, then, as I pointed out, I could say that my shoe is a religion. I mean, prove it isn't; it's all subjective, right?

That the past rancor would not be repeated and that we could communicate as adults and not resort to name calling, twisting the other's words and arguments, or thinly veiled sarcasm..

Again, feel free to show me a name. Feel free, also, to illsutrate where I have twisted your words or arguments, and feel equally free to untwist them, show what you meant (as opposed to what I inferred).

As for sarcasm, I'm pretty sure I'm not veiling it at all. Everyone in my sphere gets to deal with that.

Is it passive aggressive not to want to be treated to (your) anger/frustration and (your) verbal abuse?

Since I maintain that I have not been verbally abusive to you at any time, I would say yes, it's passive-aggressive, if you feel you've been abused, to fail to point out the abuse and ask for redress. I may not give it to you, but I'd be happy to know where you thought you'd been treated unjustly.

As for my frustration, it was warranted. Failing to respond to a point, then acting as if the point somehow does not stand, makes debate somewhat in vain. I assert it, you don't refute it, it stands; we could agree to disagree, or we could admit that the point is one. The only other option--abandonment of discussion--is the coward's way out. Not to say that you are a coward; on the contrary, I'm offering rather sterling advice on how NOT to be one.

With the New Year people make resolutions to better themselves in some way.

See, I prefer to better myself EVERY day. Keeps things moving a little faster. Life is short, and I'm a very, very busy man.

I would “abandon” any conversation in which I sense even a modicum of mutual respect was lacking.

Had I insisted on the respect that I happen to believe I'm due, I would have abandoned the conversation myself. However, my own religious convictions demand that I attempt to bring enlightenment even to those who frustrate and annoy me. If it didn't, I doubt I'd post on the Vine at all.

I think that statement to be startling in its breadth given the fact that atheists say they are not religious.

As I said, I care more for truth than for pleasing others. I am no more an atheist than I am a theist, but truth be told, if I think a pantheist is speaking in error, I will point that out, as well.

I did not realize that you were on a mission too. To be frank, so am I.

Being as I think that a human is no more objectively valuable than a flatworm with opposable thumbs, I would say that without mission, there wouldn't be much reason to remain alive.

When you use the word ‘truth’ you have a very specific idea in your mind. I can tell you that your definition is sincerely and intelligently derived, our definitions of truth radically differ.

In the particulars, maybe. To properly understand what I meant in that phrase, the only thing we have to agree on is that truth = that which is true. We needn't agree on what that is to, in principle, understand what the functional utility of the sentence is.

Now where was that even implied in my response? Why you would even think that any Christian would think that his faith was identical to Shintoism I question?

So while both of you are theists, you are not both practicing the same religion; that is, your religion is not theism. I'm not sure why this doesn't strike you as simple. I could certainly make a more complicated argument as to why theism isn't a religion, but out of consideration for your time, I thought that simplifying it would be better. Trouble is, I can't simplify it much more than that.

Isn’t that the meaning of the word "pantheism"? The belief in many gods? How is that you side in with atheists, and now believe there to be no gods?

There's your mistake: Pantheism is NOT the belief in many gods; that would be POLYtheism. PANtheism is the belief that the totality of the physical universe, the phenomena contained therewithin, and the forces and patterns that bind them make up the metaphysical whole to which we defer; that is, that the universe itself is "god," for lack of a better term.

From Wikipedia:

Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical.^[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god. The word derives from the Ancient Greek: πᾶν (pan) meaning ‘all’ and θεός (theos) meaning ‘God’. As such, Pantheism denotes the idea that “God” is best seen as a way of relating to the Universe.^[2] Although there are divergences within Pantheism, the central ideas found in almost all versions are the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity and the sacredness of Nature.

Sources worth looking into for explanation would be the Tao Te Ching, anything by Spinoza, or, for a sub-strata of pantheistic thought called panpsychism, Giordano Bruno. You could also look to T'ien T'ai or any of a number of Buddhist sutras to grasp the same concept.

Therefore, pantheists--including Buddhists and Taoists, among others--do not believe in deity. Any deity. Not one, not many.

My time is to valuable to me to waste it on answering absurdities. Isn't yours to valuable to waste asking them?

My assertion was no more absurd than the one you seem to be making. If I do not believe in [G/g]od(s)--not one, not many--and he does not believe in [G/g]od(s), are we the same religion, or not? If not, then non-belief in deity is NOT a religion.

But what if you’re wrong about that? The afterlife I mean.

What if? I mean, what if you're wrong? And why should your certainty that I'm wrong be more convincing to me than my certainty that you are?

>>Actually, many theistic religions posit deity as antagonistic forces, arising from the physical universe rather than giving birth to it. As such, there isn't even agreement as to the matter of creation amongst theists.<<

Is there a point here that you are trying to make.

That theism is too divergent in its foundations to qualify as a religion unto itself.

Do atheists have a common agreement as to the matter of creation?

Not really (aside from the fact that none of them attribute it to a deity, which might make "creation" a misnomer for their posits).

>>Except that, as noted, the atheist doesn't necessarily believe that there are no [G/g]od(s).<<

Do the atheists you are familiar with know that?

