42
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 44:
Line 44: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Atheism is a religion (view source)
Revision as of 05:48, August 16, 2015
, 05:48, August 16, 2015An opinionated question, looking at the etymology, as well as historical and Biblical understanding of the definitions.
There are two sections in this article named Atheist Cults, one is an actual section, with a link to [[Atheist cults]], the other is simply a "See Also." Are there any objections to me removing the "See Also" section? [[User:IHop|IHop]] 09:39, 7 January 2015 (EST)
There are two sections in this article named Atheist Cults, one is an actual section, with a link to [[Atheist cults]], the other is simply a "See Also." Are there any objections to me removing the "See Also" section? [[User:IHop|IHop]] 09:39, 7 January 2015 (EST)
:Fixed. Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:54, 7 January 2015 (EST)
:Fixed. Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:54, 7 January 2015 (EST)
== What about the etymology of "religion"? ==
Are people to just disregard the proper definition of "religion", and follow Smart and Smartt's definition, whose definition actually applies to ''everything''? It looks like Smartt didn't really put much thought into defining what religion ''is'', but rather, the result of what religion tends to leave behind (particular worldviews and systems), which seems like his definition would make Conservatism, Liberalism, charity, work, joining any group, (etc), a religion. However, if a person looks at the etymology of the word "religion", the Latin origins seem to be pretty clear. "Re-" is the prefix which means "again", and "ligare", coming from "ligo", means "to bind" or "to connect" (think of "ligaments", which "connect" bones). Clearly, the obvious definition of "religion" for all of human history has been that religion "reconnects" a person with God.
I would assume that's why the word "irreligion" is used so frequently on this website to refer to atheists, since the prefix "ir-" means "to negate". "Irreligion" would, therefore, be the negation of religion. So logically, my follow-up question would be this, "Why does this website refer to atheists as 'irreligious' (the negation of religion), while equally calling atheism a religion in several places?" That is both a positive and negative assertion, which is, fundamentally, a contradiction that should be reconciled.
We could also look at the word "atheism" for a better understanding. It's found in the Bible as "atheos", in the Greek form ''(Ephesians 2:12 - remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world)''. The prefix "a-" means "without", and "theos" means "God". Although the literal English translation would be "without God", the interpretation would be "Godless".
When a person correctly understands the etymology of the words "religion" and "atheism", based on both their historical Roman and Biblical origins , I think it becomes clear that atheism isn't a religion, but used to define people who don't express a belief in God, ''(and consequently, a desire to have a relationship with that God,)'' as opposed to those who do. If my understanding is correct, however, then Smart and Smartt would be disregarded, along with any assertions that atheism is a religion. Personally, I don't think Smart and Smartt were very smart to construct this argument and push it to people, since it seems to me that they failed to understand what the words even meant.
Thoughts? [[User:Humanperson|Humanperson]] ([[User talk:Humanperson|talk]]) 01:48, 16 August 2015 (EDT)