Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I KNEW IT.

 Mannahnin wrote:
If you're in the Med, Poseidon's a great choice. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Oof course, if you're in the Gulf of Mexico, you pray to Merle, God of the Gulf and patron saint of the redneck Riviera.

 Orlanth wrote:

If its "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship with God" or something similar then he is correct, but such a comment is not for secular understanding, as the words 'religion' and 'religious' have different meanings dependent on context. In some circles it's an insult to call a Christian 'religious'.

In some circles it is insulting to call a fat man a fat man, but that doesn't make said man thin.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

If its "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship with God" or something similar then he is correct, but such a comment is not for secular understanding, as the words 'religion' and 'religious' have different meanings dependent on context. In some circles it's an insult to call a Christian 'religious'.

In some circles it is insulting to call a fat man a fat man, but that doesn't make said man thin.

Different meaning, same spelling. Like many words 'religion' has different meanings in different contexts. More accurately there is a more refined meaning of religion that proper defines spirituality. I would explain, but from past record don't think you are listening.

 Orlanth wrote:

Different meaning, same spelling. Like many words 'religion' has different meanings in different contexts. More accurately there is a more refined meaning of religion that proper defines spirituality. I would explain, but from past record don't think you are listening.

No, you would obfuscate, because that is what you do. You're doing it right now.

The idea that religion X does not see itself as a religion is not new. The faithful generally do not want to believe they are like others, they want to be exceptional. Not religious, but in a relationship with God*.


*That is religious behavior.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

If its "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship with God" or something similar then he is correct, but such a comment is not for secular understanding, as the words 'religion' and 'religious' have different meanings dependent on context. In some circles it's an insult to call a Christian 'religious'.

In some circles it is insulting to call a fat man a fat man, but that doesn't make said man thin.

Well if everyone else in the circle has reached the status of "DAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMn" then yes actually.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Different meaning, same spelling. Like many words 'religion' has different meanings in different contexts. More accurately there is a more refined meaning of religion that proper defines spirituality. I would explain, but from past record don't think you are listening.

The idea that religion X does not see itself as a religion is not new. The faithful generally do not want to believe they are like others, they want to be exceptional. Not religious, but in a relationship with God*.

Few things regarding 'religion' are new. This concept however is specifically New Testament thinking, it was new then, though again not unique. it is however the only major western Religion to think this way. Ritual is of formal importance to Islam and judaism. Eastern relgions are more loose but all have an element of core ritual for proper practice. Christianity as intended was not a 'religion' the formal church came later. Jewsclaim a reltionship with God, but Judaism was always a religion. Christianity originally wasn't, it was a faith concept and message without common ritual.

There are only two rituals in Christianity. Baptism, to be performed once, in a variety of circumstances; so can be passed off as an event. The second, Communion, which is as informal as it gets and literaly requests the faithful to remember Jesus when they eat and not at any set time or frequency.
Everything else is a religious trapping and not core Christianity. Allowing for Jesus' own lifestyle.

 dogma wrote:

*That is religious behavior.

Actually it isn't. There are two definitions of religion right there. one is a secular catch-all, the other describes the difference in processes. Religious behaviour means adherence to the trappings of a religion, when properly applied (in other words in theory for most) Christianity has no trappings. Religion per se is determined by its doctrines and trappings, not by its faith. Faith is somewhat separate, and need to have any religious connotations at all.

Consequently there are two different definitions of religion, the colloquial one by which any faith group is refered to as a religion and secondly more accurately by the methodologies of applied faith. As Christians are encouraged to be worldly wise most will refer to themselves as 'religious' even if they personally try to actively avoid religion as part of their 'walk with God'. This is due to transparency as unless explained it is best for a Christian trying not to be relgious to say they are, as the deeper explanation might be ignored in favour of believing the person concerned is denying their faith.

 Orlanth wrote:

Few things regarding 'religion' are new. This concept however is specifically New Testament thinking, it was new then, though again not unique.

I honestly have no idea what you're on about. You connote the word 'religion', saying that few things regarding it are new, and appell the word 'unique' without having used it prior?

I have to assume that you're trolling me.

 Orlanth wrote:

Consequently there are two different definitions of religion, the colloquial one by which any faith group is refered to as a religion and secondly more accurately by the methodologies of applied faith.

