This is becoming bizarre, Philo. Where on earth do you get these ideas from?

>>it must be a boring life to have no character traits or principles to admire, aspire too or to consider adoreable, or worthy of praise. How sad if one considers nothing is valuable and to have no feelling of guilt or sorrow when you have violated a better judgment and offended another. These are the basic things religion deals with.<<

It has been mentioned before, but it clearly needs to be carved in tablets of stone before you understand it...

Religion may deal with "these basic things"

But it does not have an exclusive franchise on them.

There is nothing about atheism that disqualifies it from these basic traits and emotions. If you believe otherwise, then you are a most severely deluded person.

It is of course entirely possible that you believe none of this at all, and are simply making increasingly ridiculous claims, simply to get a reaction. In which case, I've been well and truly sucked in, so you can stop now.

Have a great day.

I recognise your denial of what religion means. You have personally compartmentalised your definition into a box so that it means somthing of which you strongly disagree. To you it is convenient definition of the superstitious beliefs of people. You fail to agree that your own philosophic World view is exactly your personal religion.

Obviously you have no idea what is taught or practised among spiritual people to whom the whole of life is framed around their religion. You deny love is an essential teaching of Christianity and is essential part of the Christian religious practise. Your definition fails to accomodate all religious practises, and only defines what you consider superstitious, so it suits your political cause to berate people of religious principle.

Your religion identity is more than atheism, and you fail to recognise religion is what defines your spirit. For my definition you are religious - upholding a strong set of spiritual principles.

Looking more like a troll every post, Philo. But what the heck.

>>I recognise your denial of what religion means.<<

Disagreeing with you does not constitute denial, nor does it mean that I am necessarily wrong.

In fact, the opposite is more likely, given the vagueness of the arguments you have put forward.

>>To you it is convenient definition of the superstitious beliefs of people<<

Or, to use Foxy's words, "religion is a system of community shared beliefs and rituals that are oriented towards some sacred, supernatural realm"

>>You fail to agree that your own philosophic World view is exactly your personal religion<<

The reason I fail is because my "philosophic World view" fails the Foxy test. My world view is not part of a shared community. It has no rituals. It does not believe in a sacred, supernatural realm.

>>You deny love is an essential teaching of Christianity and is essential part of the Christian religious practise.<<

Nope. Never have, never will.

What I do deny is that love is the exclusive property of Christians, which for some reason you find difficult to understand.

>>it suits your political cause to berate people of religious principle<<

I do not berate. I accept the need that some people find for solace in belief in a god, and for the comfort and fellowship of like-minded people. The fact that I choose not to join them is not an act of aggression.

>>Your religion identity is more than atheism, and you fail to recognise religion is what defines your spirit.<<

Evidence, please?

>>For my definition you are religious - upholding a strong set of spiritual principles.<<

So long as you understand that this is entirely your own personal definition.

If it makes you feel happy to believe that I am religious, that's fine, it doesn't hurt at all.

But do not try to generalize and draw broad conclusions from your misperception, because they simply will not stand up.

Religion is essentially about actions that define the spirit of a person to others, his character as lived out, his values as lived out in action. To the individual it is the inner spirit that defines the attitudes and behaviours.

Some religions also involve belief in theism those beliefs ranges from gods as actual spatial beings, to God as the highest ideal behind all reality in whose image we were meant to live.

The small Church I attend support as part of its programme the development of improved agricultural programmes in Indonesia, Settlement of Muslim refugees in Europe, teaching local school children landcare programmes, and the development and use of creative shills to assist the homeless in Africa. All these we consider a part of our role in doing Gods work in the World. Caring for the poor and homeless is what the NT considers pure religion.

I give up, Philo. If you are going to redefine religion each time I question your previous attempt, we are going nowhere.

>>Religion is essentially about actions that define the spirit of a person to others<<

Yet another unworkable example.

How does this stand up if, say, the "actions that define my spirit" include running a protection racket? Do I then have to declare on the census form that my religion is mafiosi?

Or if the "actions that define my spirit" include extensive charity work and a selfless devotion to the welfare of others, but excludes the concept of a deity? When faced with the question "what is your religion" on the census form, what do I write?

By scouring the four corners of your imagination for ever broader definitions of religion, you are presenting an ever weaker argument. And my question remains - why are you doing this? What is it about the word that gets you so agitated that you need to pin it as a label to all and sundry, whether or not they believe in the supernatural, or the afterlife, or the forgiveness of sins, or the existence of any form of superior being?

I've said the same thing so many times that I am beginning to bore even myself, so I'll quit now.

Have a great, supremely religious day.

Wrong Philo, religion is organised superstition, it is no more than that. Latest events in Pakistan demonstrate the repulsiveness of religion when it attempts to become involved with politics. The 'Brand' of the religion makes no difference as Christianity has demonstrated through the Anti Semitism of Nazi Germany , White supremecy politics of the KKK, the evil that was the self claimed benevolence that led to the stolen generation, the vilification of rape victims of Nicaragua, the persecution of homosexuals in the U.S. The justification of 19th century slavery, witch burning , pagan persecution, and much besides. Of course too Shintoism, Budhism and hinduism both have motivated, wars and autrocities in central and East Asia. The idea of spirit is an articulation of selfishness which dreams to attain the evil of domination.

I am against the corruption that is religion involved in politics, not as an Atheist or an anti-theist or an non-denominationalist but as a firm believer in Democracy. Religion is the polar oppositte of democracy. Religion is in all essence Facism.