Hence; "I believe that there is a god" also isn't a religion. As you stated you need more than just that.
Correct, that is in fact what I stated.
Theism is no more a religion than atheism.
But combine the belief in no god with other beliefs (for example, how the universe was created) and you now have a "set of beliefs" that you believe in and follow.
None of which are impacted by the lack of belief in a God. THAT is your fallacy. Theism and Atheism are not worldviews. They are simply responses to a singular point. To expound upon a given belief structure and then refer to it as religion is improper, and inaccurate. In fact, I would present with clarity that it is overtly incorrect.
The theist umbrella is far more organized and structured, while the atheist umbrella is far more abstract and unorganized.
What you are missing, is that beyond the singular response, any belief added on doesn't inherently make theism or atheism religion in any which way, shape, or form.
Furthermore, you need to realize the totality of what you are saying.
Many atheists believe in animism.
Many atheists may believe the universe was created, its simply a higher being who was existed and or operates outside of a plane other than our own.
Many atheists may have a problem with evolution.
This does not show that "Atheism is a religion" as you attempted very hard to depict. Atheism is,
de facto, a singular point on a singular topic.
The reason so many wonderful analogies are brought up is because they are wholly accurate descriptors of the fallacy.
"Atheism is to religion as bald is to a hair color".
Non-belief does not equal belief. Negative attempts to prove belief in a deity are not "atheist", they are posited by antitheism.
You are clearly attributed extra criteria to a singular point and thus inferring atheism to be religion.
This is a fallacy, and wholly inaccurate.
It is, in fact, just lime me saying, "Tommy doesn't like toast, BUT, Tommy loves evolution, THEREFORE, Tommy is an AntiToastian.".
That is silly idiocy. The same could be, and SHOULD BE, applied to theism. The things that expand FROM a belief in a deity then form around tenet, dogma and ritual, THEN form religion.
One can even follow both an organized religion and an unorganized religion (all of their own personal beliefs that aren't already enshrined in an organized/recognized religion). Going to snip out the rest as this can be applied to pretty much everything else. And no I don't believe other people will magically go "oh ok then, atheism is a (non)religion" now, but this is simply my view on the matter.
You need more study on philosophy, and comprehension. Not being rude, just being truthful. Please don't take offense to that, it is meant in a positive manner.
And that single point still affects other worldviews.
It has no effect beyond declaring "I do not believe there is a god, have evidence?" (Atheism), or "I believe there is a god/s," (Theism). That's it. You cannot add anything else without being disingenuous.
ANYTHING beyond that, quite literally, is projection. It is the attempt of those who oppose said singular views attempt to place it into the trash bin of irrationality by declaring it "similar" to their nonsense.
If we were to sit here at the singular point of being an atheist and or a theist, and I said to you, "I do not believe in a god, do you have any proof of his/her/its existence?"
You could say, "I believe in a god, I do not have proof, but you cannot disprove his existence."
THEN and ONLY then are we discussing Atheism vs Theism.
Once we add various extensions to our argument, or complicated lattices, THEN we are into the structure of
beliefs.
If we then agree that certain rituals, tenets, and dogmas are given to us by a lack of creator, or presence of creator, THEN and ONLY THEN, are we creating "religion".
This is a common route for the theists because to them it explains their singular view of belief in a deity, even if nobody can simultaneously agree on what said deity is on a uniform scale.
It is impossible for Atheists to do so because we're still waiting for the proof or evidence. None is given therefore we do not have a foundation for ritual, dogma, or tenet.
Very easy, very straight forward deductive reasoning.
And I wasn't saying anything about trying to convert people. I said how they are being told that they can't mention their god even when asked by a member to pray at their retirement or other events being held for an individual. If an individual of <insert any religion> asks a chaplain to pray at a ceremony that is just for that person then the chaplain shouldn't be told what he can/can't say. And if we don't want them even mentioning god then why are we having them pray at other events?
The Army is more multinational than ever. It has more religious practices in it and so with cultural diversity comes cultural respect.
I can recall quite vividly a few Hindi and Muslim soldiers I served with expressing discomfort and having to partake in a ceremony that acknowledges a deity that is not the one they serve. It appears that their command has religious preferentialism by outward display, and can make soldiers less comfortable within their units. I know that a large portion of our armed forces are multi-ethnic, but just because 40-50% are Christian, does not mean that we should show preferentialism to Christianity from within the government unit.
That's reality.
And I don't have a problem with it being on "public" land.
If the land is government owned then it is, by simple matter of presence, displaying religious preferentialism.
I often wonder if the ability to REALLY place ones self into anothers shoes is impossible by the religious.
If you are a muslim/sikh, and forced to stare at some huge cross, and you know it is paid for and managed by the government, then you don't have to make any leap of any sort to believe and, perhaps, even be correct in assuming that you will be subject to preferentialism.
That "should" be community land and the community should be able to decide such a thing as long as they don't discriminate against others and don't use taxpayer money to maintain a religious symbol. The bigger issue (imo) is how the government has snatched up large chunks of land that it isn't actively using, but that's for another thread.
Oh?
Who gets to make that final decision?
Democratic vote?
It almost makes me wonder, if a democratic vote would be the result of the largest religion base present at time of it passing.
How about government of any scale simply stays out of the business of preferential religious adornment?
Or, would you prefer that your community demand/require the relocation of those who are uncomfortable with forced visuals of your religion posted all over town?
Nah, I'm USAF. My dad retired out of 32nd street and still lives in the Miramar area though.
Ah, always had fun making up new and creative cadences to insult your haircuts as you were passed by our platoons during pt runs at Ft. Gordon.
(Humor, and a bit of inter-branch ribbing. Nothing more.)