That is not the colloquial definition of 'religion'. That is the definition of religion adhered to by a British man that desperately wants atheism to be equivalent to Christianity.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Few things regarding 'religion' are new. This concept however is specifically New Testament thinking, it was new then, though again not unique.

I honestly have no idea what you're on about. You connote the word 'religion', saying that few things regarding it are new, and appell the word 'unique' without having used it prior?

I have to assume that you're trolling me.

Fair enough that you admit to not understanding thats a start. Just because the subtlties of the subject matter elude you doesn't mean anyone is trolling. maybe your understanding is deficient.

 Orlanth wrote:

Consequently there are two different definitions of religion, the colloquial one by which any faith group is refered to as a religion and secondly more accurately by the methodologies of applied faith.

That is not the colloquial definition of 'religion'. That is the definition of religion adhered to by a British man that desperately wants atheism to be equivalent to Christianity.

 Frazzled wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

If its "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship with God" or something similar then he is correct, but such a comment is not for secular understanding, as the words 'religion' and 'religious' have different meanings dependent on context. In some circles it's an insult to call a Christian 'religious'.

In some circles it is insulting to call a fat man a fat man, but that doesn't make said man thin.

Well if everyone else in the circle has reached the status of "DAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMn" then yes actually.

What happens when they all hit, 'Oh, _hell_ no.'

< Taken by the void dragon. >

 Orlanth wrote:

That proves it, you are confused and starting to troll.

Indeed I am confused. I openly stated that the argument you are making is nonsensical to a degree which strikes me as willful. I touched specifically on your incongruent usage of the terms "new" and "unique" as they relate to concepts.

While my second statement was needlessly confrontational I made it due to our past discussions, and the resultant lack of confidence I have in your ability to clearly define what religion is. It is material to this conversation because I'm somewhat flabbergasted by the mental gymnastics one must go through in order to regard Christianity as not being a religion, but atheism as being one.

 Portugal Jones wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

If its "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship with God" or something similar then he is correct, but such a comment is not for secular understanding, as the words 'religion' and 'religious' have different meanings dependent on context. In some circles it's an insult to call a Christian 'religious'.

In some circles it is insulting to call a fat man a fat man, but that doesn't make said man thin.

Well if everyone else in the circle has reached the status of "DAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMn" then yes actually.

What happens when they all hit, 'Oh, _hell_ no.'

I'll just stay at the Fluffy level thank you.

 Frazzled wrote:

I'll just stay at the Fluffy level thank you.

Gabriel Iglesias might be the most Christian name possible.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

That proves it, you are confused and starting to troll.

Indeed I am confused. I openly stated that the argument you are making is nonsensical to a degree which strikes me as willful. I touched specifically on your incongruent usage of the terms "new" and "unique" as they relate to concepts.

This is because you are a troll. The argument is clear enough you just prefer to assume it isn't because it bypasses the need to construct a rational counter-argument.

 dogma wrote:

While my second statement was needlessly confrontational I made it due to our past discussions, and the resultant lack of confidence I have in your ability to clearly define what religion is.

I have been clear enough.

 dogma wrote:

It is material to this conversation because I'm somewhat flabbergasted by the mental gymnastics one must go through in order to regard Christianity as not being a religion, but atheism as being one.

The mental gymnastics you needs is called 'clear thinking'. Its quite simple.

First you have to understand I never claimed atheism to be a religion, I claimed it to be a religious preference and a faith choice. I should not be suprised that despite several conversations you refuse to acknowledge what was written. Note that I dont expect you to agree with it, just to properly represent it.

Second by looking at the two definitions of religion Christianity clearly falls into one category but on inspection doesnt necessarily, or better put - ought not to fall into the second.

Indeed I am confused. I openly stated that the argument you are making is nonsensical to a degree which strikes me as willful. I touched specifically on your incongruent usage of the terms "new" and "unique" as they relate to concepts.

While my second statement was needlessly confrontational I made it due to our past discussions, and the resultant lack of confidence I have in your ability to clearly define what religion is. It is material to this conversation because I'm somewhat flabbergasted by the mental gymnastics one must go through in order to regard Christianity as not being a religion, but atheism as being one.

I understood him pretty well. I mean I don't agree with some parts but his argument was understood.

 Orlanth wrote:

This is because you are a troll. The argument is clear enough you just prefer to assume it isn't because it bypasses the need to construct a rational counter-argument.

