# Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!



## Carla_Danger

It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
_noun_

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"

synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More

[TBODY]
[/TBODY]


----------



## TheOldSchool

Tax exempt churches have been started for crazier reasons than what you said.

So get to it chop chop!


----------



## Carla_Danger

TheOldSchool said:


> Tax exempt churches have been started for crazier reasons than what you said.
> 
> So get to it chop chop!




Can I have your address, so I can bring you by some literature?  LOL!


----------



## TheOldSchool

Carla_Danger said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tax exempt churches have been started for crazier reasons than what you said.
> 
> So get to it chop chop!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I have your address, so I can bring you by some literature?  LOL!
Click to expand...


Will you bring some bitches with you?


----------



## Pogo

HEY.

"Priestesses".  We call 'em "priestesses".


----------



## Pogo

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]



Stating the obvious.  But has anyone but Astartled actually suggested it is?  Is this some kind of movement in Revisionistastan?

I don't know, god doesn't tell me shit.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Pogo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stating the obvious.  But has anyone but Astartled actually suggested it is?  Is this some kind of movement in Revisionistastan?
> 
> I don't know, god doesn't tell me shit.
Click to expand...



I've heard two other posters from this forum say it, but I don't remember who.


----------



## Tom Sweetnam

Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.




I don't have faith that there is no God. I cannot be 100% sure of what happens when we die.. As a matter of fact, I miss the comfort I got out of religion back when I was a believer. I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists. (that's lack of faith)


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]




You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion


*Full Definition of RELIGION*
1
_a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>

_b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
*:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
_archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
4
*:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith 

number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.

Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?


----------



## Blackrook

If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.


----------



## Pogo

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.



Bullshit.  Where's the "browbeat"?  As noted where this malarkey began, I don't even know, and I doubt anyone else does, who the atheists are on this site.  Unless it happened to come up, why would it?  Atheism is a simple assessment of theist theory that it doesn't make sense and is rejected.  That's it.  Faith is something needed to believe what you can't prove.  This is the opposite -- simply noting that such proof is not there.


----------



## Pogo

Blackrook said:


> If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.



That's a lot of ifs.  Did they ask?


----------



## Tom Sweetnam

Carla_Danger said:


> I don't have faith that there is no God. I cannot be 100% sure of what happens when we die.. As a matter of fact, I miss the comfort I got out of religion back when I was a believer. I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists. (that's lack of faith)



We're relatively comfortable here in the West.


----------



## Pogo

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion
> 
> 
> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> 
> number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?
Click to expand...


That's a metaphorical definition.  Does not apply.  And there's no such thing as "militant atheists".  That would require teams of missionaries traipsing out to the jungles to give the savages the good news that everything's fine, just keep on doing what you're doing.  That would require charismatic cult leaders in mega-nonchurches splashing over your TV claiming to not-at-all heal the sick in the name of nothing, and most importantly SEND MONEY.  Doesn't exist.

Belief in theism, or refusal thereof, is a personal decision.  There would be no point in "selling" a nonentity.  You can only sell an entity.  Or a faith.


----------



## Pogo

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have faith that there is no God. I cannot be 100% sure of what happens when we die.. As a matter of fact, I miss the comfort I got out of religion back when I was a believer. I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists. (that's lack of faith)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're relatively comfortable here in the West.
Click to expand...


Uhhhhh.................. OK....


----------



## Blackrook

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have faith that there is no God. I cannot be 100% sure of what happens when we die.. As a matter of fact, I miss the comfort I got out of religion back when I was a believer. I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists. (that's lack of faith)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're relatively comfortable here in the West.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is true.  Uncomfortable people are more religious than comfortable people.  The worst thing that ever happened to Christianity was color television, Disneyland, and the three-bedroom suburban home.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Pogo said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion
> 
> 
> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> 
> number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a metaphorical definition.  Does not apply.  And there's no such thing as "militant atheists".  That would require teams of missionaries traipsing out to the jungles to give the savages the good news that everything's fine, just keep on doing what you're doing.  That would require charismatic cult leaders in mega-nonchurches splashing over your TV claiming to not-at-all heal the sick in the name of nothing, and most importantly SEND MONEY.  Doesn't exist.
> 
> Belief in theism, or refusal thereof, is a personal decision.  There would be no point in "selling" a nonentity.  You can only sell an entity.  Or a faith.
Click to expand...


Metaphorical? LOL That's right our of Miriam's Dictionary.

And of course it's a personal decision, but there are just as many people out there trying to convince people that there is no God as there are trying to convince people that there is.


----------



## Carla_Danger

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion
> 
> 
> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> 
> number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?
Click to expand...




You wish. 

And no it doesn't.  What we have is a lack of faith. Religion relies on faith. .


----------



## Carla_Danger

Blackrook said:


> If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.





Are you okay?


----------



## Blackrook

It takes faith to declare that there is no God.


----------



## Blackrook

Carla_Danger said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you okay?
Click to expand...

I'm okay if you're okay.


----------



## Carla_Danger

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion
> 
> 
> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> 
> number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a metaphorical definition.  Does not apply.  And there's no such thing as "militant atheists".  That would require teams of missionaries traipsing out to the jungles to give the savages the good news that everything's fine, just keep on doing what you're doing.  That would require charismatic cult leaders in mega-nonchurches splashing over your TV claiming to not-at-all heal the sick in the name of nothing, and most importantly SEND MONEY.  Doesn't exist.
> 
> Belief in theism, or refusal thereof, is a personal decision.  There would be no point in "selling" a nonentity.  You can only sell an entity.  Or a faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Metaphorical? LOL That's right our of Miriam's Dictionary.
> 
> And of course it's a personal decision, but there are just as many people out there trying to convince people that there is no God as there are trying to convince people that there is.
Click to expand...



Nonsense!  Complete BS!  Nobody is trying to convince people that there is no God.  Furthermore, the majority of this country consider themselves Christian. You just make shit up as you go. I think you just like the sound of your keyboard, going clickity cklick.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Blackrook said:


> It takes faith to declare that there is no God.




I have no proof one way or the other.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Blackrook said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you okay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm okay if you're okay.
Click to expand...



I'm fine, but I'm a little worried about you.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have faith that there is no God. I cannot be 100% sure of what happens when we die.. As a matter of fact, I miss the comfort I got out of religion back when I was a believer. I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists. (that's lack of faith)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're relatively comfortable here in the West.
Click to expand...



I'm happy for you.


----------



## Pogo

Blackrook said:


> It takes faith to declare that there is no God.



It kinda does.  But then it takes faith to believe that the street I want is over "this way" .... we don't call that a "religion".


----------



## Pogo

Blackrook said:


> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have faith that there is no God. I cannot be 100% sure of what happens when we die.. As a matter of fact, I miss the comfort I got out of religion back when I was a believer. I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists. (that's lack of faith)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're relatively comfortable here in the West.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that is true.  Uncomfortable people are more religious than comfortable people.  The worst thing that ever happened to Christianity was color television, Disneyland, and the three-bedroom suburban home.
Click to expand...


Rilly?

Can you explain further?


----------



## Pogo

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion
> 
> 
> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> 
> number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a metaphorical definition.  Does not apply.  And there's no such thing as "militant atheists".  That would require teams of missionaries traipsing out to the jungles to give the savages the good news that everything's fine, just keep on doing what you're doing.  That would require charismatic cult leaders in mega-nonchurches splashing over your TV claiming to not-at-all heal the sick in the name of nothing, and most importantly SEND MONEY.  Doesn't exist.
> 
> Belief in theism, or refusal thereof, is a personal decision.  There would be no point in "selling" a nonentity.  You can only sell an entity.  Or a faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Metaphorical? LOL That's right our of Miriam's Dictionary.
> 
> And of course it's a personal decision, but there are just as many people out there trying to convince people that there is no God as there are trying to convince people that there is.
Click to expand...


Where do we keep them then?   In the Imaginarium??
And again ---------------------- what would be the *point*?


----------



## Pogo

Carla_Danger said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion
> 
> 
> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> 
> number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a metaphorical definition.  Does not apply.  And there's no such thing as "militant atheists".  That would require teams of missionaries traipsing out to the jungles to give the savages the good news that everything's fine, just keep on doing what you're doing.  That would require charismatic cult leaders in mega-nonchurches splashing over your TV claiming to not-at-all heal the sick in the name of nothing, and most importantly SEND MONEY.  Doesn't exist.
> 
> Belief in theism, or refusal thereof, is a personal decision.  There would be no point in "selling" a nonentity.  You can only sell an entity.  Or a faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Metaphorical? LOL That's right our of Miriam's Dictionary.
> 
> And of course it's a personal decision, but there are just as many people out there trying to convince people that there is no God as there are trying to convince people that there is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense!  Complete BS!  Nobody is trying to convince people that there is no God.  Furthermore, the majority of this country consider themselves Christian. You just make shit up as you go. I think you just like the sound of your keyboard, going clickity cklick.
Click to expand...


You know, I _hate_ that sound myself.  Especially when it's used as SFX in a media commercial.


----------



## Pogo

Carla_Danger said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes faith to declare that there is no God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no proof one way or the other.
Click to expand...


Doesn't that make an agnostic?

Uh - oh... I feel comic relief coming on....


"There's nothing an agnostic can't do if he really doesn't know whether he believes in anythng or not" ​


----------



## Blackrook

Carla_Danger said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you okay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm okay if you're okay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fine, but I'm a little worried about you.
Click to expand...

No, you're not.  You don't even know me.  Stick to the topic of the thread and don't make it personal.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Pogo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes faith to declare that there is no God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no proof one way or the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't that make an agnostic?
> 
> Uh - oh... I feel comic relief coming on....
> 
> 
> "There's nothing an agnostic can't do if he really doesn't know whether he believes in anythng or not" ​
Click to expand...



Good point! I called myself agnostic for a long time. And boy, let me tell you, my life was a lot easier when I referred to myself as agnostic. People certainly don't have harsh feelings towards people who claim they are agnostic, I've noticed. Being an atheist is a very different ball game.  I just feel that since I don't live my life as though there is a God, I'm pretty much an atheist.  See below.

Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):


Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
I'm a number 6.


----------



## Blackrook

When you live your life under the assumption that there is no God, then the Ten Commandments do not bind you.  That is why people are uncomfortable around atheists.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Pogo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes faith to declare that there is no God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no proof one way or the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't that make an agnostic?
> 
> Uh - oh... I feel comic relief coming on....
> 
> 
> "There's nothing an agnostic can't do if he really doesn't know whether he believes in anythng or not" ​
Click to expand...




Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!


----------



## Carla_Danger

Blackrook said:


> When you live your life under the assumption that there is no God, then the Ten Commandments do not bind you.  That is why people are uncomfortable around atheists.





I don't need the Ten Commandments to know right from wrong.


----------



## Pogo

Carla_Danger said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes faith to declare that there is no God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no proof one way or the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't that make an agnostic?
> 
> Uh - oh... I feel comic relief coming on....
> 
> 
> "There's nothing an agnostic can't do if he really doesn't know whether he believes in anythng or not" ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good point! I called myself agnostic for a long time. And boy, let me tell you, my life was a lot easier when I referred to myself as agnostic. People certainly don't have harsh feelings towards people who claim they are agnostic, I've noticed. Being an atheist is a very different ball game.  I just feel that since I don't live my life as though there is a God, I'm pretty much an atheist.  See below.
> 
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6.
Click to expand...


That's an interesting scale - never seen that before.  Yeah I'd prolly go for 6 as well, although I've never called myself an atheist.  Then again according to accepted definitions only a 7 would be.  I'm kinda skeptical that sevens actually exist   -- which I guess makes me an aatheist?

One thing I notice, that I've always questioned as much as theism --- why do the several choices refer to the deity as "he"?  

I asked Astartleism back in the other thread, and he never answered -- since "he" can only be "he" relative to a "she" -- who's the she-deity?  There has to be one, else it's not a "he".   It would have to be an "it".


----------



## Pogo

Carla_Danger said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you live your life under the assumption that there is no God, then the Ten Commandments do not bind you.  That is why people are uncomfortable around atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need the Ten Commandments to know right from wrong.
Click to expand...


The TC were plagiarized anyway.  Egyptian Book of the Dead.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Pogo said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion
> 
> 
> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> 
> number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a metaphorical definition.  Does not apply.  And there's no such thing as "militant atheists".  That would require teams of missionaries traipsing out to the jungles to give the savages the good news that everything's fine, just keep on doing what you're doing.  That would require charismatic cult leaders in mega-nonchurches splashing over your TV claiming to not-at-all heal the sick in the name of nothing, and most importantly SEND MONEY.  Doesn't exist.
> 
> Belief in theism, or refusal thereof, is a personal decision.  There would be no point in "selling" a nonentity.  You can only sell an entity.  Or a faith.
Click to expand...



That's true. Atheism would be a hard sell.


----------



## Blackrook

Carla_Danger said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you live your life under the assumption that there is no God, then the Ten Commandments do not bind you.  That is why people are uncomfortable around atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need the Ten Commandments to know right from wrong.
Click to expand...

That voice in your heart telling you right from wrong is the voice of God.  It's called a conscience.  But atheists throughout history have proven to be very good at ignoring the difference between right and wrong, i.e. Stalin, Pol Pot, Robespierre.


----------



## Pogo

Blackrook said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you live your life under the assumption that there is no God, then the Ten Commandments do not bind you.  That is why people are uncomfortable around atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need the Ten Commandments to know right from wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That voice in your heart telling you right from wrong is the voice of God.  It's called a conscience.  But atheists throughout history have proven to be very good at ignoring the difference between right and wrong, i.e. Stalin, Pol Pot, Robespierre.
Click to expand...


And thus starts the guilt by association ploys.  If you can't use Hitler (Catholic), go for Pol Pot.  How do you know what his religious beliefs were anyway?  Let alone that they had any causal relationship?

And -- Robespierre?  Founder of the Cult of the Supreme Being, really?  I believe that falls under Deism, which requires a Creator.

You remember Deism?  Several of this country's founders?


----------



## Pogo

Carla_Danger said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion
> 
> 
> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> 
> number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a metaphorical definition.  Does not apply.  And there's no such thing as "militant atheists".  That would require teams of missionaries traipsing out to the jungles to give the savages the good news that everything's fine, just keep on doing what you're doing.  That would require charismatic cult leaders in mega-nonchurches splashing over your TV claiming to not-at-all heal the sick in the name of nothing, and most importantly SEND MONEY.  Doesn't exist.
> 
> Belief in theism, or refusal thereof, is a personal decision.  There would be no point in "selling" a nonentity.  You can only sell an entity.  Or a faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's true. Atheism would be a hard sell.
Click to expand...


It's the same dilemma as Atheism number 7: you can't prove a negative.  Pretty hard to sell one for the same reason.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Blackrook said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you live your life under the assumption that there is no God, then the Ten Commandments do not bind you.  That is why people are uncomfortable around atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need the Ten Commandments to know right from wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That voice in your heart telling you right from wrong is the voice of God.  It's called a conscience.  But atheists throughout history have proven to be very good at ignoring the difference between right and wrong, i.e. Stalin, Pol Pot, Robespierre.
Click to expand...



Now you're really starting to scare me. It sounds like you believe without God, people are going to run out and start murdering people.  Tell me that's not true.


----------



## Blackrook

Carla_Danger said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you live your life under the assumption that there is no God, then the Ten Commandments do not bind you.  That is why people are uncomfortable around atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need the Ten Commandments to know right from wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That voice in your heart telling you right from wrong is the voice of God.  It's called a conscience.  But atheists throughout history have proven to be very good at ignoring the difference between right and wrong, i.e. Stalin, Pol Pot, Robespierre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're really starting to scare me. It sounds like you believe without God, people are going to run out and start murdering people.  Tell me that's not true.
Click to expand...

Historically, whenever a government controlled by atheists takes over, mass murder happens: the French Revolution, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, etc.


----------



## HUGGY

I don't believe the vast majority of religists are aware and in sync with reality enough to draw a conclusion to go out and murder atheists.

They reach for a bible for guidance.  The bible has no logical solutions to their probloems.

Logically they can never convince someone that requires proof in deciding major lifes' choices. To commit to being a Christian or a Muslim would fly in the face of all that makes comon sense.

Now if the bible stated clearly that it is god's will that Christians must execute non believers. They ..or some of them would go ahead and kill us.

I'm not sure exactly why Muslims in the Mid East believe they are commanded by Allah to kill non believers.

It is obvious from the recent ISIS videos that some of them feel it is within their religists rights to carry out such crimes without reservation.

I think Atheists are more practical than religists.  If Christians started murdering Atheists outright for non believing we would see a lot of Atheists retaliating and taking out these radical elements.  Fortunately for America's Muslims they do not follow in the footsteps of their Mid East radical element bretheren.  We would have a civil war immediately if that was the case.  It would be a bloodbath.


----------



## HUGGY

Carla_Danger said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you live your life under the assumption that there is no God, then the Ten Commandments do not bind you.  That is why people are uncomfortable around atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need the Ten Commandments to know right from wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That voice in your heart telling you right from wrong is the voice of God.  It's called a conscience.  But atheists throughout history have proven to be very good at ignoring the difference between right and wrong, i.e. Stalin, Pol Pot, Robespierre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're really starting to scare me. It sounds like you believe without God, people are going to run out and start murdering people.  Tell me that's not true.
Click to expand...

 
These people are pretty adept at conjuring up Bogey Men.   They already believe a butt load of crap.  How much more propaganda would it take to send them over the edge and make them think they had to kill non believers?  That's a fair question.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]


What's amusing and telling is that theists seek to propagate the lie that 'atheism' is 'religion' in an attempt to portray those free from faith to be as irrational as theists.


----------



## Pogo

HUGGY said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you live your life under the assumption that there is no God, then the Ten Commandments do not bind you.  That is why people are uncomfortable around atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need the Ten Commandments to know right from wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That voice in your heart telling you right from wrong is the voice of God.  It's called a conscience.  But atheists throughout history have proven to be very good at ignoring the difference between right and wrong, i.e. Stalin, Pol Pot, Robespierre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're really starting to scare me. It sounds like you believe without God, people are going to run out and start murdering people.  Tell me that's not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These people are pretty adept at conjuring up Bogey Men.   They already believe a butt load of crap.  How much more propaganda would it take to send them over the edge and make them think they had to kill non believers?  That's a fair question.
Click to expand...


They did after all invent "Satan".  Same thing really.  Anthropomorphize "evil" and declare he's "their" boss.  Shades of Alinsky.  The poster's trying to pull a Godwin, which he can't do directly since Hitler was Catholic.  So he goes for Pol Pot.  On the basis of ..... apparently nothing (I asked, got no answer).

Which is an ironic basis in a topic about atheism I must say..


----------



## Delta4Embassy

May not meet the textbook definition, but the way many atheists identify themselves demanding respect for their non-belief makes it seem like a religion. Way atheist activists assert their rights in the legal arena sure makes it seem like a religion. And when the UN Declaration of Human Rights includes non-belief as a 'freedom of religion' human right, it suuuuuure seems like religion to me.


----------



## PratchettFan

Blackrook said:


> If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.


 
Quite true.  And if one is acting like a religious person then one is treating Atheism as a religion.  Religion is about how people act and interact.  Saying Atheism is not a religion by definition is ignoring the people, and people is all there is.

