I like “humanist”. In part because of its pseudo-vagueness, when not qualified with “secular” or “atheistic”. A nice umbrella term that can catch religious and non-religious people.

@gerhard:

yes , but the question is put in the context of a theistic religion isnt it?

It is?

But in the context of why you are asking the question

So based on what do you reckon you know the context of why I’m asking the question? Is that based on sufficient evidence, or on some assumptions you have about what I’m up to? Or was there any discussion about why I’m asking, that gives you a better idea of where I’m headed with this?

I’m asking your opinion on what label you think I should adopt, based on your limited knowledge of where I’m at?

Well, based on my limited understanding of your thoughts, I internally label you as a sort of mystic naturalist and humanist.

the definition isnt made up of one aspect of the parts but the sum of the parts ..

Clearly I disagree. Dictionary entries don’t work like that. See those numbers in the dictionary entry? Each is a *different* definition of the same word… a different use. So the word is used to identify different concepts. Please do tell me you understand this?

So, why are we arguing about the precise definition of a word? Is that not modernistic? Words have more than one use, and the context is important, not so?

And what’s with all the people that on the one hand complain that religion sucks because it never changes, and then they start complaining when it does change, e.g.:

but then this is the problem with nuChristain thinking … pick and choose what you want to believe

I’m glad Richard Dawkins isn’t as much of as ass as his followers. Same goes for Jesus, eh…

btw, by ur thinking , critical theory or mathmatics , digg.com etc are all religions or part of a religion because it is a set of communial practices and rituals and because their scientists / people are of athority and hence listend to …
and no . .. i wouldnt consider carl sagan a spiritual leader … i dont consider george lucas as one either …

I took another look at the Dawkins “Atheists for Jesus” article. So much there that I could also disagree with. Maybe I should critically pick it apart? Doing the whole article in one shot will be quite a big post, but hey, I guess I should stop shying away from those. Thorough, large posts have their own niche to target.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

My views on life are based on the teachings of a spiritual leader… Sure, not exclusively. A lot of my beliefs are based on the scientific method (which does not classify as a “spiritual leader”…) Or could I call Carl Sagan a spiritual leader? He was “spiritual”, was he not?

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Voilá, answers.com agrees that many atheists are “religious”.

The point being: arguing definitions without a purpose in mind, is rather stupid. Are we being stupid here? Are we just procrastinating, or are we doing something useful?

just because you believe in the wisdom of jesus doesnt make u a religous christain in the same way believing in karma doesnt make u a religous buddest …

Karma would be considered “supernatural”. You can follow Buddhist teachings without believing in the supernatural. Believe in karma and most atheists would say you believe in the supernatural, not so?

The term “religion” refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction

Atheists have a shared conviction… they communicate in certain fashions because of it. If taking part on RichardDawkins.net is considered a “ritual”, then those taking part would be religious, according to the definition of that sentence. Their communication stems from their shared conviction, drawing much of their communication from sources like The God Delusion. Am I correct? (The whole statement, please note I’m not saying it is a ritual, I know it is not.)

There’s no way I’m going to tell someone else what label they should adopt. Well, unless they ask for my opinion.

It seems I cannot see those links without registering, unfortunately. So, here then the question: I’m asking your opinion on what label you think I should adopt, based on your limited knowledge of where I’m at? (And I’m not going to respond with anything other than “hmph!” )

Atheists for Jesus remains one of my favourite Dawkins articles, let me paste the URL yet again for those that missed it the last ten dozen times:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,20,Atheists-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins

Personally, I’m running mostly with “follower of Jesus” for the time being. It sounds like “disciple” has some connotations that some people find dubious. I’m thinking of myself more as a “pre-Christian-label” Christian, translated into this day and age. In Afrikaans, I hear they called themselves “mense van die Weg”, dunno what the best English translation is… “People of the Way”? “People of the Path”? Neither sounds right.

Ah, I’m sorry, I don’t know when I’ll get to the follow-up. I kinda forgot where exactly I wanted to go with this. I’ll draw from the French Wikipedia as well…