No, I assessed your argument and found it unclear, no assumption was made. I made this assessment because you have not produced a definition of "religion" that excludes nominal Christian behavior.

As regards counter-arguments: How am I to oppose an interlocutor claiming that Christianity has no trappings? Formal ritual is not the only form of outwardly displaying Christian faith.

 Orlanth wrote:

First you have to understand I never claimed atheism to be a religion, I claimed it to be a religious preference and a faith choice.

Not only do I remember you doing exactly that, but a quick forum search confirms my memory.

 Orlanth wrote:
Atheism is a religion in its own right, ultimately a faith of no-God.

I'll also make note of the fact that you couldn't mount an objection without using the word "religious".

 Orlanth wrote:

First you have to understand I never claimed atheism to be a religion, I claimed it to be a religious preference and a faith choice.

Nope, sorry. Most people who are atheist happen to be functionally atheist, in that the idea of god just doesn't factor into their everyday life. Children are born functionally atheist - it isn't a choice. Even for those of us who consider the concept of god/s and reject it, it isn't a 'choice' to not have religious faith. I don't have religious faith because I don't swallow the mythology, not because I choose not to. I just don't believe.

And frankly, as an atheist, I'm getting fairly sick of people like you telling me what I am and getting it spectacularly wrong. We are not in the same boat - you have religious faith, I do not. I can accept that, but you seem to have a problem with it.

 dogma wrote:

No, I assessed your argument and found it unclear, no assumption was made. I made this assessment because you have not produced a definition of "religion" that excludes nominal Christian behavior.

What is known as the 'walk with God' is outside religion. Religion is a set of procedures by which a formalised faith choice is expressed. Pure Christianity, for want of a better term relies instead on an informal relationship. It is possible, even ideal to rely on that rather than any form of religious expression. A good analogy would be to see God as a friend, you don't need any ritual to see your friends, you just do.
Now under the casual definition of religion, this is "religious" behaviour simply because it involves God. Under an technical definition "religion" has nothing to do with it. No set prayers or actions or rituals are needed to converse with the God if touched by the Holy Spirit and they are instead seen as a distraction, even poor theology.

 dogma wrote:

As regards counter-arguments: How am I to oppose an interlocutor claiming that Christianity has no trappings?

Christianity can be followed without trappings. There are strong arguments that it was always intended to, especially looking at the loves of Jesus and his contemporaries.

 dogma wrote:

Formal ritual is not the only form of outwardly displaying Christian faith.

Under a technical definition of religion, displaying faith is not religion, the intended goal regarding what is to be displayed is 'fruit of the spirit' . The 'good fruit' is a series of virtues gained, not tenets to be obeyed.


Now onto this one.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

First you have to understand I never claimed atheism to be a religion, I claimed it to be a religious preference and a faith choice.

Not only do I remember you doing exactly that, but a quick forum search confirms my memory.

 Orlanth wrote:
Atheism is a religion in its own right, ultimately a faith of no-God.

Helps to quote in context.

 Orlanth wrote:

This is one of the most dangerous fallacies that have arisen regarding atheism: the belief that atheism will end 'relgious' fundamentalist violence and killing. Atheism is a religion in its own right, ultimately a faith of no-God. Many are atheists through non practice, others form large communions, often armed hostile, thoroughly dogmatic and under a red flag. An abolition of religion, not that it could occur, would not far from free man from religious terror, it would change the name of the God for which people are made to suffer from a particular named diety to the concept of no-God. Especially as an abolition of religion would most likely take place under an atheistic faith based society such as much of the world suffered under for much of the twentieth century.

Singular error, I even missed your reply (on same page) so I didn't challenge, comment or correct it. In every other occurance I said what I meant, that atheism is a religious preference, not as religion per se. I can quote numerous times I said that. Its as easy to find under a search as what you just found.

This fits in with the context above, in which atheism is a religious preference and has the possibility of being as dangerous as any other religious preference. I shouldn't have to apologise for the confusion as the correct viewpoint has been issued often enough, to the point that I was unaware that the proofreading error had occurred. However I will do so anyway as the error was made. I amend my above comment to "First you have to understand I never knowingly claimed atheism to be a religion, I claimed it to be a religious preference and a faith choice."
Remember that internet posts are more akin to speech than prose, quickly typed and sent.