People here have stated categorically there is no God - faith.
People here have stated everyone needs to stop believing in God - proselytizing.
People here have stated an Atheist has no beliefs right after saying there is no God, just because that is the definition of an Atheist - dogma.

How is that not religion?


----------



## Moonglow

Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 *Torcaso v. Watkins* case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. As recently as 2005, the Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of *Kaufman v. McCaughtry* again ruled that Atheism is Religion. In spite of the many court rulings along that line, members of the Religion of Atheism insist they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by insisting that Christians are mental midgets for being religious and for believing in a *"non-existent sky gawd."*


----------



## SamanthaBrown

Blackrook said:


> Historically, whenever a government controlled by atheists takes over, mass murder happens: the French Revolution, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, etc.



Even if that were true, and I'm leaving a LOT to one side to say that, it wouldn't mean that there was a God, or that to believe there wasn't meant you shared a religion with these people.


----------



## Moonglow

Blackrook said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you live your life under the assumption that there is no God, then the Ten Commandments do not bind you.  That is why people are uncomfortable around atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need the Ten Commandments to know right from wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That voice in your heart telling you right from wrong is the voice of God.  It's called a conscience.  But atheists throughout history have proven to be very good at ignoring the difference between right and wrong, i.e. Stalin, Pol Pot, Robespierre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're really starting to scare me. It sounds like you believe without God, people are going to run out and start murdering people.  Tell me that's not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Historically, whenever a government controlled by atheists takes over, mass murder happens: the French Revolution, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, etc.
Click to expand...



So you are saying that all the great empires of the world were atheists? There is no ancient empire that was void of religion and still had the need to slaughter and subjugate..


----------



## Carla_Danger

Moonglow said:


> Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 *Torcaso v. Watkins* case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. As recently as 2005, the Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of *Kaufman v. McCaughtry* again ruled that Atheism is Religion. In spite of the many court rulings along that line, members of the Religion of Atheism insist they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by insisting that Christians are mental midgets for being religious and for believing in a *"non-existent sky gawd."*





That's incorrect. The Courts have never defined atheism as a religion, in fact, they have specifically acknowledged it as a non-religion. They have said that for the purpose of the First Amendment, atheism is equivalent to religion, So that the atheist can be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st Amendment. That's all it means.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Blackrook said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you live your life under the assumption that there is no God, then the Ten Commandments do not bind you.  That is why people are uncomfortable around atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need the Ten Commandments to know right from wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That voice in your heart telling you right from wrong is the voice of God.  It's called a conscience.  But atheists throughout history have proven to be very good at ignoring the difference between right and wrong, i.e. Stalin, Pol Pot, Robespierre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're really starting to scare me. It sounds like you believe without God, people are going to run out and start murdering people.  Tell me that's not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Historically, whenever a government controlled by atheists takes over, mass murder happens: the French Revolution, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, etc.
Click to expand...



You forgot to list George W Bush.  LOL!


----------



## Moonglow

Carla_Danger said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 *Torcaso v. Watkins* case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. As recently as 2005, the Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of *Kaufman v. McCaughtry* again ruled that Atheism is Religion. In spite of the many court rulings along that line, members of the Religion of Atheism insist they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by insisting that Christians are mental midgets for being religious and for believing in a *"non-existent sky gawd."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect. The Courts have never defined atheism as a religion, in fact, they have specifically acknowledged it as a non-religion. They have said that for the purpose of the First Amendment, atheism is equivalent to religion, So that the atheist can be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st Amendment. That's all it means.
Click to expand...


i don't agree with the courts decision but it is not mine...


----------



## Carla_Danger

Moonglow said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 *Torcaso v. Watkins* case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. As recently as 2005, the Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of *Kaufman v. McCaughtry* again ruled that Atheism is Religion. In spite of the many court rulings along that line, members of the Religion of Atheism insist they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by insisting that Christians are mental midgets for being religious and for believing in a *"non-existent sky gawd."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect. The Courts have never defined atheism as a religion, in fact, they have specifically acknowledged it as a non-religion. They have said that for the purpose of the First Amendment, atheism is equivalent to religion, So that the atheist can be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st Amendment. That's all it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't agree with the courts decision but it is not mine...
Click to expand...



You don't agree that an atheist should have equal protection?


----------



## Moonglow

Carla_Danger said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 *Torcaso v. Watkins* case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. As recently as 2005, the Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of *Kaufman v. McCaughtry* again ruled that Atheism is Religion. In spite of the many court rulings along that line, members of the Religion of Atheism insist they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by insisting that Christians are mental midgets for being religious and for believing in a *"non-existent sky gawd."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect. The Courts have never defined atheism as a religion, in fact, they have specifically acknowledged it as a non-religion. They have said that for the purpose of the First Amendment, atheism is equivalent to religion, So that the atheist can be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st Amendment. That's all it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't agree with the courts decision but it is not mine...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't agree that an atheist should have equal protection?
Click to expand...

Of their religion?


----------



## Carla_Danger

Moonglow said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 *Torcaso v. Watkins* case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. As recently as 2005, the Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of *Kaufman v. McCaughtry* again ruled that Atheism is Religion. In spite of the many court rulings along that line, members of the Religion of Atheism insist they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by insisting that Christians are mental midgets for being religious and for believing in a *"non-existent sky gawd."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect. The Courts have never defined atheism as a religion, in fact, they have specifically acknowledged it as a non-religion. They have said that for the purpose of the First Amendment, atheism is equivalent to religion, So that the atheist can be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st Amendment. That's all it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't agree with the courts decision but it is not mine...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't agree that an atheist should have equal protection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of their religion?
Click to expand...



Freedom from...


----------



## Moonglow

Carla_Danger said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 *Torcaso v. Watkins* case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. As recently as 2005, the Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of *Kaufman v. McCaughtry* again ruled that Atheism is Religion. In spite of the many court rulings along that line, members of the Religion of Atheism insist they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by insisting that Christians are mental midgets for being religious and for believing in a *"non-existent sky gawd."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect. The Courts have never defined atheism as a religion, in fact, they have specifically acknowledged it as a non-religion. They have said that for the purpose of the First Amendment, atheism is equivalent to religion, So that the atheist can be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st Amendment. That's all it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't agree with the courts decision but it is not mine...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't agree that an atheist should have equal protection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of their religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom from...
Click to expand...

You already have that protection...no one if forcing a religion upon you as is the case for the atheist I know..


----------



## Carla_Danger

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's amusing and telling is that theists seek to propagate the lie that 'atheism' is 'religion' in an attempt to portray those free from faith to be as irrational as theists.
Click to expand...


I agree. They want to classify atheism as a religion so they can bring it down to their level of witchcraft and wizardry.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's amusing and telling is that theists seek to propagate the lie that 'atheism' is 'religion' in an attempt to portray those free from faith to be as irrational as theists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. They want to classify atheism as a religion so they can bring it down to their level of witchcraft and wizardry.
Click to expand...

 
Or, you wish to classify it as not a religion so you can pretend you're at a higher level.  I'd say there is enough lies on both sides to go around.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Moonglow said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 *Torcaso v. Watkins* case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. As recently as 2005, the Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of *Kaufman v. McCaughtry* again ruled that Atheism is Religion. In spite of the many court rulings along that line, members of the Religion of Atheism insist they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by insisting that Christians are mental midgets for being religious and for believing in a *"non-existent sky gawd."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect. The Courts have never defined atheism as a religion, in fact, they have specifically acknowledged it as a non-religion. They have said that for the purpose of the First Amendment, atheism is equivalent to religion, So that the atheist can be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st Amendment. That's all it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't agree with the courts decision but it is not mine...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't agree that an atheist should have equal protection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of their religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom from...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already have that protection...no one if forcing a religion upon you as is the case for the atheist I know..
Click to expand...



They weren't allowing that protection in the 1961 case you listed, until it went before the Supreme Court.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Delta4Embassy said:


> May not meet the textbook definition, but the way many atheists identify themselves demanding respect for their non-belief makes it seem like a religion. Way atheist activists assert their rights in the legal arena sure makes it seem like a religion. And when the UN Declaration of Human Rights includes non-belief as a 'freedom of religion' human right, it suuuuuure seems like religion to me.




Well, it's not a religion by any definition.  It is the exact opposite.


----------



## Skull Pilot

I never understood why so many atheists get so upset about something they don't believe in.

I don't think there is a god but I fall into the more agnostic camp where I think we just don't know if there is a supreme being or race of beings out there and even if there are we still may never understand them.

That said IDGAF if someone says the word god or that some people pray at public meetings or in a school as long as it's not forced on anyone.


----------



## Pogo

Skull Pilot said:


> I never understood why so many atheists get so upset about something they don't believe in.
> 
> I don't think there is a god but I fall into the more agnostic camp where I think we just don't know if there is a supreme being or race of beings out there and even if there are we still may never understand them.
> 
> That said IDGAF if someone says the word god or that some people pray at public meetings or in a school as long as it's not forced on anyone.



Perhaps the answer lieth in the last phrase.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Pogo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never understood why so many atheists get so upset about something they don't believe in.
> 
> I don't think there is a god but I fall into the more agnostic camp where I think we just don't know if there is a supreme being or race of beings out there and even if there are we still may never understand them.
> 
> That said IDGAF if someone says the word god or that some people pray at public meetings or in a school as long as it's not forced on anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the answer lieth in the last phrase.
Click to expand...


Tell me how in god we trust on our currency is forcing someone to participate in a religion or worship said god.

BTW it does neither but for some reason atheists who say they do not believe in said god get their panties in a wad over it.

So I'll ask again, how can one be offended by something in which they do not believe?

It's like being offended by Bugs Bunny


----------



## Pogo

Delta4Embassy said:


> May not meet the textbook definition, but the way many atheists identify themselves demanding respect for their non-belief makes it seem like a religion. Way atheist activists assert their rights in the legal arena sure makes it seem like a religion. And when the UN Declaration of Human Rights includes non-belief as a 'freedom of religion' human right, it suuuuuure seems like religion to me.



Ah, but religion has nothing to do with "what rights you have".

*Any* despised group or class of any level (blacks, gays, immigrants, women) will make noises for their rights.  Doesn't make being black or female a "religion".  You have correlation without causation.


----------



## Pogo

Skull Pilot said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never understood why so many atheists get so upset about something they don't believe in.
> 
> I don't think there is a god but I fall into the more agnostic camp where I think we just don't know if there is a supreme being or race of beings out there and even if there are we still may never understand them.
> 
> That said IDGAF if someone says the word god or that some people pray at public meetings or in a school as long as it's not forced on anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the answer lieth in the last phrase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me how in god we trust on our currency is forcing someone to participate in a religion or worship said god.
> 
> BTW it does neither but for some reason atheists who say they do not believe in said god get their panties in a wad over it.
> 
> So I'll ask again, how can one be offended by something in which they do not believe?
> 
> It's like being offended by Bugs Bunny
Click to expand...


Strawman.  I made no reference to money.

I suppose if Bugs Bunny (specifically) were rammed down my throat every time some public meeting took place, every time the seventh inning of a big baseball game came up, on all my money, in the Pledge of Allegiance, bellowed from street corners by bullhorn-wielding preachers, hawked by anonymous other accosters, invoked in every oath in the legal system, screamed from the top of her natural ampitheater by my wacko neighbor, hammered into every wedding and funeral and most of all woven into the social mores of my culture 24/7 as a psychological-warfare guilt tool, that would get a bit tiring -- particularly if my country had been founded on the basis of freedom of choice in cartoon characters.

Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Pogo

Moonglow said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 *Torcaso v. Watkins* case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. As recently as 2005, the Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of *Kaufman v. McCaughtry* again ruled that Atheism is Religion. In spite of the many court rulings along that line, members of the Religion of Atheism insist they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by insisting that Christians are mental midgets for being religious and for believing in a *"non-existent sky gawd."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect. The Courts have never defined atheism as a religion, in fact, they have specifically acknowledged it as a non-religion. They have said that for the purpose of the First Amendment, atheism is equivalent to religion, So that the atheist can be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st Amendment. That's all it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't agree with the courts decision but it is not mine...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't agree that an atheist should have equal protection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of their religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom from...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already have that protection...no one if forcing a religion upon you as is the case for the atheist I know..
Click to expand...


Not by _law_ at least


----------



## Pogo

Moonglow said:


> Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 *Torcaso v. Watkins* case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. As recently as 2005, the Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of *Kaufman v. McCaughtry* again ruled that Atheism is Religion.



Dred Scott called.  No message, he just laughed.


----------



## PratchettFan

Skull Pilot said:


> I never understood why so many atheists get so upset about something they don't believe in.
> 
> I don't think there is a god but I fall into the more agnostic camp where I think we just don't know if there is a supreme being or race of beings out there and even if there are we still may never understand them.
> 
> That said IDGAF if someone says the word god or that some people pray at public meetings or in a school as long as it's not forced on anyone.


 
I agree.  I am not a Christian and it doesn't bother me if someone mentions Jesus around me.  I don't care if there is a cross in a park or the ten commandments in a public building.  I don't have to believe it and I don't have to participate.  Any adult who thinks they are being forced just because they are being exposed really needs to grow a spine.

The only situation I can think of in which it would be force is in a public school classroom, and then only if an official of the school were doing it.  A child can't get up and walk away and is under the influence of the adults. 

There is no such thing as freedom from religion.  The only way you can have that is by removing the freedom of religion.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]


Atheist churches already exist.  You can become an ordained minister...with no credentials at all.



Carla_Danger said:


> I don't have faith that there is no God. I cannot be 100% sure of what happens when we die.. As a matter of fact, I miss the comfort I got out of religion back when I was a believer. *I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists.* (that's lack of faith)


What you suffer from is the misconception that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.  The fact that there is no tangible evidence that God exists does not prove that God does not exist.  Not realizing this causes many college aged children to abandon belief in God in favor of being "enlightened" as some of their atheist preachers proclaim.

I realize that is a big cud for you to chew, but you need to ponder it...and then believe it.

My next post will be quite wordy.   I do hope you have the good sense to read it entirely, explore some or all of the links and digest the logic within before spitting back.


----------



## Moonglow

Carla_Danger said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 *Torcaso v. Watkins* case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. As recently as 2005, the Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of *Kaufman v. McCaughtry* again ruled that Atheism is Religion. In spite of the many court rulings along that line, members of the Religion of Atheism insist they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by insisting that Christians are mental midgets for being religious and for believing in a *"non-existent sky gawd."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect. The Courts have never defined atheism as a religion, in fact, they have specifically acknowledged it as a non-religion. They have said that for the purpose of the First Amendment, atheism is equivalent to religion, So that the atheist can be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st Amendment. That's all it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't agree with the courts decision but it is not mine...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't agree that an atheist should have equal protection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of their religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom from...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already have that protection...no one if forcing a religion upon you as is the case for the atheist I know..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They weren't allowing that protection in the 1961 case you listed, until it went before the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...


Atheism is a belief that there are no Gods...and to the courts it is considered a religion since:



> First, they have a functioning God under whom they are subservient (normally it’s science or rationality, but mainly themselves), and that idea of God informs the way they live and interpret their lives. It informs their biases and determines their values, and governs any sense of morality or ethics they adhere too, or ignore.


Atheism is a religion too Fox News


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist churches already exist.  You can become an ordained minister...with no credentials at all.
Click to expand...


_There _would be an easy gig.  
"Things to do today -- nothing in particular"


Unfortunately it still ignores the same question tossed to you in the previous thread, and that is....

*What would be the point?*

Without an answer, that question kind of shoots the whole idea of "preaching" nothing absurd.


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist churches already exist.  You can become an ordained minister...with no credentials at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _There _would be an easy gig.
> "Things to do today -- nothing in particular"
> 
> 
> Unfortunately it still ignores the same question tossed to you in the previous thread, and that is....
> 
> *What would be the point?*
> 
> Without an answer, that question kind of shoots the whole idea of "preaching" nothing absurd.
Click to expand...

Patience, my impetuous child!  I will get to the point in due time.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Pogo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never understood why so many atheists get so upset about something they don't believe in.
> 
> I don't think there is a god but I fall into the more agnostic camp where I think we just don't know if there is a supreme being or race of beings out there and even if there are we still may never understand them.
> 
> That said IDGAF if someone says the word god or that some people pray at public meetings or in a school as long as it's not forced on anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the answer lieth in the last phrase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me how in god we trust on our currency is forcing someone to participate in a religion or worship said god.
> 
> BTW it does neither but for some reason atheists who say they do not believe in said god get their panties in a wad over it.
> 
> So I'll ask again, how can one be offended by something in which they do not believe?
> 
> It's like being offended by Bugs Bunny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  I made no reference to money.
> 
> I suppose if Bugs Bunny (specifically) were rammed down my throat every time some public meeting took place, every time the seventh inning of a big baseball game came up, on all my money, in the Pledge of Allegiance, bellowed from street corners by bullhorn-wielding preachers, hawked by anonymous other accosters, invoked in every oath in the legal system, screamed from the top of her natural ampitheater by my wacko neighbor, hammered into every wedding and funeral and most of all woven into the social mores of my culture 24/7 as a psychological-warfare guilt tool, that would get a bit tiring -- particularly if my country had been founded on the basis of freedom of choice in cartoon characters.
> 
> Your mileage may vary.
Click to expand...




asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist churches already exist.  You can become an ordained minister...with no credentials at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have faith that there is no God. I cannot be 100% sure of what happens when we die.. As a matter of fact, I miss the comfort I got out of religion back when I was a believer. *I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists.* (that's lack of faith)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you suffer from is the misconception that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.  The fact that there is no tangible evidence that God exists does not prove that God does not exist.  Not realizing this causes many college aged children to abandon belief in God in favor of being "enlightened" as some of their atheist preachers proclaim.
> 
> I realize that is a big cud for you to chew, but you need to ponder it...and then believe it.
> 
> My next post will be quite wordy.   I do hope you have the good sense to read it entirely, explore some or all of the links and digest the logic within before spitting back.
Click to expand...




I've already stated in this thread that I have no proof one way or another.  I reject the literal interpretation of the Bible.


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite true.  And if one is acting like a religious person then one is treating Atheism as a religion.  Religion is about how people act and interact.  Saying Atheism is not a religion by definition is ignoring the people, and people is all there is.
> 
> People here have stated categorically there is no God - faith.
Click to expand...


Who said that?

The question is relative.  See post 33.  Far as I know there are no atheists here in the strict (#7) sense....



PratchettFan said:


> People here have stated everyone needs to stop believing in God - proselytizing.



Again, who?  Where is this?



PratchettFan said:


> People here have stated an Atheist has no beliefs right after saying there is no God, just because that is the definition of an Atheist - dogma.
> 
> How is that not religion?



Atheism doesn't mean "no beliefs".  Obviously everyone has beliefs.  Atheism is simply the antithesis of theism  -- taking the theory of theism and judging it to be inoperative.  It isn't a "belief" in itself at all; rather it's the _rejection _of _one particular_ belief.

I don't like raisins -- that doesn't mean I "believe in not-raisins" or in stamping raisins out for everyone else.  It simply means I turn them down as a personal choice.  It means that among the things I believe in, eating raisins is not one of them.  Not that complex.  Now again, if everybody around me were eating raisins at every turn and disparaging me for _not _eating them, well that might get a bit tiring.  And it _certainly _wouldn't incite me to change my mind on raisins.

