Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Alright. Do you get a better room than otherwise? Better service? Better price? I'm not pushing. Just asking.

From time to time, I will see a Christian insist that Atheism is a religion. It is said as an insult -- like having a religion is something shameful. When this was said -- as an accusation -- to Bill Maher -- he replied that Atheism is religion the way that abstinence is a sex position.

In what way is this an accomplishment?

Crazy religious people vs. crazy anti-theists? Yes. The inability to deal with others.

Jediism has already changed too much. It started off as modified Taoism. The whole Light vs. Dark thing has it's roots in Taoism. It was over simplified and badly done, but it was Taoism. Now, it's Disney.

Extremists from both ends of the political spectrum, tend to look alike.

I can't think of any examples. Unless Communism counts as philosophy.

People also claim the Flying Spaghetti Monster as their religion. That does not mean they take it seriously.

In my experience, on those rare occasions when I was addressed as Reverend -- I knew I was going to be asked for money. I have the Honorary D.D. and the Metaphysics degree. I've never been tempted to use either of them in any way. I was wondering if anybody had actually used their ULC degree for anything. Ever.

I'm having a purely partisan moment in favor of Agnosticism. I've met religious people who raged against non-believers. I've met Atheists who raged against believers. To my observation, Agnostics don't get so excited. Not when the basic position is -- "I don't know".

Over spans of time, I keep running into statements with only minor variation: Christianity is not religion. It's a relationship with God. (Orthodox) Judaism is not religion. It is obedience to Torah, which is God's Law. Islam is not religion. It is submission to God's will. All those religious people -- who are not practicing religion. It's odd. Has "religion" become a bad word?

I was wondering: Has anybody actually used a degree from ULC? Any degree for any purpose?

We have a few people here who follow the Greek gods. Wicca comes in many flavors. Buddhism is what ever the Buddhists say it is. I've given up. Atheists have nothing in common except for what they don't believe. I have learned caution. If we try talking about "religion" in too sweeping a way -- from a perspective of Jewish, Christian and Islamic sources -- we are going to get something vague and meaningless. Even if we confine the conversation to Christianity alone -- look at the differences between Dan and Rev. Cali. The Grand Canyon is a smaller space. When I started this thread, I should have given it a lot more thought.

Maybe. Would this apply to Vedic / Hindu religion? Buddhism? The old Norse or Greek goods? Wicca? I have doubts.

I'm not sure of the distinction. We all have philosophy. We don't all have religion. I think. Maybe.

Are you sure of that? I think the distinctions between Religion and Philosophy are more subtle and complex, than one has gods and the other does not.

There is one other problem. If "we" have the "true" path -- then "they" must have a "false" path. It's a built in binary.

Persuading people that religion is not important -- at least, not worth fighting over -- might be a hard sell. People who have the one true God, and the one true path, and the one true Scripture, don't like to compromise.

Feel welcome.

I suspect I'm reading more caution in some of your responses than you intend. You are not easy to understand. Be patient. I'm starting to get there. Seriously, you are not an easy read.

To my observation, you have good rational thinking and most of the time -- you do a good job of weighing the evidence. If I may -- I don't want to offend -- if I may, you don't know when to let go. You take good ideas too far. I think the perfect example is Agnosticism. Considering the manner in which information gets to the brain -- nobody has absolute information about anything -- much less the existence of God. You seem to be afraid to form even tentative conclusions based on available data. It's not that your thinking is wrong. Your standards of proof are too high. You're not practical. We need tentative conclusions in order to get anything done. That is Science -- tentative conclusions and all. Always adjustable when new and more accurate data comes in. You are an absolutist. You insist on all data -- including things that have not yet been discovered, much less proved. This is where we differ. I am Agnostic based on what I think I know -- now. I could be mistaken. Pending better information, this is my position -- now. Likewise, my Atheism. If new proof comes my way, I might have to rethink my position. If I am confronted with solid proof that I am mistaken in these matters; I might have to let my Atheism go. It has not happened yet. Until it does, my Atheism will remain. I think it's the same deal with your pacifism. Pacifism is a wonderful ideal. You take it too far. Sometimes, dangerous people have to be stopped. Sometimes, it takes deadly force to do so. If the pacifist can't or won't take action -- the onus falls on people who are less idealistic and more practical. Despite all the mishaps and tragedies, we do need armed police.

If you insist on being reasonable ---- alright. Yes.

For the most part, yes. It gets murky when self definition is involved. Jews have always resisted definitions of Judaism, imposed by Catholic dictionaries. Agnostics resist being defined by Christians. Poly-theists have their own concerns. As much with Atheists as Monotheists. Fundamentalist Christians would not find my definition of them at all objective, or accurate, or nice. (Yes. I am aware of my own lack of objectivity. I have that much objectivity.)

T. J. Kirk --a.k.a. the Amazing Atheist -- did his own rebuttal video. Kirk is an obnoxious loudmouth and very irritating, but he scores good points that I had over looked.

I only read one of the books. Not that one.