Here are examples of my consistency of viewpoint, with links:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/quote/60/4063958.page

 Orlanth wrote:

A 'religion', no, a 'faith choice' or 'religious preference', certainly.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/270/454124.page#4379111

Orlanth wrote:
That means you're religious. - Actually no. Consistently throughout the thread I mentioned that atheism isn't a religion per se, but it should be categorised with others forms of religious preference because atheism is a faith choice and those that follow that faith choice are as susceptible to fundamentalism and extremism as any other.

 dogma wrote:

I'll also make note of the fact that you couldn't mount an objection without using the word "religious".

Didn't, not couldn't. Besides what is your point here?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

First you have to understand I never claimed atheism to be a religion, I claimed it to be a religious preference and a faith choice.

Nope, sorry. Most people who are atheist happen to be functionally atheist, in that the idea of god just doesn't factor into their everyday life.

Accept or reject a choice is made.

 Albatross wrote:

Children are born functionally atheist - it isn't a choice.

There is an argument that very young children are in fact spiritually aware. I certainly was, I remember conversations with God as a baby before I was introduced to religion in any way. This phenonema is not limited to me,

 Albatross wrote:

Even for those of us who consider the concept of god/s and reject it, it isn't a 'choice' to not have religious faith. I don't have religious faith because I don't swallow the mythology, not because I choose not to. I just don't believe.

Why dont you believe? Any possible answer indicates a choice made.

 Albatross wrote:

And frankly, as an atheist, I'm getting fairly sick of people like you telling me what I am and getting it spectacularly wrong. We are not in the same boat - you have religious faith, I do not. I can accept that, but you seem to have a problem with it.

Actually I am just close to the truth here. I don't have a problem with faith choices, you do. You wish it wasn't there against all logic.
Can you honestly say you never made a choice not to believe in a religion? You might of only if completely unaware of the concept.

 Orlanth wrote:

Christianity can be followed without trappings.

So you believe in sola fide, and can further note how one can have faith and not behave as though one has faith?

 Orlanth wrote:

Helps to quote in context.

The context doesn't change your statement.

 Orlanth wrote:

Singular error, I even missed your reply (on same page) so I didn't challenge, comment or correct it. In every other occurance I said what I meant, that atheism is a religious preference, not as religion per se.

What distinguishes a religion from a religious preference?

Just to add my two sense to this argument, Christianity is a religion, and Atheism is a religion. Neither are inherently organized, however both have adherents that include those who are part of an organization in relation to their religious preference.

A religion is not dependent on there being a God or Gods, Buddhism comes to mind, what it is is a set of beliefs that explain the cause and nature of the universe, everything else is details.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Christianity can be followed without trappings.

So you believe in sola fide, and can further note how one can have faith and not behave as though one has faith?

That is not sola fide. I am refering to the concept of living by 'faith' as in living with a faith relationship with God.
The doctrine of sola fide 'faith alone' means that righteousness is granted by justification before God through faith, and is not influenced by human works. A completely different concept.

Christianity has plenty of subtle differences like this. Just as the concept of religion has multiple meanings and definitions wirthin the Christian paradigm. As we see here so does the concept of living by faith.

BTW. I had to look up sola fide, as while I was adequately taught the concepts it was under the title of 'Justification by Faith', most modern denominations feel no need to give every concept a Latin title, so while the doctrine was familiar to me the Latin name was not.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Helps to quote in context.

The context doesn't change your statement.

Actually, as I wrote it I can definitively and with consistency say that was not what was meant by the comment. As my posts are often long they are typed quickly. Sometimes an error evades my proofreading before I press send.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Singular error, I even missed your reply (on same page) so I didn't challenge, comment or correct it. In every other occurance I said what I meant, that atheism is a religious preference, not as religion per se.

What distinguishes a religion from a religious preference?

We can use atheism and agnosticism as examples.

Say you take an agnostic/ or atheist who deplores organised religion and has no religion, but may have made a religious preference by choosing 'no religion' or by honouring God outside of religion.
You could also make a case that someone who makes up thier own religion, doesn't follow any set religion but has a religious preference.

This can be most easily described as a simple dataset. Not which religion is followed but, "How many Gods do you worship?" An atheist gets to input a number, same as anyone else. Number of Gods = 0. That number indicates a preference, you could have chosen 1 or 3-in-1, or c200million (for Hinduism). Of course this is no way to do a useful survey, it is just there for the point.