Seems to me the bottom line here is not a legal matter but simple respect for one's choice -- and freedom thereof.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Moonglow said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 *Torcaso v. Watkins* case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. As recently as 2005, the Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of *Kaufman v. McCaughtry* again ruled that Atheism is Religion. In spite of the many court rulings along that line, members of the Religion of Atheism insist they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by insisting that Christians are mental midgets for being religious and for believing in a *"non-existent sky gawd."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect. The Courts have never defined atheism as a religion, in fact, they have specifically acknowledged it as a non-religion. They have said that for the purpose of the First Amendment, atheism is equivalent to religion, So that the atheist can be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st Amendment. That's all it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't agree with the courts decision but it is not mine...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't agree that an atheist should have equal protection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of their religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom from...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already have that protection...no one if forcing a religion upon you as is the case for the atheist I know..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They weren't allowing that protection in the 1961 case you listed, until it went before the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is a belief that there are no Gods...and to the courts it is considered a religion since:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, they have a functioning God under whom they are subservient (normally it’s science or rationality, but mainly themselves), and that idea of God informs the way they live and interpret their lives. It informs their biases and determines their values, and governs any sense of morality or ethics they adhere too, or ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheism is a religion too Fox News
Click to expand...



That's a Fox News opinion piece.


----------



## turzovka

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]


 


So who cares anyway?  All you are doing is arguing semantics.
Atheism may not be a religion but it is a belief.  And on that belief many atheists order their lives.  They surely do not stop from sexual sinning because they are worried about the punishments that may present themselves after they die.  Ditto for many other sins.

Now of course, you would not call them “sins,”  so let us just refer to them as morally unacceptable practices in the eyes of many.  (more semantics)

And of course, atheists can be the most upstanding citizens and charitable souls, err,  bodies.  So I cannot deny that reality.  Little do they know it, but their acts of charity, kindness and altruism is the best defense they will have when they meet their Creator after their earthly lives.  (fyi)

One thing that does ring hollow with me (to say the least)  is some atheists on these boards and elsewhere who make the claim that “their people” are more generous and charitable and caring than Christians in general because the atheist knows this is the only life they have so they need to make the most of it.  While Christians are all giddy about heaven to come they don’t hardly care or pay attention to what trials or suffering is going on with others in this world.  That is, of course, asinine to the extreme.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist churches already exist.  You can become an ordained minister...with no credentials at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _There _would be an easy gig.
> "Things to do today -- nothing in particular"
> 
> 
> Unfortunately it still ignores the same question tossed to you in the previous thread, and that is....
> 
> *What would be the point?*
> 
> Without an answer, that question kind of shoots the whole idea of "preaching" nothing absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Patience, my impetuous child!  I will get to the point in due time.
Click to expand...


Uh - that question has been out there two days.  It's not "impetuous".


----------



## asaratis

*THE RELIGIOUS ATHEIST...COMING TO A CHURCH NEAR YOU...IN THE NEAR FUTURE!!*
If some of you know-it-all proponents of falsehoods would do a bit of research, you might not make so many outrageous, misinformed claims.   Atheism is a religion(.) <<<< Period!




Atheism as a Religion A Book Excerpt

One sacred symbol to atheists is the 'A' that symbolizes atheism. Three 'A' symbols are prominent in atheism. One 'A' symbol was created in 2007 by Atheist Alliance International and has a circle around it. The circle is meant to symbolize the unity of all atheists and the inclusion of all other atheist symbols. As you can tell, not only are these symbols for atheism, there is atheist religious symbolism within them that only atheists or those who study atheism know.

A second popular 'A' symbol was created by Richard Dawkins and is a red letter 'A' on a right leaning slant. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has adopted this symbol to represent it when they set up monuments to atheism. The third sacred 'A' symbol was created by the American Atheists and is placed in the middle of an atomic circle. The organization chose this as their symbol in 1963 to demonstrate their faith that science can save and free mankind. The letter 'A' stands in the middle of the atomic sign but rather than meaning atheism, it represents the first letter of the country in which the group is located. This obviously leads to problems since 'A' could stand for Austria, Algeria, Australia, and so on, but I suppose they weren't thinking that far ahead. The Atomic A, as it is known, is allowed on gravestones of U.S. military personnel who are atheists. Atheism is so sacred to some atheists that they want the atheist 'A' to represent them to the world after their death.

Many atheists demonstrated just how sacred the symbol 'A' is to them in the Christmas of 2013. Since my hometown city of Chicago allows a Hanukkah Menorah and Nativity scene to display on government property during the holiday season, the atheists asked to display their own religious symbol so the government wouldn't give the appearance to be endorsing one religion or the other. The monument the Freedom From Religion Foundation chose was a giant Richard Dawkins letter 'A' which stood 8 feet tall and lit up red at night for all to see. Countless atheists showed respect for the 'A' by making a pilgrimage to the site where the 'A' was displayed and having their picture taken with the 'A' which I'm sure will be kept as a cherished keep sake for many. Still, the giant red A was not enough. They also advocated for their atheist faith by erecting a sign that read, "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

The atheist monument is further proof that atheism is a religion and in direct competition with theist religions for followers. Moreover, they have gone beyond telling people what they stand for and actually attack what others believe in. The FFRF sign is incredibly hateful towards all religions and actively tries to demean God and faith. The FFRF and many secular organizations like them are anti-faith, anti-God, and anti-religion. It is not enough for them to have their symbol and state what they believe _in_, as the Christian and Jewish symbols do. The FFRF must go one further to state what they _dislike_ about other faiths. I just can't imagine a Christian nativity scene ever placing a sign next to the nativity stating something cruel and hateful towards other religious faiths. For some reason, atheists at FFRF can still sleep at night doing this. This speaks very poorly of the character of leaders and members of the group. The positive message within atheism must be very weak if they must resort to such hateful, negative tactics.

An additional religious symbol is the atheist Darwin fish. The fish was traditionally a symbol of Christianity for early Christians to recognize each other and since many of Jesus's disciples were fishermen who he would transform into 'fishers of men.' The atheists have usurped the symbol to declare their belief that Darwin's theory of evolution proves God doesn't exist. Since the fish is a creature from the natural world, it made for an easy transition to a symbol for atheism. Atheist's display the fish with the word 'Darwin' across the middle or with feet on the bottom and proudly wear it on t-shirts and bumper stickers. While it may have started as a parody on the Christian fish symbol, it is now an easy way for atheists to recognize each other, mission to non-atheists, and show their gratitude and respect to the person whose scientific work they believe is the foundation for much of their atheist faith, Charles Darwin.

Many more, less popular symbols exist including the empty set symbol of mathematics, the invisible pink unicorn, and the flying spaghetti monster. As the atheist religion continues to fortify itself certain symbols will likely tend to dominate as they work for uniformity and cohesion amongst all atheists.

Atheists are also installing their own religious monuments across the United States. In July of 2013 the American Atheists erected a monument at a Florida courthouse that had allowed the displaying of the Ten Commandments. Ken Loukinen, an American Atheists director of state and regional operations stated "Christianity has had an unfair privilege for at least the last 150 years. We want to level the playing field by stripping them of privilege, and bringing them to equality with all other ideologies." The group has said they will erect 50 more monuments in other locations where the Ten Commandments sit on government land. As Ken Loukinen admitted, the monuments are an effort for the faith of atheism to compete with the other religious faiths.

The monument has the atomic symbol with the letter 'A' in the middle to represent the group and atheism. A quote on the monument states, "An atheist believes a hospital should be built instead of a Church." Little do they acknowledge it was religious temples in Greece, Egypt and other places that first served as hospitals, the numerous hospitals built by Christian charities in the United States, and that atheists have yet to build a hospital in the USA. In the article, the atheists are very explicit about where their priorities are: building 50 more religious monuments to atheism. Perhaps a better quote for the atheist monument would read, "An atheist is someone who says they want a hospital in place of a Church, but then settles for erecting a religious monument to atheism instead." Not soon after this monument was erected, the Sunday Assembly began its cross-country trip across America raising money for…the atheist Church. Atheists may say they want a hospital instead of a Church, but as atheism in practice demonstrates, their first priorities are monuments and places of atheist worship.







Atheism and religion - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

*United States of America*
The United States was an association of former British Colonies which incorporated much of English law and culture in its Federal Constitution. Atheism in the USA is protected under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. In August 2005, in a case where a prison inmate was blocked by prison officials from creating an inmate group to study and discuss atheism, the court ruled this violated the inmate's rights under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recognized the previous Supreme Court precedent by ruling atheism be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st amendment.[11][12]

There are also online churches that have been created by atheists to secure legal rights, to ordain atheist clergy to hold ceremonies, as well as for parody, education, and advocacy.[13][14][15][16]



*Atheism in Judaism*
Main article: Jewish atheism

In general, formulations of Jewish principles of faith require a belief in God (represented by Judaism's paramount prayer, the Shema). In many modern movements in Judaism, Rabbis have generally considered the behavior of a Jew to be the determining factor in whether or not one is considered an adherent of Judaism. Within these movements it is often recognized that it is possible for a Jew to strictly practice Judaism as a faith, while at the same time being an agnostic or atheist.



Some Jewish atheists reject Judaism, but wish to continue identifying themselves with the Jewish people and culture. Jewish atheists who practice Humanistic Judaism embrace Jewish culture and history, rather than belief in a supernatural god, as the sources of their Jewish identity. One study found that only 48% of self identified Jews believe in God.[19]


About the Holy Bible First Church of Atheism






Get Ordained
Start a Local Chapter
Shop
Ministers
FAQ
Blog
Contact Us
Go to Members Site

*Get legally ordained for free*
As a legally ordained minister, you're able to perform weddings, funerals, commitment ceremonies, and other functions that are reserved for members of clergy. You can also start a local FCA Chapter in your city!

*With the First Church of Atheism you can become ordained quickly, easily, and at no cost.*
Since its inception, the First Church of Atheism has amassed quite a following around the world. FCA ministers come from all walks of life. They are every race, ethnicity, age, and creed. The one thing binding every FCA minister is his or her belief in science, reason, and reality. The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority. We provide our service for free, as we believe it is every atheists right to perform these clergy functions. You may become a legally ordained minister for life, without cost, and without question.







North Texas Church of Freethought

The North Texas Church of Freethought is a Fellowship of Unbelievers. We do what all the other churches do, but with one less god. Our aim is to offer atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, and freethinkers all the educational, inspirational, and social and emotional benefits of traditional faith-based churches. We do this by preaching Freethought, a rational approach to religious questions of life, love, meaning, and happiness. Our growing community of freethinkers provides a positive, affirming environment for leading a good life, free of the illogic and intolerance of other religions based on holy books and supernaturalism.

Next Service:Sunday, October 5th 2014Starts at 10:30am

Sheraton Grand [ Map ]4440 West John Carpenter FrwyIrving, TX 75063



Houston Church of Freethought - About Us

*About Us*

What is a freethinker?



Freethought Literature
The Unchurch: A "Filet of Religion"



Why do we call ourselves a "Church"?

Polls consistently show that some 10% of Americans don't feel an affinity for any of the traditional faith-based religious denominations. Yet these people have the same social, emotional, and other "spiritual" needs as everyone else. They are also concerned with such important principles as justice, honesty, right living, and the promotion of these values in the larger society. But the great majority of the unchurched have found it difficult to reconcile their views on these important subjects and their knowledge of the natural world with what nearly all religious organizations expect their members to believe on faith.

Whether they think of themselves as atheists, agnostics, humanists, doubters, skeptics, freethinkers, or something else, these individuals have found themselves excluded from traditional church life in America. As a result, many have felt isolated and unsupported in their conscientiously declining to accept belief in the supernatural. Meanwhile, the faith-based churches have enjoyed a near-monopoly in providing their members with a sense of community and a ready source of personal, emotional, and social enrichment and support.

Up until now, unbelievers have had little choice but to remain alone. A few have chosen to compromise their principles, convincing themselves that their honest doubts just aren't that important. Sadly, many of these people are individuals and couples with children who have been made to feel that religious indoctrination is somehow necessary to the moral development of their offspring.

The Houston Church of Freethought is an extension of the concept originally developed in Dallas by the North Texas Church of Freethought. The Church of Freethought was conceived as an alternative to the conventional faith-based religious organizations. The benefits of traditional church membership are offered to those who are uncomfortable with supernatural beliefs: community and fellowship with those of like mind, a vehicle for personal growth and fulfillment, affirmation of a naturalistic view of the world as a positive life choice for individuals and families, and a sense of belonging within the larger community.

Unbelieving parents will find us an especially attractive option because we offer children a source of moral training and reinforcement free of supernatural promises and threats.

Last Modified on Jan. 6, 2009

*About UsWhy do we call ourselves a "Church"?*

CHURCH is EXACTLY what we are about. We are committed to providing a sanctuary for rational human beings who want to gather voluntarily in a place where they can contemplate life on earth with all it's glory; where rational humans can celebrate the passages of life's important events like births, marriages, and deaths; where families can assemble with core values they wish to pass on to their children through the effective device of Sunday schools; where music can be played that lifts the human spirit; where physical symbols of science can be appreciated; where a true (real) sense of community can be expressed through charitable activities... and ALL without the slightest hint or need for the irrational concept known as "god." 

Atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and freethinkers are still human beings and have real human social, emotional, and "spiritual" needs. Being among like (rational) minded people on a regular basis provides that vital emotional and social support to those of us in a vastly theistic society. The need for community and fellowship does not disappear when we decline to believe in supernaturalism.




The Religious Atheist Shades of Sentience





*The Religious Atheist*
Posted by Lara Douglas November 17th, 2009 |


Due to the rather volatile nature of the subject I am about to discuss, I would first like to make my intentions as clear as I can.  It is my belief that the knowledge of mankind is inherently flawed; the word ‘fact’, to me, means very little.  Our knowledge of the world, whether it is of how it works, or why, is changing so constantly that I would not honestly apply such a strong word to even the sentences I am currently typing, although I do believe them wholly.

As such, when something comes up in conversation that is as far beyond our comprehension as the question of how and why we came to be here, a word such as ‘fact’ should be simply thrown out the window.  On the contrary, each religion to date will throw the word around shamelessly, and today’s Atheists are using the word as if it were solely their own. 

In this article I attempt to define religion and find out exactly what it is, if anything, that separates modern Atheism from being defined as a religion.  To those of you who are wondering, or possibly assuming, I would like to quickly note that I am not Christian, Catholic, Buddhist, Jewish, Atheist, Agnostic, or any other religious group you care to come up with, with special emphasis on Scientology.  I am merely an interested observer in the way the Atheist movement is currently changing.






One of the few things that Atheism and Christianity have in common is the fact that both groups are noticing the active uprising of the Atheism movement over the past few years, although obviously they both have very different opinions on the matter. 

Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in a god or gods, and is therefore not considered to be a religion.  The definition of religion, however, is one that is sketchy at best.  The most common belief is that it is exactly the opposite of Atheism; the belief in a higher power such as a god or multiple gods.  This excludes even as well known a religion as Buddhism, one branch of which does not believe in a god or gods.  So what is the definition of religion?

When researching the topic, one will find that it is almost impossible to find a definition that is able to cover each religion.  Another commonplace definition is that religion is a belief rooted in history.  But then why do governments all over the world have the power to give new beliefs a religious status?  This begs the question of how a religion is, at the very least, legally defined.  How, for example, did a belief system as recent as Scientology become classified as a tax-exempt religion, in some countries at least, if not others?  What were the major defining factors that swayed the judge to give them such a status? 

A more well-rounded definition is given by George A. Lindbeck (Lindbeck, 1984), “A religion can be viewed as a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… It is not primarily an array of beliefs about the true and the good (though it may involve these), or a symbolism expressive of basic attitudes, feelings, or sentiments (though these will be generated).  Rather, it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings and sentiments.”

Some might consider this to be rather vague, but in essence it is the truest description that I have come across.  One will find many religions that claim not to be a religion but, in fact, ‘a way of life’.  But isn’t this what every religion encompasses?  The search for a religion is a search for truth, for knowledge.  The search ends when the individual finds what he believes teaches him or her the basic facts of our existence and the way that we can get the most out of it.  Each of us ask the same question and each religion endeavours to answer it; how should I live my life and why?

It is in finding our own personal answer that religions begin to arise.  The answer is to the asker their own form of enlightenment; such a feeling of purpose and truth awakens that as a result we feel the uprising need to Spread the Word!  This word may be that of god, it may be that of many gods, but it also can be that of science, or that of yoga or a balanced diet or even that of the truth behind flying spaghetti.  






_“When I became convinced that the Universe is natural, that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space. I was free.” _(Ingersoll, 1896)   

It is at this point in time that a religion begins to spread, and also when it begins to encounter problems.  It seems quite often that the simpler the solution is, the more popularity the idea gains, but other ideas can also gain just as much popularity through fear.  This may be fear of a god, fear of what will happen in an afterlife, fear of being different, or fear of being deemed unintelligent through the lack of belief or understanding of what the religion teaches; _“A believer is not a thinker and a thinker is not a believer.” _(Sherman, 1969)

The most obvious problem that religion has is religious intolerance.  While one person has this overwhelming feeling of truth and knowledge, the person or persons they then share this with may be offended if it clashes with their own ‘truth’.  A discussion between two individuals of different faiths about said faith is rarely a civilised or open-minded one, even amongst the normally rational or intelligent, and such rationality and intelligence is often called into question; ‘_I prefer rationalism to Atheism… The question of god and other objects-of-faith are outside reason and play no part in rationalism, thus you don’t have to waste your time in either attacking or defending.’ _(Asimov, 2002)

The biggest problem that religion has, however, is that of being universally accepted.  The reasons for this are obvious, yet religions still go about trying to convert the rest of the world to their own way of thinking.  Those who believe they are of a non-religious status follow the same pattern, but seemingly against religion itself; “So returning to tactics and the evolution lobby, I want to argue that rocking the boat may be just the right thing to do.  My approach to attacking creationism is unlike the evolution lobby, my approach to attacking creationism is to attack religion as a whole.” (Dawkins, 2002)

Although it would like to claim as such, Atheism is not exempt from anything that has been stated so far, as evidenced by the adjacent Atheistic quotations.  The fact that there is no supernatural being in their beliefs is irrelevant, and the fact that science is constantly changing and updating has both its pros and cons when arguing its ‘truth’.  And, like many other religions, its followers will ultimately see anyone who disagrees with their beliefs as less intelligent beings.  _“There is not one single established religion that an intelligent, educated man can believe.” _(Shaw, 1997)

A common thread amongst Atheism is the promotion of ‘free-thinking’.  Unfortunately in context this is more often than not intended to mean ‘one who thinks the same way as we do’; _“A believer is a bird in a cage, a freethinker is an eagle parting the clouds with tireless wing.” _(Ingersoll R. G., 1873)

_



_

So what is it that separates Atheism from religion?  The most common argument is that one cannot define a lack of belief in something as a religion.  But technically agnosticism is the correct term for this.  Agnostics do not believe there is proof of god, they do not believe that there is proof that there is no god, and they do not believe that there are any grounds for the argument to change their lifestyle in any way.  Atheism, however, is the firm belief that there is no god. 

Then is it the fact that Atheists have no set rules which they need to follow?  Or rather, that the rules they have set for themselves, such as a belief in science and ‘reason’, are so vague that they can be interpreted by each individual as they deem necessary?  This is a much better reason than the last, and yet is one that I actually have yet to see proposed.  It can be refuted, however, by the fact that most religious titles cover a broad range of beliefs, so much so that most of them then have sub-categories.  A Christian, for example, could have any number of beliefs; the only assumed knowledge of such a broad term is that they will believe in a god.  Atheism may not have formally named these categories as of yet, but it is quite simple to put them in place.