Yes. And considering that jedipunk has been saying the same thing, I think you already know that.

How can you be so certain? You may elaborate in full.

I am certain because, as a pantheistic Buddhist, I believe in Ichinen Sanzen. See my article A Manifold Manifesto for elaboration.

Basis for belief in GOD doesn’t come from empirical observation. It comes by divine revelation.

Well and good, but empirical observations can be checked in such a way as to show whether or not they will apply to everyone. Revelation, like intuition, is subject to no such epistemic checks and balances. That is, without empiricism, anything anyone says is true . . . to the person saying it.

>>I know of good number of theists who place little stock in the Bible. What does that prove? That not all theists share the same set of values, and hence do not share a religion, because theism, in itself, is NOT a religion.<<

Neither do all atheists share the same stances because Atheism in itself is a Religion.

Because neither theists nor atheists are significantly unified by a set of values, neither is, by definition, a religion. Unless of course, words mean whatever we want them to, in which case, I'm a meatball. How can you say otherwise? Meatball means what I want it to.

Thank you Jedipunk, for correcting me. I obviously had polytheism in my mind when I was referencing pantheism.

Thanks again.

See, here, a simple word like “belief” and the meaning you ascribe to it though intelligently phrased, is meaningless to me when referencing Deity with all due respect to you. I have my own definition.

Interesting thing:

be·lieve

[bih-leev] Show IPA verb, -lieved, -liev·ing.

–verb (used without object)
1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.

–verb (used with object)

2.
to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.

I understand that there is a subjective dimension to language, but shouldn't subjective extrapolations be based on some root understanding of what the word means?

I agree with you there my friend, though I often reflect on how our newsvine microcosm is not particularly representative of society as a whole.

i support their right to practice barbarism.

Jeff,

What barbarism do you refer to? And why would you support it, if it truly is barbarous?

Rank

It is what i define as barbaric. But, that is not the point. If someone wants to worship the Pillsbury Dough Boy, I will defend that right. However, do not make me worship the fat fellow, and do not limit my freedoms based on doughboy dogma.

My point is this: Choice must be preserved.

Jedipunk,

Circumcisions are performed on baby boys at modern hospitals in civilised societies. How can it be barbaric?

I have read quite a bit from the medical side that is pro-cricumcision. Kind of makes sense. Kind of. Doing it because the Cosmic Cookie-Monster says so....please.

Easier/simpler/cheaper/practical solution: Get over sexual sexual hang-ups and teach young men how to bathe properly. How about that? For that matter, after observations in public over the last few weeks, hygine lessons in genral might not be a bad idea for a number of people.

Circumcisions are performed on baby boys at modern hospitals in civilised societies. How can it be barbaric?

Is that how we define barbarism--by the cleanliness of the environment, the apollonian precision with which an act is carried out? One assumes that ritual clitorectomy takes place with similar precautions. What about capital punishment, which some might consider barbaric? To name an extreme example, extermination of Jewish citizens of Europe during WWII was performed in modern facilities in civilized societies; it is barbaric for reasons that go a bit beyond mere lack of order.

As a circumcised man, I don't consider circumcision barbaric, but I'm not sure the fact that it transpires in a hospital really vindicates it on that count.

But that board is on Church property. i have no problems with that at all. i would have no problems if you put a bill board out there saying prayer cures dandruf. I'll put up one that says my views do not make me kill or hurt people to appease a God that clearly is in need of some counseling.

DO NOT, however, put that same sign on government property.

3 things:

Hi there jedi. Let's take your three things in order:

1. i don't see any hatred

What would you characterize what was written on those signs? Compassion, understanding, tolerance, and good will toward your fellow man? It's quite obvious what the intentions were. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

2. i don't dee any mention of govt property in what you quoted

It was the other poster that referred to government property, not myself. There's no way that either church signs or atheist signs would be allowed on any government property. I'm assuming that Jeff was referring to public rather than private property. Therefore my statement stands as written.

3. if one group is allowed to put on govt property then they all should be.

I would agree. Now give an example of a government agency that would allow either group to place a billboard on their property. Or maybe you're alluding to national forest land? Separation of church and state right? Remember that The 10 Commandments have been removed from court houses and prayer from schools.

your church may not but many churches and christian groups do.

So what does that have to do with my church? Some men might decide to put bones in their noses and wear tu-tus. How is that relevant to the reply I posted? The article you seeded was was about right and wrong, taking the high road vs wallowing in the mud. You seem to be straying away from the original subject matter and relevant point the author was making...and that would be, bigotry sucks and only causes division!

As I said you church may not but others do. We are speaking in general here. Nothing we are saying is about what your church does but about what churches that advertise are doing in general.

Sorry, I forgot to address this comment. Let's make something perfectly clear. I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and have no interest in religion. What other churches do, is none of my affair and it's not my assignment to place judgment upon them.

Christian churches are nothing more than hospitals for sinners. They are a place to assemble for those who have placed their trust into Christ for their salvation. We are bound together by His blood and Word which we accept with all of our hearts and minds. Are churches perfect? Of course not...how could they be? It's all about Christ the Son of God, who is perfect, and not about "us" who are not. I hope that helps to foster some understanding between us.