 Orlanth wrote:

That is not sola fide. I am refering to the concept of living by 'faith' as in living with a faith relationship with God.
The doctrine of sola fide 'faith alone' means that righteousness is granted by justification before God through faith, and is not influenced by human works. A completely different concept.

I see no distinction. If one lives with a faith relationship with God, then one is implicitly justified, regardless of works, by way of sola fide.

I'm not the only one either, sola fide is fundamental to the idea of a personal relationship with God.

 Orlanth wrote:

Say you take an agnostic/ or atheist who deplores organised religion and has no religion, but may have made a religious preference by choosing 'no religion' or by honouring God outside of religion.

That isn't a religious choice. If it is, then any choice according to belief is religious.

This is beginning to seem like you only have a hammer, and you still have yet to answer the original question.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Just to add my two sense to this argument, Christianity is a religion, and Atheism is a religion.

I can't help but feel every time I hear a Christian make a claim like this that they're doing their religion a disservice. To make that claim, they're putting "I don't believe there's a God or any other supernatural anything" on equal footing with the whole of Christianity.

As if Christianity was just "I believe in God, and that Jesus is his son" was enough, and all the stuff about moral codes, and thousands of years of history and saints is just detail.

Personally, I think there are beliefs, and in that sense atheism and Chrtistianity and Hinduism and all the rest are beliefs - personal statements about an unknowable thing. But a religion is more than just a belief, it is also a code of ethics, a way of looking at the world, series of rituals, a history, a community and more.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

Well I guess that settles that folks! Christianity is not an organized religion. You saw it from the grand poobah of the Republican party himself!

Christianity isn't really an organised religion. Christianity is an umbrella term for the catching of various organized religions of the Christian faith. But Christianity itself is not organized.

By that definition there is no organized religion though.

The term as we know it, Christian, was coined in order to help Kennedy get elected. He wasn't Catholic, he was "Christian." And as such he was just like you Mr. Lutheran/Baptist/whatever.

I can't help but feel every time I hear a Christian make a claim like this that they're doing their religion a disservice. To make that claim, they're putting "I don't believe there's a God or any other supernatural anything" on equal footing with the whole of Christianity.

I'm not sure why it wouldn't be? I mean being a Pastafarian still affords one the same rights as being Christian, and most people would consider Pastafarianism to be much dumber religion than Christianity or Atheism.

As if Christianity was just "I believe in God, and that Jesus is his son" was enough, and all the stuff about moral codes, and thousands of years of history and saints is just detail.

It is for some.

Personally, I think there are beliefs, and in that sense atheism and Chrtistianity and Hinduism and all the rest are beliefs - personal statements about an unknowable thing. But a religion is more than just a belief, it is also a code of ethics, a way of looking at the world, series of rituals, a history, a community and more.

Do Atheists not have all of that? I mean Atheists say that they can be moral without supernatural justification for their reasonings. They still have rituals, what is the News or Science but a kind of ritualism that reveals the truth of one's surroundings? There is a history of Atheism, and the history of people persecuted for supposed Atheism would date back to Socrates. There is an atheist community. Many atheists enjoy hanging out together, and even form clubs for the furtherence of their world views.

There is a difference in "how" the are, but not between "what" they are. At least not one that I can see.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Do Atheists not have all of that? I mean Atheists say that they can be moral without supernatural justification for their reasonings. They still have rituals, what is the News or Science but a kind of ritualism that reveals the truth of one's surroundings? There is a history of Atheism, and the history of people persecuted for supposed Atheism would date back to Socrates.

Umm, no. News and science aren't rituals. That's just silly. Those are things that every person does in order to learn more about the world around them.

There is an atheist community.

There really isn't. There's a bunch of people who form groups they call atheist communities, but atheism doesn't hold these people together. I mean, what kind of a group would that be?

"I don't believe in God."
"Me neither."
:silence:
:more silence:
:tumbleweed:

Instead what you get is groups that call themselves atheist, that are really just are anti-religion. They spend all of about a minute saying "I don't believe in God" and then the rest of their time complaining about religion and various religious groups.

Many atheists enjoy hanging out together, and even form clubs for the furtherence of their world views.