The Evolutionary Atheist; one who believes in the theory of Charles Darwin.  The Scientific Atheist; one who believes science has the answers to everything, although doesn’t necessarily believe in the theory of evolution.  The Observed Atheist; one who believes the universe exists simply because we are observing it.  The Simplistic Atheist; one who doesn’t believe we came about by evolution, doesn’t understand science, but is nevertheless most certain that we were not created by a god.  This is, quite obviously, a very rough sketch of the categories Atheists may be put into, and I’m sure there are many more that I have not included.






The final argument against Atheism being a religion is that of ritual, and I admit it is the most valid of all arguments presented to me.  Atheists in general do not have religious rituals such as prayer or meditation.  It could be argued, however, that by the founding of recent Atheist Clubs for both school students and adults, it is beginning to teeter on the edge of becoming a ritualistic religion.  Attending Atheist meetings once a week is akin to heading to Church on Sundays, which is considered a religious ritual.  This is a small step, but as atheism is rapidly changing I believe it is the first of many. 

So, in short, there is no reason that I can find to continue to exclude Atheism from being a religion.  We are in an age where there are Atheist clubs at schools and regular meetings at rented halls for the older sympathisers, where Atheists have been willing to stick by their belief literally to the death, where Atheists are actively recruiting non-believers (as such) to their own cause, and where Atheists are discriminated against for their beliefs (although not as harshly as some like to claim).  We are in an age of the Religious Atheist.



[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]


----------



## Pogo

turzovka said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who cares anyway?  All you are doing is arguing semantics.
> Atheism may not be a religion but it is a belief.
Click to expand...


No it is not.  It's a _non-_belief.  *Theism* is a belief.

Do you "believe in" the Easter Bunny?  Assuming no, is that a "belief"?



turzovka said:


> And on that belief many atheists order their lives.  They surely do not stop from sexual sinning because they are worried about the punishments that may present themselves after they die.  Ditto for many other sins.



That would be _their_ business, would it not?  And who appointed you judge of what others are doing?
Further, you seem to assume that "punishments that may present themselves after they die" is by default the only moral guideline that exists.  That kind of singleminded thought, seems to me, is what atheism seeks to transcend by questioning, "is that all there is?".



turzovka said:


> Now of course, you would not call them “sins,”  so let us just refer to them as morally unacceptable practices in the eyes of many.  (more semantics)
> 
> And of course, atheists can be the most upstanding citizens and charitable souls, err,  bodies.  So I cannot deny that reality.  Little do they know it, but their acts of charity, kindness and altruism is the best defense they will have when they meet their Creator after their earthly lives.  (fyi)



Maybe more to the point -- why would you _want to_ deny it?   Isn't that another tactic to divide people into "us" and "them"?
This sounds once again like a completely egocentric "I know best" kind of approach.  How do you know you know best?



turzovka said:


> One thing that does ring hollow with me (to say the least)  is some atheists on these boards and elsewhere who make the claim that “their people” are more generous and charitable and caring than Christians in general because the atheist knows this is the only life they have so they need to make the most of it.  While Christians are all giddy about heaven to come they don’t hardly care or pay attention to what trials or suffering is going on with others in this world.  That is, of course, asinine to the extreme.



It's another strawman.  Without someone actually presenting/advocating the thought it's fairly easy to describe anything as "asinine".  Are you presenting it as a theory?   It might be worth a shot, but it has to be presented neutrally.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> *THE RELIGIOUS ATHEIST...COMING TO A CHURCH NEAR YOU...IN THE NEAR FUTURE!!*
> If some of you know-it-all proponents of falsehoods would do a bit of research, you might not make so many outrageous, misinformed claims.   Atheism is a religion(.) <<<< Period!
> 
> 
> (snip)
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]



I can tell ya right now, no one in the world is going to invest their next two days reading all that.  If there's a point in there, dissect it.

Here's maybe a more pertinent question:
Why do you need so desperately to redefine a rejection of a belief (a negative) into a belief (a positive)?   What does it gain you?  What's the big disadvantage to accepting a simple definition?

Shall we now define "silence" as a "sound" as well?
I mean when Paul Simon wrote "The Sounds of Silence" it's intentionally intended as an oxymoron.  That's what gives the phrase its power -- a direct juxtaposition of _opposites_.  Sound: silence.  Day: night.  On: Off. Theism: Atheism.


----------



## Pogo

Moonglow said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you live your life under the assumption that there is no God, then the Ten Commandments do not bind you.  That is why people are uncomfortable around atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need the Ten Commandments to know right from wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That voice in your heart telling you right from wrong is the voice of God.  It's called a conscience.  But atheists throughout history have proven to be very good at ignoring the difference between right and wrong, i.e. Stalin, Pol Pot, Robespierre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're really starting to scare me. It sounds like you believe without God, people are going to run out and start murdering people.  Tell me that's not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Historically, whenever a government controlled by atheists takes over, mass murder happens: the French Revolution, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that all the great empires of the world were atheists? There is no ancient empire that was void of religion and still had the need to slaughter and subjugate..
Click to expand...


Religion/spirituality is a regularly recurring part of human culture.  We all have some form, individually and collectively.

But this thread is about atheism, i.e. absence of belief in a monotheistic deity.  Not about absence of _religion.  _Important distinction.  Religion after all does not require a deity.


----------



## Moonglow

Pogo said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you live your life under the assumption that there is no God, then the Ten Commandments do not bind you.  That is why people are uncomfortable around atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need the Ten Commandments to know right from wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That voice in your heart telling you right from wrong is the voice of God.  It's called a conscience.  But atheists throughout history have proven to be very good at ignoring the difference between right and wrong, i.e. Stalin, Pol Pot, Robespierre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're really starting to scare me. It sounds like you believe without God, people are going to run out and start murdering people.  Tell me that's not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Historically, whenever a government controlled by atheists takes over, mass murder happens: the French Revolution, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that all the great empires of the world were atheists? There is no ancient empire that was void of religion and still had the need to slaughter and subjugate..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion/spirituality is a regularly recurring part of human culture.  We all have some form, individually and collectively.
> 
> But this thread is about atheism, i.e. absence of belief in a monotheistic deity.  Not about absence of _religion.  _Important distinction.  Religion after all does not require a deity.
Click to expand...


I am no atheist, nor am I am religious person. I was merely trying to answer a question...I do know that there is more we do not know, than we do about the who, what, where and why we are here and the reason the entire galaxies exist and how it all started...


----------



## Pogo

Moonglow said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, whenever a government controlled by atheists takes over, mass murder happens: the French Revolution, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that all the great empires of the world were atheists? *There is no ancient empire that was void of religion* and still had the need to slaughter and subjugate..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion/spirituality is a regularly recurring part of human culture.  We all have some form, individually and collectively.
> 
> But this thread is about atheism, i.e. absence of belief in a monotheistic deity.  Not about absence of _religion.  _Important distinction.  Religion after all does not require a deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am no atheist, nor am I am religious person. I was merely trying to answer a question...I do know that there is more we do not know, than we do about the who, what, where and why we are here and the reason the entire galaxies exist and how it all started...
Click to expand...


Sure, but I saw a conflation between "atheism" (absence of theism) and absence of _religion_.  It's important that the distinction be preserved.  In other words -- everybody through time and space has religion, but not everybody has theism.


----------



## Carla_Danger

turzovka said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who cares anyway?  All you are doing is arguing semantics.
> Atheism may not be a religion but it is a belief.  And on that belief many atheists order their lives.  They surely do not stop from sexual sinning because they are worried about the punishments that may present themselves after they die.  Ditto for many other sins.
> 
> Now of course, you would not call them “sins,”  so let us just refer to them as morally unacceptable practices in the eyes of many.  (more semantics)
> 
> And of course, atheists can be the most upstanding citizens and charitable souls, err,  bodies.  So I cannot deny that reality.  Little do they know it, but their acts of charity, kindness and altruism is the best defense they will have when they meet their Creator after their earthly lives.  (fyi)
> 
> One thing that does ring hollow with me (to say the least)  is some atheists on these boards and elsewhere who make the claim that “their people” are more generous and charitable and caring than Christians in general because the atheist knows this is the only life they have so they need to make the most of it.  While Christians are all giddy about heaven to come they don’t hardly care or pay attention to what trials or suffering is going on with others in this world.  That is, of course, asinine to the extreme.
Click to expand...



Please try to be rational. You seem to thrive on fear of an afterlife. And why would the sex life of others involve you? Do you have a problem with sex?


----------



## Moonglow

I have a problem with sex, I don't get enough and never have, well except when I was a stripper..


----------



## Pogo

Moonglow said:


> I have a problem with sex, I don't get enough and never have, well except when I was a stripper..



Yeah well it wasn't that good anyway.


----------



## Moonglow

Pogo said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a problem with sex, I don't get enough and never have, well except when I was a stripper..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well it wasn't that good anyway.
Click to expand...


For a male it is different I will admit...


----------



## Carla_Danger

Moonglow said:


> I have a problem with sex, I don't get enough and never have, well except when I was a stripper..




You're still showing your ass.  LOL!   And I mean that in a good way, referring to your avatar.


----------



## turzovka

*[turzovka]  So who cares anyway? All you are doing is arguing semantics.
Atheism may not be a religion but it is a belief.*

_[pogo] No it is not. It's a non-belief. Theism is a belief.
Do you "believe in" the Easter Bunny? Assuming no, is that a "belief"?_

Yes it is a belief.  So what?  What are you so afraid of?  It is semantics!  And nothing more.  The fact remains atheists do not believe in God.  Now whether you want to call that a belief or non-belief or an item of disinterest or a non-starter or a matter of fact or whatever the hell else… does not matter to me, to Christians or to you --- for all intents and purposes.  This “position” still drives words and actions the part of the beholder.

----------------------

*[turzovka]  And on that belief many atheists order their lives. They surely do not stop from sexual sinning because they are worried about the punishments that may present themselves after they die. Ditto for many other sins*_._

_[pogo]  That would be their business, would it not? And who appointed you judge of what others are doing?  Further, you seem to assume that "punishments that may present themselves after they die" is by default the only moral guideline that exists. That kind of singleminded thought, seems to me, is what atheism seeks to transcend by questioning, "is that all there is?"._

I never said or implied that potential punishments after they die is the only moral guideline that exists, did I?  What I said was --- that is one moral guideline that would not enter their way of thinking or governing their conscience.  It certainly affects many of Christians’ decisions.  (I did not follow the reasoning of your last sentence.)

*-----------------------------*

*[turzovka]  Now of course, you would not call them “sins,” so let us just refer to them as morally unacceptable practices in the eyes of many. (more semantics)  And of course, atheists can be the most upstanding citizens and charitable souls, err, bodies. So I cannot deny that reality. Little do they know it, but their acts of charity, kindness and altruism is the best defense they will have when they meet their Creator after their earthly lives. (fyi)*

_[pogo]  Maybe more to the point -- why would you want to deny it?
This sounds like a completely egocentric "I know best" kind of approach. How do you know?_

I know the same way I know Jesus Christ is God and His word is truth.  If I am right on those salient points, then I have a sound basis for making other moral judgments.  But I am not judging anyone, I am speaking in the general and speaking of Christian theology – i.e. God judges man based on how he treats his neighbor.

--------------------------------------

*[turzovka]  One thing that does ring hollow with me (to say the least) is some atheists on these boards and elsewhere who make the claim that “their people” are more generous and charitable and caring than Christians in general because the atheist knows this is the only life they have so they need to make the most of it. While Christians are all giddy about heaven to come they don’t hardly care or pay attention to what trials or suffering is going on with others in this world. That is, of course, asinine to the extreme.*

_[pogo]  It's another strawman. Without someone actually presenting/advocating the thought it's fairly easy to describe anything as "asinine". Are you presenting it as a theory? It might be worth a shot, but it has to be presented neutrally._

Well, where have you been?  That point or idea has been proffered by a number of atheists or agnostics on any number of occasions.  Given the history of nations I am aware of, and the history of the Church, I find that idea or claim to be asinine.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Pogo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never understood why so many atheists get so upset about something they don't believe in.
> 
> I don't think there is a god but I fall into the more agnostic camp where I think we just don't know if there is a supreme being or race of beings out there and even if there are we still may never understand them.
> 
> That said IDGAF if someone says the word god or that some people pray at public meetings or in a school as long as it's not forced on anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the answer lieth in the last phrase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me how in god we trust on our currency is forcing someone to participate in a religion or worship said god.
> 
> BTW it does neither but for some reason atheists who say they do not believe in said god get their panties in a wad over it.
> 
> So I'll ask again, how can one be offended by something in which they do not believe?
> 
> It's like being offended by Bugs Bunny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  I made no reference to money.
> 
> I suppose if Bugs Bunny (specifically) were rammed down my throat every time some public meeting took place, every time the seventh inning of a big baseball game came up, on all my money, in the Pledge of Allegiance, bellowed from street corners by bullhorn-wielding preachers, hawked by anonymous other accosters, invoked in every oath in the legal system, screamed from the top of her natural ampitheater by my wacko neighbor, hammered into every wedding and funeral and most of all woven into the social mores of my culture 24/7 as a psychological-warfare guilt tool, that would get a bit tiring -- particularly if my country had been founded on the basis of freedom of choice in cartoon characters.
> 
> Your mileage may vary.
Click to expand...

Strawman to your strawman

If someone in your presence invokes the deity it is not being "rammed down your throat"
If the owners of a ball park want to broadcast a 7th inning prayer they have every right to just as you have the right to ignore it or put your fingers in your ears and say LA LA LA.

All I get from your post is that you must extremely thin skinned if the mere mention of an entity that you do not think exists can be such a source of torture to you..


----------



## turzovka

Carla_Danger said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who cares anyway?  All you are doing is arguing semantics.
> Atheism may not be a religion but it is a belief.  And on that belief many atheists order their lives.  They surely do not stop from sexual sinning because they are worried about the punishments that may present themselves after they die.  Ditto for many other sins.
> 
> Now of course, you would not call them “sins,”  so let us just refer to them as morally unacceptable practices in the eyes of many.  (more semantics)
> 
> And of course, atheists can be the most upstanding citizens and charitable souls, err,  bodies.  So I cannot deny that reality.  Little do they know it, but their acts of charity, kindness and altruism is the best defense they will have when they meet their Creator after their earthly lives.  (fyi)
> 
> One thing that does ring hollow with me (to say the least)  is some atheists on these boards and elsewhere who make the claim that “their people” are more generous and charitable and caring than Christians in general because the atheist knows this is the only life they have so they need to make the most of it.  While Christians are all giddy about heaven to come they don’t hardly care or pay attention to what trials or suffering is going on with others in this world.  That is, of course, asinine to the extreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Please try to be rational. You seem to thrive on fear of an afterlife. And why would the sex life of others involve you? Do you have a problem with sex?
Click to expand...

 
No, but I do have a problem trying to discuss an issue with someone who appears to have comprehension problems. 

Stay on task instead of inserting foreign ideas to the discussion.


----------



## Moonglow

Carla_Danger said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a problem with sex, I don't get enough and never have, well except when I was a stripper..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still showing your ass.  LOL!   And I mean that in a good way, referring to your avatar.
Click to expand...


It's not mine but it is that size....I had a larger one but it keep getting chewed....


----------



## Moonglow

Skull Pilot said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never understood why so many atheists get so upset about something they don't believe in.
> 
> I don't think there is a god but I fall into the more agnostic camp where I think we just don't know if there is a supreme being or race of beings out there and even if there are we still may never understand them.
> 
> That said IDGAF if someone says the word god or that some people pray at public meetings or in a school as long as it's not forced on anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the answer lieth in the last phrase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me how in god we trust on our currency is forcing someone to participate in a religion or worship said god.
> 
> BTW it does neither but for some reason atheists who say they do not believe in said god get their panties in a wad over it.
> 
> So I'll ask again, how can one be offended by something in which they do not believe?
> 
> It's like being offended by Bugs Bunny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  I made no reference to money.
> 
> I suppose if Bugs Bunny (specifically) were rammed down my throat every time some public meeting took place, every time the seventh inning of a big baseball game came up, on all my money, in the Pledge of Allegiance, bellowed from street corners by bullhorn-wielding preachers, hawked by anonymous other accosters, invoked in every oath in the legal system, screamed from the top of her natural ampitheater by my wacko neighbor, hammered into every wedding and funeral and most of all woven into the social mores of my culture 24/7 as a psychological-warfare guilt tool, that would get a bit tiring -- particularly if my country had been founded on the basis of freedom of choice in cartoon characters.
> 
> Your mileage may vary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman to your strawman
> 
> If someone in your presence invokes the deity it is not being "rammed down your throat"
> If the owners of a ball park want to broadcast a 7th inning prayer they have every right to just as you have the right to ignore it or put your fingers in your ears and say LA LA LA.
> 
> All I get from your post is that you must extremely thin skinned if the mere mention of an entity that you do not think exists can be such a source of torture to you..
Click to expand...


Toleration should be at play, but some people insist on having it their way...


----------



## Carla_Danger

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> *THE RELIGIOUS ATHEIST...COMING TO A CHURCH NEAR YOU...IN THE NEAR FUTURE!!*
> If some of you know-it-all proponents of falsehoods would do a bit of research, you might not make so many outrageous, misinformed claims.   Atheism is a religion(.) <<<< Period!
> 
> 
> (snip)
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell ya right now, no one in the world is going to invest their next two days reading all that.  If there's a point in there, dissect it.
> 
> Here's maybe a more pertinent question:
> Why do you need so desperately to redefine a rejection of a belief (a negative) into a belief (a positive)?   What does it gain you?  What's the big disadvantage to accepting a simple definition?
> 
> Shall we now define "silence" as a "sound" as well?
> I mean when Paul Simon wrote "The Sounds of Silence" it's intentionally intended as an oxymoron.  That's what gives the phrase its power -- a direct juxtaposition of _opposites_.  Sound: silence.  Day: night.  On: Off. Theism: Atheism.
Click to expand...



You may be waiting a while. This particular poster uses the same cut n paste on a regular basis in order to bombard us with useless information.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Moonglow said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never understood why so many atheists get so upset about something they don't believe in.
> 
> I don't think there is a god but I fall into the more agnostic camp where I think we just don't know if there is a supreme being or race of beings out there and even if there are we still may never understand them.
> 
> That said IDGAF if someone says the word god or that some people pray at public meetings or in a school as long as it's not forced on anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the answer lieth in the last phrase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me how in god we trust on our currency is forcing someone to participate in a religion or worship said god.
> 
> BTW it does neither but for some reason atheists who say they do not believe in said god get their panties in a wad over it.
> 
> So I'll ask again, how can one be offended by something in which they do not believe?
> 
> It's like being offended by Bugs Bunny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  I made no reference to money.
> 
> I suppose if Bugs Bunny (specifically) were rammed down my throat every time some public meeting took place, every time the seventh inning of a big baseball game came up, on all my money, in the Pledge of Allegiance, bellowed from street corners by bullhorn-wielding preachers, hawked by anonymous other accosters, invoked in every oath in the legal system, screamed from the top of her natural ampitheater by my wacko neighbor, hammered into every wedding and funeral and most of all woven into the social mores of my culture 24/7 as a psychological-warfare guilt tool, that would get a bit tiring -- particularly if my country had been founded on the basis of freedom of choice in cartoon characters.
> 
> Your mileage may vary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman to your strawman
> 
> If someone in your presence invokes the deity it is not being "rammed down your throat"
> If the owners of a ball park want to broadcast a 7th inning prayer they have every right to just as you have the right to ignore it or put your fingers in your ears and say LA LA LA.
> 
> All I get from your post is that you must extremely thin skinned if the mere mention of an entity that you do not think exists can be such a source of torture to you..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Toleration should be at play, but some people insist on having it their way...
Click to expand...

If one does not believe in something it should be no trouble at all to completely ignore it.

In God We trust means about as much to me as In Unicorns We Trust.

You would think some of these people are must be some sort of mythical beast that the mere mention of a deity causes them such mental anguish.


----------



## Moonglow

Skull Pilot said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never understood why so many atheists get so upset about something they don't believe in.
> 
> I don't think there is a god but I fall into the more agnostic camp where I think we just don't know if there is a supreme being or race of beings out there and even if there are we still may never understand them.
> 
> That said IDGAF if someone says the word god or that some people pray at public meetings or in a school as long as it's not forced on anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the answer lieth in the last phrase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me how in god we trust on our currency is forcing someone to participate in a religion or worship said god.
> 
> BTW it does neither but for some reason atheists who say they do not believe in said god get their panties in a wad over it.
> 
> So I'll ask again, how can one be offended by something in which they do not believe?
> 
> It's like being offended by Bugs Bunny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  I made no reference to money.
> 
> I suppose if Bugs Bunny (specifically) were rammed down my throat every time some public meeting took place, every time the seventh inning of a big baseball game came up, on all my money, in the Pledge of Allegiance, bellowed from street corners by bullhorn-wielding preachers, hawked by anonymous other accosters, invoked in every oath in the legal system, screamed from the top of her natural ampitheater by my wacko neighbor, hammered into every wedding and funeral and most of all woven into the social mores of my culture 24/7 as a psychological-warfare guilt tool, that would get a bit tiring -- particularly if my country had been founded on the basis of freedom of choice in cartoon characters.
> 
> Your mileage may vary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman to your strawman
> 
> If someone in your presence invokes the deity it is not being "rammed down your throat"
> If the owners of a ball park want to broadcast a 7th inning prayer they have every right to just as you have the right to ignore it or put your fingers in your ears and say LA LA LA.
> 
> All I get from your post is that you must extremely thin skinned if the mere mention of an entity that you do not think exists can be such a source of torture to you..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Toleration should be at play, but some people insist on having it their way...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If one does not believe in something it should be no trouble at all to completely ignore it.
> 
> In God We trust means about as much to me as In Unicorns We Trust.
> 
> You would think some of these people are must be some sort of mythical beast that the mere mention of a deity causes them such mental anguish.
Click to expand...


Yes it is amazing the reaction to others ideas which emote hysterical intolerance and  hate.
My wife,,,oy, eats a burger and complains that it's wrong to eat animals....


----------



## Pogo

turzovka said:


> *[turzovka]  So who cares anyway? All you are doing is arguing semantics.
> Atheism may not be a religion but it is a belief.*
> 
> _[pogo] No it is not. It's a non-belief. Theism is a belief._
> _Do you "believe in" the Easter Bunny? Assuming no, is that a "belief"?_
> 
> Yes it is a belief.  So what?  What are you so afraid of?  It is semantics!  And nothing more.  The fact remains atheists do not believe in God.  Now whether you want to call that a belief or non-belief or an item of disinterest or a non-starter or a matter of fact or whatever the hell else… does not matter to me, to Christians or to you --- for all intents and purposes.  This “position” still drives words and actions the part of the beholder.



So  ---- what's your point?
(btw please just use the quote button.  This red text inserted quote thing is a PITA and removes our reference links - TIA)

----------------------



turzovka said:


> *[turzovka]  And on that belief many atheists order their lives. They surely do not stop from sexual sinning because they are worried about the punishments that may present themselves after they die. Ditto for many other sins*_._
> 
> _[pogo]  That would be their business, would it not? And who appointed you judge of what others are doing?  Further, you seem to assume that "punishments that may present themselves after they die" is by default the only moral guideline that exists. That kind of singleminded thought, seems to me, is what atheism seeks to transcend by questioning, "is that all there is?"._
> 
> I never said or implied that potential punishments after they die is the only moral guideline that exists, did I?  What I said was --- that is one moral guideline that would not enter their way of thinking or governing their conscience.  It certainly affects many of Christians’ decisions.  (I did not follow the reasoning of your last sentence.)



Well - yeah you did.  "_They surely do not stop from sexual sinning because they are worried about the punishments that may present themselves after they die_".  Why would such a threat of torture be the only incentive for human behaviour?  Sounds like you're professing that such sadism is the only such moral guideline and absent that, "they do not stop from sexual sinning" -- whatever that might mean.  Why would sadistic torture be the only behavioural guideline?

*-----------------------------*



turzovka said:


> * [turzovka]  Now of course, you would not call them “sins,” so let us just refer to them as morally unacceptable practices in the eyes of many. (more semantics)  And of course, atheists can be the most upstanding citizens and charitable souls, err, bodies. So I cannot deny that reality. Little do they know it, but their acts of charity, kindness and altruism is the best defense they will have when they meet their Creator after their earthly lives. (fyi)*
> 
> _[pogo]  Maybe more to the point -- why would you want to deny it?_
> _This sounds like a completely egocentric "I know best" kind of approach. How do you know? _
> 
> I know the same way I know Jesus Christ is God and His word is truth.  If I am right on those salient points, then I have a sound basis for making other moral judgments.  But I am not judging anyone, I am speaking in the general and speaking of Christian theology – i.e. God judges man based on how he treats his neighbor.



No, you don't "know" that -- you believe it.  We won't get into the flaws undermining that belief, we'll just leave it at the definition.
What this is getting at is the attitude that "I know what's best for you", which is I'm afraid the sort of arrogance that comes from egocentric proselytizing.  That's a different question though from theism versus atheism so we won't go further down that road; suffice to say that your beliefs/opinions are no better or worse than anyone else's, and that each of us _still _has individual choice.

--------------------------------------



turzovka said:


> * [turzovka]  One thing that does ring hollow with me (to say the least) is some atheists on these boards and elsewhere who make the claim that “their people” are more generous and charitable and caring than Christians in general because the atheist knows this is the only life they have so they need to make the most of it. While Christians are all giddy about heaven to come they don’t hardly care or pay attention to what trials or suffering is going on with others in this world. That is, of course, asinine to the extreme.*
> 
> _[pogo]  It's another strawman. Without someone actually presenting/advocating the thought it's fairly easy to describe anything as "asinine". Are you presenting it as a theory? It might be worth a shot, but it has to be presented neutrally._
> 
> Well, where have you been?  That point or idea has been proffered by a number of atheists or agnostics on any number of occasions.  Given the history of nations I am aware of, and the history of the Church, I find that idea or claim to be asinine.



Do you not understand what a strawman is?
Nobody here made any such point.  You brought it in to knock it down.  It has no advocate.  It's a logical fallacy.  I'm afraid "any number of" unseen imaginary speakers doesn't count.


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> *THE RELIGIOUS ATHEIST...COMING TO A CHURCH NEAR YOU...IN THE NEAR FUTURE!!*
> If some of you know-it-all proponents of falsehoods would do a bit of research, you might not make so many outrageous, misinformed claims.   Atheism is a religion(.) <<<< Period!
> 
> 
> (snip)
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell ya right now, no one in the world is going to invest their next two days reading all that.  If there's a point in there, dissect it.
> 
> Here's maybe a more pertinent question:
> Why do you need so desperately to redefine a rejection of a belief (a negative) into a belief (a positive)?   What does it gain you?  What's the big disadvantage to accepting a simple definition?
> 
> Shall we now define "silence" as a "sound" as well?
> I mean when Paul Simon wrote "The Sounds of Silence" it's intentionally intended as an oxymoron.  That's what gives the phrase its power -- a direct juxtaposition of _opposites_.  Sound: silence.  Day: night.  On: Off. Theism: Atheism.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry.  Your density is exceeding great.


----------



## Pogo

Skull Pilot said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never understood why so many atheists get so upset about something they don't believe in.
> 
> I don't think there is a god but I fall into the more agnostic camp where I think we just don't know if there is a supreme being or race of beings out there and even if there are we still may never understand them.
> 
> That said IDGAF if someone says the word god or that some people pray at public meetings or in a school as long as it's not forced on anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the answer lieth in the last phrase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me how in god we trust on our currency is forcing someone to participate in a religion or worship said god.
> 
> BTW it does neither but for some reason atheists who say they do not believe in said god get their panties in a wad over it.
> 
> So I'll ask again, how can one be offended by something in which they do not believe?
> 
> It's like being offended by Bugs Bunny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  I made no reference to money.
> 
> I suppose if Bugs Bunny (specifically) were rammed down my throat every time some public meeting took place, every time the seventh inning of a big baseball game came up, on all my money, in the Pledge of Allegiance, bellowed from street corners by bullhorn-wielding preachers, hawked by anonymous other accosters, invoked in every oath in the legal system, screamed from the top of her natural ampitheater by my wacko neighbor, hammered into every wedding and funeral and most of all woven into the social mores of my culture 24/7 as a psychological-warfare guilt tool, that would get a bit tiring -- particularly if my country had been founded on the basis of freedom of choice in cartoon characters.
> 
> Your mileage may vary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman to your strawman
> 
> If someone in your presence invokes the deity it is not being "rammed down your throat"
> If the owners of a ball park want to broadcast a 7th inning prayer they have every right to just as you have the right to ignore it or put your fingers in your ears and say LA LA LA.
> 
> All I get from your post is that you must extremely thin skinned if the mere mention of an entity that you do not think exists can be such a source of torture to you..
Click to expand...


Then why are you the one morphing my post into something about "rights"?
There is defensiveness here but it ain't on my end.  And taking single items out of an aggregate as if not part of an interrelated whole is another morph.  Not very honest.


----------



## Pogo

Skull Pilot said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never understood why so many atheists get so upset about something they don't believe in.
> 
> I don't think there is a god but I fall into the more agnostic camp where I think we just don't know if there is a supreme being or race of beings out there and even if there are we still may never understand them.
> 
> That said IDGAF if someone says the word god or that some people pray at public meetings or in a school as long as it's not forced on anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the answer lieth in the last phrase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me how in god we trust on our currency is forcing someone to participate in a religion or worship said god.
> 
> BTW it does neither but for some reason atheists who say they do not believe in said god get their panties in a wad over it.
> 
> So I'll ask again, how can one be offended by something in which they do not believe?
> 
> It's like being offended by Bugs Bunny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  I made no reference to money.
> 
> I suppose if Bugs Bunny (specifically) were rammed down my throat every time some public meeting took place, every time the seventh inning of a big baseball game came up, on all my money, in the Pledge of Allegiance, bellowed from street corners by bullhorn-wielding preachers, hawked by anonymous other accosters, invoked in every oath in the legal system, screamed from the top of her natural ampitheater by my wacko neighbor, hammered into every wedding and funeral and most of all woven into the social mores of my culture 24/7 as a psychological-warfare guilt tool, that would get a bit tiring -- particularly if my country had been founded on the basis of freedom of choice in cartoon characters.
> 
> Your mileage may vary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman to your strawman
> 
> If someone in your presence invokes the deity it is not being "rammed down your throat"
> If the owners of a ball park want to broadcast a 7th inning prayer they have every right to just as you have the right to ignore it or put your fingers in your ears and say LA LA LA.
> 
> All I get from your post is that you must extremely thin skinned if the mere mention of an entity that you do not think exists can be such a source of torture to you..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Toleration should be at play, but some people insist on having it their way...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If one does not believe in something it should be no trouble at all to completely ignore it.
> 
> In God We trust means about as much to me as In Unicorns We Trust.
> 
> You would think some of these people are must be some sort of mythical beast that the mere mention of a deity causes them such mental anguish.
Click to expand...




"I believe in one Strawman, the fallacy mighty..  creator of rhetorical mirth..."


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Carla_Danger said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 *Torcaso v. Watkins* case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. As recently as 2005, the Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of *Kaufman v. McCaughtry* again ruled that Atheism is Religion. In spite of the many court rulings along that line, members of the Religion of Atheism insist they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by insisting that Christians are mental midgets for being religious and for believing in a *"non-existent sky gawd."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect. The Courts have never defined atheism as a religion, in fact, they have specifically acknowledged it as a non-religion. They have said that for the purpose of the First Amendment, atheism is equivalent to religion, So that the atheist can be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st Amendment. That's all it means.
Click to expand...

 Correct.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Pogo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never understood why so many atheists get so upset about something they don't believe in.
> 
> I don't think there is a god but I fall into the more agnostic camp where I think we just don't know if there is a supreme being or race of beings out there and even if there are we still may never understand them.
> 
> That said IDGAF if someone says the word god or that some people pray at public meetings or in a school as long as it's not forced on anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the answer lieth in the last phrase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me how in god we trust on our currency is forcing someone to participate in a religion or worship said god.
> 
> BTW it does neither but for some reason atheists who say they do not believe in said god get their panties in a wad over it.
> 
> So I'll ask again, how can one be offended by something in which they do not believe?
> 
> It's like being offended by Bugs Bunny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  I made no reference to money.
> 
> I suppose if Bugs Bunny (specifically) were rammed down my throat every time some public meeting took place, every time the seventh inning of a big baseball game came up, on all my money, in the Pledge of Allegiance, bellowed from street corners by bullhorn-wielding preachers, hawked by anonymous other accosters, invoked in every oath in the legal system, screamed from the top of her natural ampitheater by my wacko neighbor, hammered into every wedding and funeral and most of all woven into the social mores of my culture 24/7 as a psychological-warfare guilt tool, that would get a bit tiring -- particularly if my country had been founded on the basis of freedom of choice in cartoon characters.
> 
> Your mileage may vary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman to your strawman
> 
> If someone in your presence invokes the deity it is not being "rammed down your throat"
> If the owners of a ball park want to broadcast a 7th inning prayer they have every right to just as you have the right to ignore it or put your fingers in your ears and say LA LA LA.
> 
> All I get from your post is that you must extremely thin skinned if the mere mention of an entity that you do not think exists can be such a source of torture to you..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why are you the one morphing my post into something about "rights"?
> There is defensiveness here but it ain't on my end.  And taking single items out of an aggregate as if not part of an interrelated whole is another morph.  Not very honest.
Click to expand...


So the owners of a ball park don't have the right to broadcast a 7th inning prayer over their privately owned PA system ?

And an aggregate is nothing but a collection of single items.  If you can't figure out that what I said about one applies to all without me listing each and every little torture that you are whining about that's your problem

So tell me why the mere mention of a being you deny exists causes you such anguish.


----------



## Pogo

Skull Pilot said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never understood why so many atheists get so upset about something they don't believe in.
> 
> I don't think there is a god but I fall into the more agnostic camp where I think we just don't know if there is a supreme being or race of beings out there and even if there are we still may never understand them.
> 
> That said IDGAF if someone says the word god or that some people pray at public meetings or in a school as long as it's not forced on anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the answer lieth in the last phrase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me how in god we trust on our currency is forcing someone to participate in a religion or worship said god.
> 
> BTW it does neither but for some reason atheists who say they do not believe in said god get their panties in a wad over it.
> 
> So I'll ask again, how can one be offended by something in which they do not believe?
> 
> It's like being offended by Bugs Bunny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  I made no reference to money.
> 
> I suppose if Bugs Bunny (specifically) were rammed down my throat every time some public meeting took place, every time the seventh inning of a big baseball game came up, on all my money, in the Pledge of Allegiance, bellowed from street corners by bullhorn-wielding preachers, hawked by anonymous other accosters, invoked in every oath in the legal system, screamed from the top of her natural ampitheater by my wacko neighbor, hammered into every wedding and funeral and most of all woven into the social mores of my culture 24/7 as a psychological-warfare guilt tool, that would get a bit tiring -- particularly if my country had been founded on the basis of freedom of choice in cartoon characters.
> 
> Your mileage may vary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman to your strawman
> 
> If someone in your presence invokes the deity it is not being "rammed down your throat"
> If the owners of a ball park want to broadcast a 7th inning prayer they have every right to just as you have the right to ignore it or put your fingers in your ears and say LA LA LA.
> 
> All I get from your post is that you must extremely thin skinned if the mere mention of an entity that you do not think exists can be such a source of torture to you..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why are you the one morphing my post into something about "rights"?
> There is defensiveness here but it ain't on my end.  And taking single items out of an aggregate as if not part of an interrelated whole is another morph.  Not very honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the owners of a ball park don't have the right to broadcast a 7th inning prayer over their privately owned PA system ?
> 
> And an aggregate is nothing but a collection of single items.  If you can't figure out that what I said about one applies to all without me listing each and every little torture that you are whining about that's your problem
> 
> So tell me why the mere mention of a being you deny exists causes you such anguish.
Click to expand...


Once again -- who brought up "rights"?  You did.  Who brought up "anguish"?  You did.  Who brought up "whining" and "torture"?  Once again...

Matter of fact who said I was an atheist?  Again that would be you.  Why do you find it necessary to insert content that wasn't there?
We shouldn't be surprised that a topic on theism/nontheism drowns in strawmen.  Theism itself depends on it.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:
			
		

> *I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists.*



The above essentially says that you do not believe in God because you don't see any evidence that there is a God.

This is a logical fallacy. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

To use an illustration from everyday life may help clarify the issue further and demonstrate how the argument when used in its reverse form, is most illogical. The assertion 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence' cannot be applied to any unknown discovery or else the following propositions would be true:

Since William Herschel discovered Uranus in 1781 it did not exist until then because evidence of its existence was absent.

Since Neptune was not discovered until September 23rd 1846 by Galle and Arrest it did not exist until then, since there was no real evidence.

Pluto didn't exist until 1930 when it was discovered by Clyde W. Tombaugh, since there was no evidence of its existence.

What does the phrase absence of evidence is not evidence of absence mean in relation to discoveries supporting the Bible


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> *THE RELIGIOUS ATHEIST...COMING TO A CHURCH NEAR YOU...IN THE NEAR FUTURE!!*
> If some of you know-it-all proponents of falsehoods would do a bit of research, you might not make so many outrageous, misinformed claims.   Atheism is a religion(.) <<<< Period!
> 
> 
> (snip)
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell ya right now, no one in the world is going to invest their next two days reading all that.  If there's a point in there, dissect it.
> 
> Here's maybe a more pertinent question:
> Why do you need so desperately to redefine a rejection of a belief (a negative) into a belief (a positive)?   What does it gain you?  What's the big disadvantage to accepting a simple definition?
> 
> Shall we now define "silence" as a "sound" as well?
> I mean when Paul Simon wrote "The Sounds of Silence" it's intentionally intended as an oxymoron.  That's what gives the phrase its power -- a direct juxtaposition of _opposites_.  Sound: silence.  Day: night.  On: Off. Theism: Atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You may be waiting a while. This particular poster uses the same cut n paste on a regular basis in order to bombard us with useless information.
Click to expand...

You label all but your opinion as useless information?  You and Pogo are simply too self-aggrandizing to bother with research that might prove your opinions wrong.  I suggest that you read more and type less.  That would be a blessing to USMB members around the globe.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above essentially says that you do not believe in God because you don't see any evidence that there is a God.
> 
> This is a logical fallacy. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Click to expand...