There is no 'atheist world view'. Such a thing is impossible. When the various ideologies that have attached themselves to atheism vary from Karl Marx to Ayn Rand, then what you're looking at is a belief that can be attached to all kinds of other things. Now those particular views, like Communism, Objectivism, Liberal Humanism and all sorts of other various athiest isms, those things are much closer to religions. They're still not quite the same, but at least they're closer.

There is a difference in "how" the are, but not between "what" they are. At least not one that I can see.

Well, to be perfectly frank, stop looking with the intent to find silly nonsense. I have already explained that a religion is a belief with a whole lot of other cultural, communal and ethical elements attached to it. Whereas somethings are just beliefs, and nothing more.

I can believe that there is no God, and nothing else comes with it. It's just a belief I have. Just like I can believe that it'll probably rain tomorrow. I might be right, I might be wrong, I'll find out when the time comes.

But if believe that God is the Lord and Jesus is his son, well then there's a whole lot of stuff that comes with that. It will encourage me to read the bible, to take the lessons of the book and apply them in my life, and do all sorts of other stuff.

 Ratbarf wrote:

There is a difference in "how" the are, but not between "what" they are. At least not one that I can see.

What is this supposed to mean?

 Ratbarf wrote:


Do Atheists not have all of that? I mean Atheists say that they can be moral without supernatural justification for their reasonings. They still have rituals, what is the News or Science but a kind of ritualism that reveals the truth of one's surroundings? There is a history of Atheism, and the history of people persecuted for supposed Atheism would date back to Socrates. There is an atheist community. Many atheists enjoy hanging out together, and even form clubs for the furtherence of their world views.

There is a difference in "how" the are, but not between "what" they are. At least not one that I can see.

Not all rituals have to do with religion they could be done due to culture for example, also your example could apply to black people, black people have there own history, and they have a history of being persecuted for there race. There is an black community. Many black people enjoy hanging

out together, and even form organizations and clubs for the furtherance of their world views, so I don't see how these attributes make it a religion.

Instead what you get is groups that call themselves atheist, that are really just are anti-religion. They spend all of about a minute saying "I don't believe in God" and then the rest of their time complaining about religion and various religious groups.

That's what I meant.

There is no 'atheist world view'. Such a thing is impossible. When the various ideologies that have attached themselves to atheism vary from Karl Marx to Ayn Rand, then what you're looking at is a belief that can be attached to all kinds of other things. Now those particular views, like Communism, Objectivism, Liberal Humanism and all sorts of other various athiest isms, those things are much closer to religions. They're still not quite the same, but at least they're closer.

Well if there is no Atheist world view then why do they spend so much time complaining about other peoples beleif in God?

Well, to be perfectly frank, stop looking with the intent to find silly nonsense. I have already explained that a religion is a belief with a whole lot of other cultural, communal and ethical elements attached to it. Whereas somethings are just beliefs, and nothing more.

Haven't you heard? My entire world view and life outlook is based on purportedly silly nonsense.

But if believe that God is the Lord and Jesus is his son, well then there's a whole lot of stuff that comes with that. It will encourage me to read the bible, to take the lessons of the book and apply them in my life, and do all sorts of other stuff.

If one is Atheist are they not then inclined to look into both science and philosophy as a way to explain their surroundings and how/why they act certain ways in given social situations? Like what is acceptable and what is not? There are many people who completely reject science as the reason to believe anything, just as there are many people who reject the bible as the foundation for any belief in anything whatsoever. Small barn old order mennonite would be an example of this. Possibly also Hassidic/Orthodox Jews. Though I'm not entirely sure on the Jewish part as I haven't met any.

I can believe that there is no God, and nothing else comes with it. It's just a belief I have.

There is a lot that comes with it. All of a sudden you now have to justify every moral position using reason that isn't founded heavily influenced by the various religious texts. Also, you have to beleive that what the scientists are telling you is true. I mean you beleive in other galaxies right? Well what if the laws of light as we know them now are actually different once you go beyond our solar system. So from within everything looks fine, and the models we've built look correct according to what we can observe. But we won't actually know until we explore everything. There also comes with it the thought that everything that everyone who believes in God is wrong.

That said you don't have to do anything, though it would encourage you to do so. (Can one be a bad atheist?)

I think I'm getting to tired to argue coherently. Off to schnoozelund.