No, you just changed what she said by extending to "evidence of absence".  That's beyond her scope.  So I'm afraid the rest of your post is irrelevant.  Everything is not black/white, belief/disbelief.  The component you're leaving out as inconvenient is *doubt*.  *Skepticism.  Dissent.*

If I up and declare that the universe is the creation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM®, praise be upon His Holey Name, even if we're not sure what makes Him a he), you are free to _dissent _and decide, "naah, I think that's bullshit.".  It's your choice to decide that for yourself.  That's all this is.

*However* -- just to carry this thought through -- that assessment of yours that the FSM is bullshit does not comprise a "religion".  It comprises simple _dissent_.  Exactly the same thing.




asaratis said:


> To use an illustration from everyday life may help clarify the issue further and demonstrate how the argument when used in its reverse form, is most illogical. The assertion 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence' cannot be applied to any unknown discovery or else the following propositions would be true:
> 
> Since William Herschel discovered Uranus in 1781 it did not exist until then because evidence of its existence was absent.
> 
> Since Neptune was not discovered until September 23rd 1846 by Galle and Arrest it did not exist until then, since there was no real evidence.
> 
> Pluto didn't exist until 1930 when it was discovered by Clyde W. Tombaugh, since there was no evidence of its existence.
> 
> What does the phrase absence of evidence is not evidence of absence mean in relation to discoveries supporting the Bible


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> *THE RELIGIOUS ATHEIST...COMING TO A CHURCH NEAR YOU...IN THE NEAR FUTURE!!*
> If some of you know-it-all proponents of falsehoods would do a bit of research, you might not make so many outrageous, misinformed claims.   Atheism is a religion(.) <<<< Period!
> 
> 
> (snip)
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell ya right now, no one in the world is going to invest their next two days reading all that.  If there's a point in there, dissect it.
> 
> Here's maybe a more pertinent question:
> Why do you need so desperately to redefine a rejection of a belief (a negative) into a belief (a positive)?   What does it gain you?  What's the big disadvantage to accepting a simple definition?
> 
> Shall we now define "silence" as a "sound" as well?
> I mean when Paul Simon wrote "The Sounds of Silence" it's intentionally intended as an oxymoron.  That's what gives the phrase its power -- a direct juxtaposition of _opposites_.  Sound: silence.  Day: night.  On: Off. Theism: Atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You may be waiting a while. This particular poster uses the same cut n paste on a regular basis in order to bombard us with useless information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You label all but your opinion as useless information?  You and Pogo are simply too self-aggrandizing to bother with research that might prove your opinions wrong.  I suggest that you read more and type less.  That would be a blessing to USMB members around the globe.
Click to expand...


So you're saying "shut up"?

The first step on the way to killing the children, is it?


----------



## Carla_Danger

Pogo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never understood why so many atheists get so upset about something they don't believe in.
> 
> I don't think there is a god but I fall into the more agnostic camp where I think we just don't know if there is a supreme being or race of beings out there and even if there are we still may never understand them.
> 
> That said IDGAF if someone says the word god or that some people pray at public meetings or in a school as long as it's not forced on anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the answer lieth in the last phrase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me how in god we trust on our currency is forcing someone to participate in a religion or worship said god.
> 
> BTW it does neither but for some reason atheists who say they do not believe in said god get their panties in a wad over it.
> 
> So I'll ask again, how can one be offended by something in which they do not believe?
> 
> It's like being offended by Bugs Bunny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  I made no reference to money.
> 
> I suppose if Bugs Bunny (specifically) were rammed down my throat every time some public meeting took place, every time the seventh inning of a big baseball game came up, on all my money, in the Pledge of Allegiance, bellowed from street corners by bullhorn-wielding preachers, hawked by anonymous other accosters, invoked in every oath in the legal system, screamed from the top of her natural ampitheater by my wacko neighbor, hammered into every wedding and funeral and most of all woven into the social mores of my culture 24/7 as a psychological-warfare guilt tool, that would get a bit tiring -- particularly if my country had been founded on the basis of freedom of choice in cartoon characters.
> 
> Your mileage may vary.
Click to expand...




It's so "in your face".  LOL!


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above essentially says that you do not believe in God because you don't see any evidence that there is a God.
> 
> This is a logical fallacy. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you just changed what she said by extending to "evidence of absence".  That's beyond her scope.  So I'm afraid the rest of your post is irrelevant.  Everything is not black/white, belief/disbelief.  The component you're leaving out as inconvenient is *doubt*.  *Skepticism.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> To use an illustration from everyday life may help clarify the issue further and demonstrate how the argument when used in its reverse form, is most illogical. The assertion 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence' cannot be applied to any unknown discovery or else the following propositions would be true:
> 
> Since William Herschel discovered Uranus in 1781 it did not exist until then because evidence of its existence was absent.
> 
> Since Neptune was not discovered until September 23rd 1846 by Galle and Arrest it did not exist until then, since there was no real evidence.
> 
> Pluto didn't exist until 1930 when it was discovered by Clyde W. Tombaugh, since there was no evidence of its existence.
> 
> What does the phrase absence of evidence is not evidence of absence mean in relation to discoveries supporting the Bible
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You have a problem with logic and comprehension.


			
				Carla_Danger said:
			
		

> *I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists.*



*I just don't see any evidence that there is a God *<<<(absence of evidence)

*so *(therefore)

* I don't live my life as if a God exists *<<<(Poor Carla  believes there is no God...she interprets the above absence of evidence as "evidence of absence")


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> *THE RELIGIOUS ATHEIST...COMING TO A CHURCH NEAR YOU...IN THE NEAR FUTURE!!*
> If some of you know-it-all proponents of falsehoods would do a bit of research, you might not make so many outrageous, misinformed claims.   Atheism is a religion(.) <<<< Period!
> 
> 
> (snip)
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell ya right now, no one in the world is going to invest their next two days reading all that.  If there's a point in there, dissect it.
> 
> Here's maybe a more pertinent question:
> Why do you need so desperately to redefine a rejection of a belief (a negative) into a belief (a positive)?   What does it gain you?  What's the big disadvantage to accepting a simple definition?
> 
> Shall we now define "silence" as a "sound" as well?
> I mean when Paul Simon wrote "The Sounds of Silence" it's intentionally intended as an oxymoron.  That's what gives the phrase its power -- a direct juxtaposition of _opposites_.  Sound: silence.  Day: night.  On: Off. Theism: Atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You may be waiting a while. This particular poster uses the same cut n paste on a regular basis in order to bombard us with useless information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You label all but your opinion as useless information?  You and Pogo are simply too self-aggrandizing to bother with research that might prove your opinions wrong.  I suggest that you read more and type less.  That would be a blessing to USMB members around the globe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying "shut up"?
> 
> The first step on the way to killing the children, is it?
Click to expand...

Yet another strawman!  Jesus!

I said that you should read more and type less.  That does not translate to "shut up".

Again I say, you have a problem with logic and comprehension.   You need to READ MORE and TYPE LESS.


----------



## Vandalshandle

I hope to God that the Elks don't find out that I am an atheist.They would throw me out, and I would lose my bar privileges. I made my girlfriend swear on the Bible that she would not tell.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite true.  And if one is acting like a religious person then one is treating Atheism as a religion.  Religion is about how people act and interact.  Saying Atheism is not a religion by definition is ignoring the people, and people is all there is.
> 
> People here have stated categorically there is no God - faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that?
> 
> The question is relative.  See post 33.  Far as I know there are no atheists here in the strict (#7) sense....
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated everyone needs to stop believing in God - proselytizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, who?  Where is this?
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated an Atheist has no beliefs right after saying there is no God, just because that is the definition of an Atheist - dogma.
> 
> How is that not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism doesn't mean "no beliefs".  Obviously everyone has beliefs.  Atheism is simply the antithesis of theism  -- taking the theory of theism and judging it to be inoperative.  It isn't a "belief" in itself at all; rather it's the _rejection _of _one particular_ belief.
> 
> I don't like raisins -- that doesn't mean I "believe in not-raisins" or in stamping raisins out for everyone else.  It simply means I turn them down as a personal choice.  It means that among the things I believe in, eating raisins is not one of them.  Not that complex.  Now again, if everybody around me were eating raisins at every turn and disparaging me for _not _eating them, well that might get a bit tiring.  And it _certainly _wouldn't incite me to change my mind on raisins.
> 
> Seems to me the bottom line here is not a legal matter but simple respect for one's choice -- and freedom thereof.
Click to expand...




Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite true.  And if one is acting like a religious person then one is treating Atheism as a religion.  Religion is about how people act and interact.  Saying Atheism is not a religion by definition is ignoring the people, and people is all there is.
> 
> People here have stated categorically there is no God - faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that?
> 
> The question is relative.  See post 33.  Far as I know there are no atheists here in the strict (#7) sense....
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated everyone needs to stop believing in God - proselytizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, who?  Where is this?
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated an Atheist has no beliefs right after saying there is no God, just because that is the definition of an Atheist - dogma.
> 
> How is that not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism doesn't mean "no beliefs".  Obviously everyone has beliefs.  Atheism is simply the antithesis of theism  -- taking the theory of theism and judging it to be inoperative.  It isn't a "belief" in itself at all; rather it's the _rejection _of _one particular_ belief.
> 
> I don't like raisins -- that doesn't mean I "believe in not-raisins" or in stamping raisins out for everyone else.  It simply means I turn them down as a personal choice.  It means that among the things I believe in, eating raisins is not one of them.  Not that complex.  Now again, if everybody around me were eating raisins at every turn and disparaging me for _not _eating them, well that might get a bit tiring.  And it _certainly _wouldn't incite me to change my mind on raisins.
> 
> Seems to me the bottom line here is not a legal matter but simple respect for one's choice -- and freedom thereof.
Click to expand...

 
I assume you've been reading the various threads and picking through thousands of posts to give you specifics, however...

Under the Faith is born from fear thread, AtheistBuddah in post 536 said, "There is no such thing as eternal life."  As statement of pure belief.  ---  Faith

In the same thread, Sealybobo in post 710 said, "PS. If you look at this site, you'll see it has all the arguments against Jesus and generic god(s) too. Jesus may be mentioned more than Mohammad but this site shoots down every religion.

Why there is no god"   Essentially the same thing as handing out Bible tracts.  ---  Proselytizing

The last one gets involved but there was a long discussion in the thread Atheism is a fringe kook theory cult between myself and Derideo_Te.  The basic thesis was the definition of Atheism was a lack of beliefs and therefore Atheists lacked beliefs.  IOW, it is true because it is written.  ---  Dogma.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Moonglow said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you live your life under the assumption that there is no God, then the Ten Commandments do not bind you.  That is why people are uncomfortable around atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need the Ten Commandments to know right from wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That voice in your heart telling you right from wrong is the voice of God.  It's called a conscience.  But atheists throughout history have proven to be very good at ignoring the difference between right and wrong, i.e. Stalin, Pol Pot, Robespierre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're really starting to scare me. It sounds like you believe without God, people are going to run out and start murdering people.  Tell me that's not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Historically, whenever a government controlled by atheists takes over, mass murder happens: the French Revolution, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that all the great empires of the world were atheists? There is no ancient empire that was void of religion and still had the need to slaughter and subjugate..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion/spirituality is a regularly recurring part of human culture.  We all have some form, individually and collectively.
> 
> But this thread is about atheism, i.e. absence of belief in a monotheistic deity.  Not about absence of _religion.  _Important distinction.  Religion after all does not require a deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am no atheist, nor am I am religious person. I was merely trying to answer a question...I do know that there is more we do not know, than we do about the who, what, where and why we are here and the reason the entire galaxies exist and how it all started...
Click to expand...




I kind of enjoy not knowing.  It gives life just the right kind of spice!


----------



## Moonglow

> I kind of enjoy not knowing. It gives life just the right kind of spice!



I had an astral projection the other night and hit my head on the ceiling....


----------



## asaratis

You too can become a member:
About the Holy Bible First Church of Atheism

Since its inception, *the First Church of Atheism has amassed quite a following around the world*. FCA ministers come from all walks of life. They are every race, ethnicity, age, and creed. The one thing binding every FCA minister is his or her belief in science, reason, and reality. The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority. We provide our service for free, as we believe it is every atheists right to perform these clergy functions. You maybecome a legally ordained ministerfor life, without cost, and without question.

.....


North Texas Church of Freethought
The North Texas Church of Freethought is a Fellowship of Unbelievers. We do what all the other churches do, but with one less god. Our aim is to offer atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, and freethinkers all the educational, inspirational, and social and emotional benefits of traditional faith-based churches. * We do this by preaching Freethought,* a rational approach to religious questions of life, love, meaning, and happiness. * Our growing community of freethinkers provides a positive, affirming environment for leading a good life, free of the illogic and intolerance of other religions based on holy books and supernaturalism.*

^^^Apparently, this group  a) calls itself a church,    b) has preachers,    c) compares itself to "other religions"

Therefore, I conclude (by way of evidence) that the OP posit is errant.

Atheism is a religion.


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite true.  And if one is acting like a religious person then one is treating Atheism as a religion.  Religion is about how people act and interact.  Saying Atheism is not a religion by definition is ignoring the people, and people is all there is.
> 
> People here have stated categorically there is no God - faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that?
> 
> The question is relative.  See post 33.  Far as I know there are no atheists here in the strict (#7) sense....
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated everyone needs to stop believing in God - proselytizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, who?  Where is this?
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated an Atheist has no beliefs right after saying there is no God, just because that is the definition of an Atheist - dogma.
> 
> How is that not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism doesn't mean "no beliefs".  Obviously everyone has beliefs.  Atheism is simply the antithesis of theism  -- taking the theory of theism and judging it to be inoperative.  It isn't a "belief" in itself at all; rather it's the _rejection _of _one particular_ belief.
> 
> I don't like raisins -- that doesn't mean I "believe in not-raisins" or in stamping raisins out for everyone else.  It simply means I turn them down as a personal choice.  It means that among the things I believe in, eating raisins is not one of them.  Not that complex.  Now again, if everybody around me were eating raisins at every turn and disparaging me for _not _eating them, well that might get a bit tiring.  And it _certainly _wouldn't incite me to change my mind on raisins.
> 
> Seems to me the bottom line here is not a legal matter but simple respect for one's choice -- and freedom thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite true.  And if one is acting like a religious person then one is treating Atheism as a religion.  Religion is about how people act and interact.  Saying Atheism is not a religion by definition is ignoring the people, and people is all there is.
> 
> People here have stated categorically there is no God - faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that?
> 
> The question is relative.  See post 33.  Far as I know there are no atheists here in the strict (#7) sense....
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated everyone needs to stop believing in God - proselytizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, who?  Where is this?
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated an Atheist has no beliefs right after saying there is no God, just because that is the definition of an Atheist - dogma.
> 
> How is that not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism doesn't mean "no beliefs".  Obviously everyone has beliefs.  Atheism is simply the antithesis of theism  -- taking the theory of theism and judging it to be inoperative.  It isn't a "belief" in itself at all; rather it's the _rejection _of _one particular_ belief.
> 
> I don't like raisins -- that doesn't mean I "believe in not-raisins" or in stamping raisins out for everyone else.  It simply means I turn them down as a personal choice.  It means that among the things I believe in, eating raisins is not one of them.  Not that complex.  Now again, if everybody around me were eating raisins at every turn and disparaging me for _not _eating them, well that might get a bit tiring.  And it _certainly _wouldn't incite me to change my mind on raisins.
> 
> Seems to me the bottom line here is not a legal matter but simple respect for one's choice -- and freedom thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume you've been reading the various threads and picking through thousands of posts to give you specifics, however...
> 
> Under the Faith is born from fear thread, AtheistBuddah in post 536 said, "There is no such thing as eternal life."  As statement of pure belief.  ---  Faith
> 
> In the same thread, Sealybobo in post 710 said, "PS. If you look at this site, you'll see it has all the arguments against Jesus and generic god(s) too. Jesus may be mentioned more than Mohammad but this site shoots down every religion.
> 
> Why there is no god"   Essentially the same thing as handing out Bible tracts.  ---  Proselytizing
> 
> The last one gets involved but there was a long discussion in the thread Atheism is a fringe kook theory cult between myself and Derideo_Te.  The basic thesis was the definition of Atheism was a lack of beliefs and therefore Atheists lacked beliefs.  IOW, it is true because it is written.  ---  Dogma.
Click to expand...


Those are not posted in this thread.  We don't even know what the premise of that thread is, so it's completely out of context here.  If you'd like to invite said posters here, do so but we can't use spare parts from a Studebaker to fix a Lincoln.


----------



## Pogo

Moonglow said:


> I kind of enjoy not knowing. It gives life just the right kind of spice!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had an astral projection the other night and hit my head on the ceiling....
Click to expand...


Oh I _hate _when I do dat!  You could put your third eye out.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above essentially says that you do not believe in God because you don't see any evidence that there is a God.
> 
> This is a logical fallacy. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you just changed what she said by extending to "evidence of absence".  That's beyond her scope.  So I'm afraid the rest of your post is irrelevant.  Everything is not black/white, belief/disbelief.  The component you're leaving out as inconvenient is *doubt*.  *Skepticism.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> To use an illustration from everyday life may help clarify the issue further and demonstrate how the argument when used in its reverse form, is most illogical. The assertion 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence' cannot be applied to any unknown discovery or else the following propositions would be true:
> 
> Since William Herschel discovered Uranus in 1781 it did not exist until then because evidence of its existence was absent.
> 
> Since Neptune was not discovered until September 23rd 1846 by Galle and Arrest it did not exist until then, since there was no real evidence.
> 
> Pluto didn't exist until 1930 when it was discovered by Clyde W. Tombaugh, since there was no evidence of its existence.
> 
> What does the phrase absence of evidence is not evidence of absence mean in relation to discoveries supporting the Bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a problem with logic and comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I just don't see any evidence that there is a God *<<<(absence of evidence)
> 
> *so *(therefore)
> 
> * I don't live my life as if a God exists *<<<(Poor Carla  believes there is no God...she interprets the above absence of evidence as "evidence of absence")
Click to expand...


No, you've extended her point beyond its boundaries.  Nothing seems to have changed on that.  You don't grasp the shades of grey.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> You too can become a member:
> About the Holy Bible First Church of Atheism
> 
> Since its inception, *the First Church of Atheism has amassed quite a following around the world*. FCA ministers come from all walks of life. They are every race, ethnicity, age, and creed. The one thing binding every FCA minister is his or her belief in science, reason, and reality. The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority. We provide our service for free, as we believe it is every atheists right to perform these clergy functions. You maybecome a legally ordained ministerfor life, without cost, and without question.
> 
> .....
> 
> 
> North Texas Church of Freethought
> The North Texas Church of Freethought is a Fellowship of Unbelievers. We do what all the other churches do, but with one less god. Our aim is to offer atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, and freethinkers all the educational, inspirational, and social and emotional benefits of traditional faith-based churches. * We do this by preaching Freethought,* a rational approach to religious questions of life, love, meaning, and happiness. * Our growing community of freethinkers provides a positive, affirming environment for leading a good life, free of the illogic and intolerance of other religions based on holy books and supernaturalism.*
> 
> ^^^Apparently, this group  a) calls itself a church,    b) has preachers,    c) compares itself to "other religions"
> 
> Therefore, I conclude (by way of evidence) that the OP posit is errant.
> 
> Atheism is a religion.



Thank you for that dissolution.  Here's the problem, back to logical fallacies, without even looking at the link:  you're posting about atheis*ts*, specific atheis*ts*, and their actions.  This thread isn't about athies*ts*; it's about atehi*sm.*  About a logical process -- not people and their _actions_.  Cherrypicked anecdotes no more make a statement about the whole than we could say that when Eric Rudolph goes off his nut and starts bombing people, he therefore represents "Catholics".

Matter of fact you can also stick this red warning label on the Islamobash thread that spawned this one, the one where you advocated killing children:

Fallacy of Composition


----------



## sealybobo

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]



Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because _none are made_. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of _justified belief_ grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an _unjustified belief_ based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality.

If all knowledge of science was lost, someone could potentially figure it out again. What is true remains true, and anyone could discover that truth again using the same method that revealed it in the first place. Conversely, if every trace of religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created in exactly the same way again.

Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.

_“Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions.”_- Frater Ravus


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite true.  And if one is acting like a religious person then one is treating Atheism as a religion.  Religion is about how people act and interact.  Saying Atheism is not a religion by definition is ignoring the people, and people is all there is.
> 
> People here have stated categorically there is no God - faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that?
> 
> The question is relative.  See post 33.  Far as I know there are no atheists here in the strict (#7) sense....
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated everyone needs to stop believing in God - proselytizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, who?  Where is this?
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated an Atheist has no beliefs right after saying there is no God, just because that is the definition of an Atheist - dogma.
> 
> How is that not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism doesn't mean "no beliefs".  Obviously everyone has beliefs.  Atheism is simply the antithesis of theism  -- taking the theory of theism and judging it to be inoperative.  It isn't a "belief" in itself at all; rather it's the _rejection _of _one particular_ belief.
> 
> I don't like raisins -- that doesn't mean I "believe in not-raisins" or in stamping raisins out for everyone else.  It simply means I turn them down as a personal choice.  It means that among the things I believe in, eating raisins is not one of them.  Not that complex.  Now again, if everybody around me were eating raisins at every turn and disparaging me for _not _eating them, well that might get a bit tiring.  And it _certainly _wouldn't incite me to change my mind on raisins.
> 
> Seems to me the bottom line here is not a legal matter but simple respect for one's choice -- and freedom thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite true.  And if one is acting like a religious person then one is treating Atheism as a religion.  Religion is about how people act and interact.  Saying Atheism is not a religion by definition is ignoring the people, and people is all there is.
> 
> People here have stated categorically there is no God - faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that?
> 
> The question is relative.  See post 33.  Far as I know there are no atheists here in the strict (#7) sense....
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated everyone needs to stop believing in God - proselytizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, who?  Where is this?
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated an Atheist has no beliefs right after saying there is no God, just because that is the definition of an Atheist - dogma.
> 
> How is that not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism doesn't mean "no beliefs".  Obviously everyone has beliefs.  Atheism is simply the antithesis of theism  -- taking the theory of theism and judging it to be inoperative.  It isn't a "belief" in itself at all; rather it's the _rejection _of _one particular_ belief.
> 
> I don't like raisins -- that doesn't mean I "believe in not-raisins" or in stamping raisins out for everyone else.  It simply means I turn them down as a personal choice.  It means that among the things I believe in, eating raisins is not one of them.  Not that complex.  Now again, if everybody around me were eating raisins at every turn and disparaging me for _not _eating them, well that might get a bit tiring.  And it _certainly _wouldn't incite me to change my mind on raisins.
> 
> Seems to me the bottom line here is not a legal matter but simple respect for one's choice -- and freedom thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume you've been reading the various threads and picking through thousands of posts to give you specifics, however...
> 
> Under the Faith is born from fear thread, AtheistBuddah in post 536 said, "There is no such thing as eternal life."  As statement of pure belief.  ---  Faith
> 
> In the same thread, Sealybobo in post 710 said, "PS. If you look at this site, you'll see it has all the arguments against Jesus and generic god(s) too. Jesus may be mentioned more than Mohammad but this site shoots down every religion.
> 
> Why there is no god"   Essentially the same thing as handing out Bible tracts.  ---  Proselytizing
> 
> The last one gets involved but there was a long discussion in the thread Atheism is a fringe kook theory cult between myself and Derideo_Te.  The basic thesis was the definition of Atheism was a lack of beliefs and therefore Atheists lacked beliefs.  IOW, it is true because it is written.  ---  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are not posted in this thread.  We don't even know what the premise of that thread is, so it's completely out of context here.  If you'd like to invite said posters here, do so but we can't use spare parts from a Studebaker to fix a Lincoln.
Click to expand...

 
You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands.  If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You too can become a member:
> About the Holy Bible First Church of Atheism
> 
> Since its inception, *the First Church of Atheism has amassed quite a following around the world*. FCA ministers come from all walks of life. They are every race, ethnicity, age, and creed. The one thing binding every FCA minister is his or her belief in science, reason, and reality. The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority. We provide our service for free, as we believe it is every atheists right to perform these clergy functions. You maybecome a legally ordained ministerfor life, without cost, and without question.
> 
> .....
> 
> 
> North Texas Church of Freethought
> The North Texas Church of Freethought is a Fellowship of Unbelievers. We do what all the other churches do, but with one less god. Our aim is to offer atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, and freethinkers all the educational, inspirational, and social and emotional benefits of traditional faith-based churches. * We do this by preaching Freethought,* a rational approach to religious questions of life, love, meaning, and happiness. * Our growing community of freethinkers provides a positive, affirming environment for leading a good life, free of the illogic and intolerance of other religions based on holy books and supernaturalism.*
> 
> ^^^Apparently, this group  a) calls itself a church,    b) has preachers,    c) compares itself to "other religions"
> 
> Therefore, I conclude (by way of evidence) that the OP posit is errant.
> 
> Atheism is a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for that dissolution.  Here's the problem, back to logical fallacies, without even looking at the link:  you're posting about atheis*ts*, specific atheis*ts*, and their actions.  This thread isn't about athies*ts*; it's about atehi*sm.*  About a logical process -- not people and their _actions_.  Cherrypicked anecdotes no more make a statement about the whole than we could say that when Eric Rudolph goes off his nut and starts bombing people, he therefore represents "Catholics".
> 
> Matter of fact you can also stick this red warning label on the Islamobash thread that spawned this one, the one where you advocated killing children:
> 
> Fallacy of Composition
Click to expand...

 
Then Atheism does not exist.  I'm glad we have finally straightened this out.


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite true.  And if one is acting like a religious person then one is treating Atheism as a religion.  Religion is about how people act and interact.  Saying Atheism is not a religion by definition is ignoring the people, and people is all there is.
> 
> People here have stated categorically there is no God - faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that?
> 
> The question is relative.  See post 33.  Far as I know there are no atheists here in the strict (#7) sense....
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated everyone needs to stop believing in God - proselytizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, who?  Where is this?
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated an Atheist has no beliefs right after saying there is no God, just because that is the definition of an Atheist - dogma.
> 
> How is that not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism doesn't mean "no beliefs".  Obviously everyone has beliefs.  Atheism is simply the antithesis of theism  -- taking the theory of theism and judging it to be inoperative.  It isn't a "belief" in itself at all; rather it's the _rejection _of _one particular_ belief.
> 
> I don't like raisins -- that doesn't mean I "believe in not-raisins" or in stamping raisins out for everyone else.  It simply means I turn them down as a personal choice.  It means that among the things I believe in, eating raisins is not one of them.  Not that complex.  Now again, if everybody around me were eating raisins at every turn and disparaging me for _not _eating them, well that might get a bit tiring.  And it _certainly _wouldn't incite me to change my mind on raisins.
> 
> Seems to me the bottom line here is not a legal matter but simple respect for one's choice -- and freedom thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite true.  And if one is acting like a religious person then one is treating Atheism as a religion.  Religion is about how people act and interact.  Saying Atheism is not a religion by definition is ignoring the people, and people is all there is.
> 
> People here have stated categorically there is no God - faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that?
> 
> The question is relative.  See post 33.  Far as I know there are no atheists here in the strict (#7) sense....
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated everyone needs to stop believing in God - proselytizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, who?  Where is this?
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated an Atheist has no beliefs right after saying there is no God, just because that is the definition of an Atheist - dogma.
> 
> How is that not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism doesn't mean "no beliefs".  Obviously everyone has beliefs.  Atheism is simply the antithesis of theism  -- taking the theory of theism and judging it to be inoperative.  It isn't a "belief" in itself at all; rather it's the _rejection _of _one particular_ belief.
> 
> I don't like raisins -- that doesn't mean I "believe in not-raisins" or in stamping raisins out for everyone else.  It simply means I turn them down as a personal choice.  It means that among the things I believe in, eating raisins is not one of them.  Not that complex.  Now again, if everybody around me were eating raisins at every turn and disparaging me for _not _eating them, well that might get a bit tiring.  And it _certainly _wouldn't incite me to change my mind on raisins.
> 
> Seems to me the bottom line here is not a legal matter but simple respect for one's choice -- and freedom thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume you've been reading the various threads and picking through thousands of posts to give you specifics, however...
> 
> Under the Faith is born from fear thread, AtheistBuddah in post 536 said, "There is no such thing as eternal life."  As statement of pure belief.  ---  Faith
> 
> In the same thread, Sealybobo in post 710 said, "PS. If you look at this site, you'll see it has all the arguments against Jesus and generic god(s) too. Jesus may be mentioned more than Mohammad but this site shoots down every religion.
> 
> Why there is no god"   Essentially the same thing as handing out Bible tracts.  ---  Proselytizing
> 
> The last one gets involved but there was a long discussion in the thread Atheism is a fringe kook theory cult between myself and Derideo_Te.  The basic thesis was the definition of Atheism was a lack of beliefs and therefore Atheists lacked beliefs.  IOW, it is true because it is written.  ---  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are not posted in this thread.  We don't even know what the premise of that thread is, so it's completely out of context here.  If you'd like to invite said posters here, do so but we can't use spare parts from a Studebaker to fix a Lincoln.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands.  If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't "stand".  If you're inviting us all to go join a similar discussion elsewhere that's one thing, but you can't just toss out the words of people who weren't addressing this question and don't even know it exists.  That's a strawman.

And this statement is fatally flawed:
"If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion."

I can throw a truck tire on the ground and sit on it; that doesn't make it a "chair".
Let me throw this one out ......

If atheism (note, still small A) is a "religion" ---------------------------- *who founded it?*


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You too can become a member:
> About the Holy Bible First Church of Atheism
> 
> Since its inception, *the First Church of Atheism has amassed quite a following around the world*. FCA ministers come from all walks of life. They are every race, ethnicity, age, and creed. The one thing binding every FCA minister is his or her belief in science, reason, and reality. The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority. We provide our service for free, as we believe it is every atheists right to perform these clergy functions. You maybecome a legally ordained ministerfor life, without cost, and without question.
> 
> .....
> 
> 
> North Texas Church of Freethought
> The North Texas Church of Freethought is a Fellowship of Unbelievers. We do what all the other churches do, but with one less god. Our aim is to offer atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, and freethinkers all the educational, inspirational, and social and emotional benefits of traditional faith-based churches. * We do this by preaching Freethought,* a rational approach to religious questions of life, love, meaning, and happiness. * Our growing community of freethinkers provides a positive, affirming environment for leading a good life, free of the illogic and intolerance of other religions based on holy books and supernaturalism.*
> 
> ^^^Apparently, this group  a) calls itself a church,    b) has preachers,    c) compares itself to "other religions"
> 
> Therefore, I conclude (by way of evidence) that the OP posit is errant.
> 
> Atheism is a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for that dissolution.  Here's the problem, back to logical fallacies, without even looking at the link:  you're posting about atheis*ts*, specific atheis*ts*, and their actions.  This thread isn't about athies*ts*; it's about atehi*sm.*  About a logical process -- not people and their _actions_.  Cherrypicked anecdotes no more make a statement about the whole than we could say that when Eric Rudolph goes off his nut and starts bombing people, he therefore represents "Catholics".
> 
> Matter of fact you can also stick this red warning label on the Islamobash thread that spawned this one, the one where you advocated killing children:
> 
> Fallacy of Composition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then Atheism does not exist.  I'm glad we have finally straightened this out.
Click to expand...


Non sequitur.
If atheism doesn't exist ------ what do you call the rejection of theism?


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite true.  And if one is acting like a religious person then one is treating Atheism as a religion.  Religion is about how people act and interact.  Saying Atheism is not a religion by definition is ignoring the people, and people is all there is.
> 
> People here have stated categorically there is no God - faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that?
> 
> The question is relative.  See post 33.  Far as I know there are no atheists here in the strict (#7) sense....
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated everyone needs to stop believing in God - proselytizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, who?  Where is this?
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated an Atheist has no beliefs right after saying there is no God, just because that is the definition of an Atheist - dogma.
> 
> How is that not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism doesn't mean "no beliefs".  Obviously everyone has beliefs.  Atheism is simply the antithesis of theism  -- taking the theory of theism and judging it to be inoperative.  It isn't a "belief" in itself at all; rather it's the _rejection _of _one particular_ belief.
> 
> I don't like raisins -- that doesn't mean I "believe in not-raisins" or in stamping raisins out for everyone else.  It simply means I turn them down as a personal choice.  It means that among the things I believe in, eating raisins is not one of them.  Not that complex.  Now again, if everybody around me were eating raisins at every turn and disparaging me for _not _eating them, well that might get a bit tiring.  And it _certainly _wouldn't incite me to change my mind on raisins.
> 
> Seems to me the bottom line here is not a legal matter but simple respect for one's choice -- and freedom thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite true.  And if one is acting like a religious person then one is treating Atheism as a religion.  Religion is about how people act and interact.  Saying Atheism is not a religion by definition is ignoring the people, and people is all there is.
> 
> People here have stated categorically there is no God - faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that?
> 
> The question is relative.  See post 33.  Far as I know there are no atheists here in the strict (#7) sense....
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated everyone needs to stop believing in God - proselytizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, who?  Where is this?
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated an Atheist has no beliefs right after saying there is no God, just because that is the definition of an Atheist - dogma.
> 
> How is that not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism doesn't mean "no beliefs".  Obviously everyone has beliefs.  Atheism is simply the antithesis of theism  -- taking the theory of theism and judging it to be inoperative.  It isn't a "belief" in itself at all; rather it's the _rejection _of _one particular_ belief.
> 
> I don't like raisins -- that doesn't mean I "believe in not-raisins" or in stamping raisins out for everyone else.  It simply means I turn them down as a personal choice.  It means that among the things I believe in, eating raisins is not one of them.  Not that complex.  Now again, if everybody around me were eating raisins at every turn and disparaging me for _not _eating them, well that might get a bit tiring.  And it _certainly _wouldn't incite me to change my mind on raisins.
> 
> Seems to me the bottom line here is not a legal matter but simple respect for one's choice -- and freedom thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume you've been reading the various threads and picking through thousands of posts to give you specifics, however...
> 
> Under the Faith is born from fear thread, AtheistBuddah in post 536 said, "There is no such thing as eternal life."  As statement of pure belief.  ---  Faith
> 
> In the same thread, Sealybobo in post 710 said, "PS. If you look at this site, you'll see it has all the arguments against Jesus and generic god(s) too. Jesus may be mentioned more than Mohammad but this site shoots down every religion.
> 
> Why there is no god"   Essentially the same thing as handing out Bible tracts.  ---  Proselytizing
> 
> The last one gets involved but there was a long discussion in the thread Atheism is a fringe kook theory cult between myself and Derideo_Te.  The basic thesis was the definition of Atheism was a lack of beliefs and therefore Atheists lacked beliefs.  IOW, it is true because it is written.  ---  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are not posted in this thread.  We don't even know what the premise of that thread is, so it's completely out of context here.  If you'd like to invite said posters here, do so but we can't use spare parts from a Studebaker to fix a Lincoln.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands.  If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't "stand".  If you're inviting us all to go join a similar discussion elsewhere that's one thing, but you can't just toss out the words of people who weren't addressing this question and don't even know it exists.  That's a strawman.
> 
> Let me throw this one out ......
> 
> If atheism (note, still small A) is a "religion" ---------------------------- *who founded it?*
Click to expand...

 
You asked for the sources and I gave you what you asked for.  It is not my fault you asked for it.

Who says it must be founded by someone?


----------



## asaratis

PratchettFan said:


> ....
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands. * If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.*


...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion.  Some are just too dense to concede.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Pogo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never understood why so many atheists get so upset about something they don't believe in.
> 
> I don't think there is a god but I fall into the more agnostic camp where I think we just don't know if there is a supreme being or race of beings out there and even if there are we still may never understand them.
> 
> That said IDGAF if someone says the word god or that some people pray at public meetings or in a school as long as it's not forced on anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the answer lieth in the last phrase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me how in god we trust on our currency is forcing someone to participate in a religion or worship said god.
> 
> BTW it does neither but for some reason atheists who say they do not believe in said god get their panties in a wad over it.
> 
> So I'll ask again, how can one be offended by something in which they do not believe?
> 
> It's like being offended by Bugs Bunny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  I made no reference to money.
> 
> I suppose if Bugs Bunny (specifically) were rammed down my throat every time some public meeting took place, every time the seventh inning of a big baseball game came up, on all my money, in the Pledge of Allegiance, bellowed from street corners by bullhorn-wielding preachers, hawked by anonymous other accosters, invoked in every oath in the legal system, screamed from the top of her natural ampitheater by my wacko neighbor, hammered into every wedding and funeral and most of all woven into the social mores of my culture 24/7 as a psychological-warfare guilt tool, that would get a bit tiring -- particularly if my country had been founded on the basis of freedom of choice in cartoon characters.
> 
> Your mileage may vary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman to your strawman
> 
> If someone in your presence invokes the deity it is not being "rammed down your throat"
> If the owners of a ball park want to broadcast a 7th inning prayer they have every right to just as you have the right to ignore it or put your fingers in your ears and say LA LA LA.
> 
> All I get from your post is that you must extremely thin skinned if the mere mention of an entity that you do not think exists can be such a source of torture to you..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why are you the one morphing my post into something about "rights"?
> There is defensiveness here but it ain't on my end.  And taking single items out of an aggregate as if not part of an interrelated whole is another morph.  Not very honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the owners of a ball park don't have the right to broadcast a 7th inning prayer over their privately owned PA system ?
> 
> And an aggregate is nothing but a collection of single items.  If you can't figure out that what I said about one applies to all without me listing each and every little torture that you are whining about that's your problem
> 
> So tell me why the mere mention of a being you deny exists causes you such anguish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again -- who brought up "rights"?  You did.  Who brought up "anguish"?  You did.  Who brought up "whining" and "torture"?  Once again...
> 
> Matter of fact who said I was an atheist?  Again that would be you.  Why do you find it necessary to insert content that wasn't there?
> We shouldn't be surprised that a topic on theism/nontheism drowns in strawmen.  Theism itself depends on it.
Click to expand...


All I have done is ask you a series of simple questions.  Excuse me for trying to get some sort of answer from you to my original question since you have yet to answer it.

Why do some atheists get so upset over the mere mentioning of an entity in which they have no belief? 

Instead of answering you post a litany of little things that in the "aggregate" amount to something being "rammed down your throat" by various "accosters" (sic)

So I guess you would just lose your shit if you were paying for an ice cream with a dollar bill that says in god we trust and someone said "Oh my god" within earshot while another person said "god bless you to an old woman who just sneezed.


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> .....
> 
> Thank you for that dissolution.  Here's the problem, back to logical fallacies, without even looking at the link:  you're posting about atheis*ts*, specific atheis*ts*, and their actions.  This thread isn't about athies*ts*; it's about atehi*sm.*  About a logical process -- not people and their _actions_.  Cherrypicked anecdotes no more make a statement about the whole than we could say that when Eric Rudolph goes off his nut and starts bombing people, he therefore represents "Catholics".
> 
> Matter of fact you can also stick this red warning label on the Islamobash thread that spawned this one, the one *where you advocated killing children:*
> 
> Fallacy of Composition


That's another strawman on your part.  I advocate the killing of* radical Muslims and their children.*...not children in general. 

...and even then, I would spare the infants and toddlers that have yet to attend the terrorist schools to learn the Muslim tenent of jihad.  We could hand these babies over to adoption agencies and have them placed in families that want to adopt but cannot because of the lack of supply caused by our own proclivity to abort viable fetuses and murder babies in late term abortions. 

Then we could raise them to love one another.

Common sense says we'll never be able to kill them all anyway. It's just a surefire solution....if you kill ALL of the troublemakers, there won't be any trouble.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands. * If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion.  Some are just too dense to concede.
Click to expand...



Then those people are treating atheism incorrectly. It is not a religion, and it's ridiculous to say that it is.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands. * If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion.  Some are just too dense to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then those people are treating atheism incorrectly. It is not a religion, and it's ridiculous to say that it is.
Click to expand...

Never give up the ship...whether it is sinking or not!


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands. * If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion.  Some are just too dense to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then those people are treating atheism incorrectly. It is not a religion, and it's ridiculous to say that it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never give up the ship...whether it is sinking or not!
Click to expand...



First Church of Atheism FAQ:

*Do you have a physical church that I can visit?*
Not yet! To learn more about that, click here.


LOL!


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands. * If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion.  Some are just too dense to concede.
Click to expand...



*Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.* While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. *Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds.* We are as unique as our fingerprints.

What is Atheism American Atheists


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........
> 
> 
> Never give up the ship...whether it is sinking or not!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Church of Atheism FAQ:
> 
> *Do you have a physical church that I can visit?*
> Not yet! To learn more about that, click here.
> 
> 
> LOL!
Click to expand...



About the Holy Bible First Church of Atheism


> Donations are accepted but not expected. *If we can raise enough money we can buy an actual church!*
> 
> 
> $847.15    Raised
> $900000   Target
> Choose donation amount:
> Anonymous donation


All they need is some money from the faithful few!.....about $900,000.00

Damn! Those Atheist symbols must be expensive!


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands. * If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion.  Some are just too dense to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.* While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."
> 
> The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. *Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds.* We are as unique as our fingerprints.
> 
> What is Atheism American Atheists
Click to expand...

If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.   If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass.

These make more sense than your lame retorts.


..and Bill Maher is nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual shock jock, cute but laughable.



Try to watch this and LISTEN to what is said....on both sides.

Naturally, Bill jokes his way out of being caught with illogical utterances and evokes laughter from his screened audience.  I think he's just pissed at the world because God put his ears on upside down.

It's only 8 minutes 22 seconds long.  I'm confident that you can muster more patience than Pogo has exhibited here.

Click on the bar at the top of the screen rather than the start arrow in the center.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands. * If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion.  Some are just too dense to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then those people are treating atheism incorrectly. It is not a religion, and it's ridiculous to say that it is.
Click to expand...


They are not treating Atheism correctly?  You mean they don't follow doctrine?


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite true.  And if one is acting like a religious person then one is treating Atheism as a religion.  Religion is about how people act and interact.  Saying Atheism is not a religion by definition is ignoring the people, and people is all there is.
> 
> People here have stated categorically there is no God - faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that?
> 
> The question is relative.  See post 33.  Far as I know there are no atheists here in the strict (#7) sense....
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated everyone needs to stop believing in God - proselytizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, who?  Where is this?
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated an Atheist has no beliefs right after saying there is no God, just because that is the definition of an Atheist - dogma.
> 
> How is that not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism doesn't mean "no beliefs".  Obviously everyone has beliefs.  Atheism is simply the antithesis of theism  -- taking the theory of theism and judging it to be inoperative.  It isn't a "belief" in itself at all; rather it's the _rejection _of _one particular_ belief.
> 
> I don't like raisins -- that doesn't mean I "believe in not-raisins" or in stamping raisins out for everyone else.  It simply means I turn them down as a personal choice.  It means that among the things I believe in, eating raisins is not one of them.  Not that complex.  Now again, if everybody around me were eating raisins at every turn and disparaging me for _not _eating them, well that might get a bit tiring.  And it _certainly _wouldn't incite me to change my mind on raisins.
> 
> Seems to me the bottom line here is not a legal matter but simple respect for one's choice -- and freedom thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite true.  And if one is acting like a religious person then one is treating Atheism as a religion.  Religion is about how people act and interact.  Saying Atheism is not a religion by definition is ignoring the people, and people is all there is.
> 
> People here have stated categorically there is no God - faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that?
> 
> The question is relative.  See post 33.  Far as I know there are no atheists here in the strict (#7) sense....
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated everyone needs to stop believing in God - proselytizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, who?  Where is this?
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated an Atheist has no beliefs right after saying there is no God, just because that is the definition of an Atheist - dogma.
> 
> How is that not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism doesn't mean "no beliefs".  Obviously everyone has beliefs.  Atheism is simply the antithesis of theism  -- taking the theory of theism and judging it to be inoperative.  It isn't a "belief" in itself at all; rather it's the _rejection _of _one particular_ belief.
> 
> I don't like raisins -- that doesn't mean I "believe in not-raisins" or in stamping raisins out for everyone else.  It simply means I turn them down as a personal choice.  It means that among the things I believe in, eating raisins is not one of them.  Not that complex.  Now again, if everybody around me were eating raisins at every turn and disparaging me for _not _eating them, well that might get a bit tiring.  And it _certainly _wouldn't incite me to change my mind on raisins.
> 
> Seems to me the bottom line here is not a legal matter but simple respect for one's choice -- and freedom thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume you've been reading the various threads and picking through thousands of posts to give you specifics, however...
> 
> Under the Faith is born from fear thread, AtheistBuddah in post 536 said, "There is no such thing as eternal life."  As statement of pure belief.  ---  Faith
> 
> In the same thread, Sealybobo in post 710 said, "PS. If you look at this site, you'll see it has all the arguments against Jesus and generic god(s) too. Jesus may be mentioned more than Mohammad but this site shoots down every religion.
> 
> Why there is no god"   Essentially the same thing as handing out Bible tracts.  ---  Proselytizing
> 
> The last one gets involved but there was a long discussion in the thread Atheism is a fringe kook theory cult between myself and Derideo_Te.  The basic thesis was the definition of Atheism was a lack of beliefs and therefore Atheists lacked beliefs.  IOW, it is true because it is written.  ---  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are not posted in this thread.  We don't even know what the premise of that thread is, so it's completely out of context here.  If you'd like to invite said posters here, do so but we can't use spare parts from a Studebaker to fix a Lincoln.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands.  If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't "stand".  If you're inviting us all to go join a similar discussion elsewhere that's one thing, but you can't just toss out the words of people who weren't addressing this question and don't even know it exists.  That's a strawman.
> 
> Let me throw this one out ......
> 
> If atheism (note, still small A) is a "religion" ---------------------------- *who founded it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked for the sources and I gave you what you asked for.  It is not my fault you asked for it.
> 
> Who says it must be founded by someone?
Click to expand...


  Well done grasshopper.  Just wanted to see how you'd handle that.  

But the sources are still nonpresent entities here.  You can't fairly  present somebody else's point that you already disagree with.  Why don't you invite those people here and let them speak for themselves?


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands. * If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion.  Some are just too dense to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.* While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."
> 
> The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. *Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds.* We are as unique as our fingerprints.
> 
> What is Atheism American Atheists
Click to expand...


It is this claim of a lack of beliefs which does you in.  It is bullshit.  You do not lack beliefs.  If you actually did lack beliefs you would be entirely neutral on the question.  Any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief. You have said you think there probably is no god, what evidence do you have to think that? If the answer is none, then it is a belief.  You cannot have a belief and lack beliefs at the same time.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands. * If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion.  Some are just too dense to concede.
Click to expand...


Think so?  What's it's creed?  "Creed" of course meaning a set of beliefs -- not non-beliefs.
What's it's philosophy on Nature's mysteries then?  What questions does it _answer_?

And more basically -- why are you so desperate to turn a simple logical conclusion of a single concept -- into a "religion"?  You have yet to tell us that.  Nor what would be the point of "preaching" nothingness.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite true.  And if one is acting like a religious person then one is treating Atheism as a religion.  Religion is about how people act and interact.  Saying Atheism is not a religion by definition is ignoring the people, and people is all there is.
> 
> People here have stated categorically there is no God - faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that?
> 
> The question is relative.  See post 33.  Far as I know there are no atheists here in the strict (#7) sense....
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated everyone needs to stop believing in God - proselytizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, who?  Where is this?
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated an Atheist has no beliefs right after saying there is no God, just because that is the definition of an Atheist - dogma.
> 
> How is that not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism doesn't mean "no beliefs".  Obviously everyone has beliefs.  Atheism is simply the antithesis of theism  -- taking the theory of theism and judging it to be inoperative.  It isn't a "belief" in itself at all; rather it's the _rejection _of _one particular_ belief.
> 
> I don't like raisins -- that doesn't mean I "believe in not-raisins" or in stamping raisins out for everyone else.  It simply means I turn them down as a personal choice.  It means that among the things I believe in, eating raisins is not one of them.  Not that complex.  Now again, if everybody around me were eating raisins at every turn and disparaging me for _not _eating them, well that might get a bit tiring.  And it _certainly _wouldn't incite me to change my mind on raisins.
> 
> Seems to me the bottom line here is not a legal matter but simple respect for one's choice -- and freedom thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite true.  And if one is acting like a religious person then one is treating Atheism as a religion.  Religion is about how people act and interact.  Saying Atheism is not a religion by definition is ignoring the people, and people is all there is.
> 
> People here have stated categorically there is no God - faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that?
> 
> The question is relative.  See post 33.  Far as I know there are no atheists here in the strict (#7) sense....
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated everyone needs to stop believing in God - proselytizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, who?  Where is this?
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> People here have stated an Atheist has no beliefs right after saying there is no God, just because that is the definition of an Atheist - dogma.
> 
> How is that not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism doesn't mean "no beliefs".  Obviously everyone has beliefs.  Atheism is simply the antithesis of theism  -- taking the theory of theism and judging it to be inoperative.  It isn't a "belief" in itself at all; rather it's the _rejection _of _one particular_ belief.
> 
> I don't like raisins -- that doesn't mean I "believe in not-raisins" or in stamping raisins out for everyone else.  It simply means I turn them down as a personal choice.  It means that among the things I believe in, eating raisins is not one of them.  Not that complex.  Now again, if everybody around me were eating raisins at every turn and disparaging me for _not _eating them, well that might get a bit tiring.  And it _certainly _wouldn't incite me to change my mind on raisins.
> 
> Seems to me the bottom line here is not a legal matter but simple respect for one's choice -- and freedom thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume you've been reading the various threads and picking through thousands of posts to give you specifics, however...
> 
> Under the Faith is born from fear thread, AtheistBuddah in post 536 said, "There is no such thing as eternal life."  As statement of pure belief.  ---  Faith
> 
> In the same thread, Sealybobo in post 710 said, "PS. If you look at this site, you'll see it has all the arguments against Jesus and generic god(s) too. Jesus may be mentioned more than Mohammad but this site shoots down every religion.
> 
> Why there is no god"   Essentially the same thing as handing out Bible tracts.  ---  Proselytizing
> 
> The last one gets involved but there was a long discussion in the thread Atheism is a fringe kook theory cult between myself and Derideo_Te.  The basic thesis was the definition of Atheism was a lack of beliefs and therefore Atheists lacked beliefs.  IOW, it is true because it is written.  ---  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are not posted in this thread.  We don't even know what the premise of that thread is, so it's completely out of context here.  If you'd like to invite said posters here, do so but we can't use spare parts from a Studebaker to fix a Lincoln.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands.  If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't "stand".  If you're inviting us all to go join a similar discussion elsewhere that's one thing, but you can't just toss out the words of people who weren't addressing this question and don't even know it exists.  That's a strawman.
> 
> Let me throw this one out ......
> 
> If atheism (note, still small A) is a "religion" ---------------------------- *who founded it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked for the sources and I gave you what you asked for.  It is not my fault you asked for it.
> 
> Who says it must be founded by someone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well done grasshopper.  Just wanted to see how you'd handle that.
> 
> But the sources are still nonpresent entities here.  You can't fairly  present somebody else's point that you already disagree with.  Why don't you invite those people here and let them speak for themselves?
Click to expand...


Anyone who wants to join in is free to.  All three of them are active posters here.  So we can let that go as something we are not going to agree on.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands. * If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion.  Some are just too dense to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then those people are treating atheism incorrectly. It is not a religion, and it's ridiculous to say that it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not treating Atheism correctly?  You mean they don't follow doctrine?
Click to expand...




There is no doctrine.


----------



## Pogo

Skull Pilot said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never understood why so many atheists get so upset about something they don't believe in.
> 
> I don't think there is a god but I fall into the more agnostic camp where I think we just don't know if there is a supreme being or race of beings out there and even if there are we still may never understand them.
> 
> That said IDGAF if someone says the word god or that some people pray at public meetings or in a school as long as it's not forced on anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the answer lieth in the last phrase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me how in god we trust on our currency is forcing someone to participate in a religion or worship said god.
> 
> BTW it does neither but for some reason atheists who say they do not believe in said god get their panties in a wad over it.
> 
> So I'll ask again, how can one be offended by something in which they do not believe?
> 
> It's like being offended by Bugs Bunny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  I made no reference to money.
> 
> I suppose if Bugs Bunny (specifically) were rammed down my throat every time some public meeting took place, every time the seventh inning of a big baseball game came up, on all my money, in the Pledge of Allegiance, bellowed from street corners by bullhorn-wielding preachers, hawked by anonymous other accosters, invoked in every oath in the legal system, screamed from the top of her natural ampitheater by my wacko neighbor, hammered into every wedding and funeral and most of all woven into the social mores of my culture 24/7 as a psychological-warfare guilt tool, that would get a bit tiring -- particularly if my country had been founded on the basis of freedom of choice in cartoon characters.
> 
> Your mileage may vary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman to your strawman
> 
> If someone in your presence invokes the deity it is not being "rammed down your throat"
> If the owners of a ball park want to broadcast a 7th inning prayer they have every right to just as you have the right to ignore it or put your fingers in your ears and say LA LA LA.
> 
> All I get from your post is that you must extremely thin skinned if the mere mention of an entity that you do not think exists can be such a source of torture to you..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why are you the one morphing my post into something about "rights"?
> There is defensiveness here but it ain't on my end.  And taking single items out of an aggregate as if not part of an interrelated whole is another morph.  Not very honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the owners of a ball park don't have the right to broadcast a 7th inning prayer over their privately owned PA system ?
> 
> And an aggregate is nothing but a collection of single items.  If you can't figure out that what I said about one applies to all without me listing each and every little torture that you are whining about that's your problem
> 
> So tell me why the mere mention of a being you deny exists causes you such anguish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again -- who brought up "rights"?  You did.  Who brought up "anguish"?  You did.  Who brought up "whining" and "torture"?  Once again...
> 
> Matter of fact who said I was an atheist?  Again that would be you.  Why do you find it necessary to insert content that wasn't there?
> We shouldn't be surprised that a topic on theism/nontheism drowns in strawmen.  Theism itself depends on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I have done is ask you a series of simple questions.  Excuse me for trying to get some sort of answer from you to my original question since you have yet to answer it.
> 
> Why do some atheists get so upset over the mere mentioning of an entity in which they have no belief?
Click to expand...


Where the fuck are you seeing "upset"?   



Skull Pilot said:


> Instead of answering you post a litany of little things that in the "aggregate" amount to something being "rammed down your throat" by various "accosters" (sic)
> 
> So I guess you would just lose your shit if you were paying for an ice cream with a dollar bill that says in god we trust and someone said "Oh my god" within earshot while another person said "god bless you to an old woman who just sneezed.



That's silly.  Those are _cultural aspects of language_, not religion.  Reminds me of that girl a week ago who claimed to be "suspended" from school for saying "bless you".  It's not the religious noise that might be problematic in these occasions; it's the bullshit noise.  That applies to a lot of things.  Religion is not a negative force.  But bullshit is.

Again, if you speak of societal peer pressures as I listed in the Bugs Bunny  analogy, (since AFAIK nobody's claiming a legal rights issue) we have essentially the same complaint as other PC pressures -- multiculturalism, 'offensive' words, all that stuff.  That's a _cultural _question related to religious proselytizing.  It's really not related to the topic of whether or not one personally accepts theism as a valid theory.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands. * If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion.  Some are just too dense to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think so?  What's it's creed?  "Creed" of course meaning a set of beliefs -- not non-beliefs.
> What's it's philosophy on Nature's mysteries then?  What questions does it _answer_?
> 
> And more basically -- why are you so desperate to turn a simple logical conclusion of a single concept -- into a "religion"?  You have yet to tell us that.
Click to expand...


They are not non-beliefs.  That's just clever word play.  They are negative beliefs.

But do prove me wrong.  Explain the logical conclusion and provide the objective evidence upon which it is based.  And please, don't tell me the evidence is that there is no evidence unless you are prepared to describe what evidence would be required and the objective basis for establishing that as the evidence required. 

And I will even explain where that is going in advance.  If your conclusion is nothing but a belief but you hold it out as a non-belief, then what you have is  doctrine overshadowing reality.  That is the essence of dogma and it is most definitely the basis of a creed.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands. * If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion.  Some are just too dense to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then those people are treating atheism incorrectly. It is not a religion, and it's ridiculous to say that it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not treating Atheism correctly?  You mean they don't follow doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doctrine.
Click to expand...


If there is no doctrine, how can Atheism be treated incorrectly?


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for the sources and I gave you what you asked for.  It is not my fault you asked for it.
> 
> Who says it must be founded by someone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well done grasshopper.  Just wanted to see how you'd handle that.
> 
> But the sources are still nonpresent entities here.  You can't fairly  present somebody else's point that you already disagree with.  Why don't you invite those people here and let them speak for themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who wants to join in is free to.  All three of them are active posters here.  So we can let that go as something we are not going to agree on.
Click to expand...


It's a logical fallacy; there's nothing to "agree" or "disagree" on -- it's simply _not a valid argument_.  You cannot speak for someone else's position any more than I can speak for the reverse of it.  Nor was whatever they wrote in response to, or in the context of, this topic.


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands. * If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion.  Some are just too dense to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then those people are treating atheism incorrectly. It is not a religion, and it's ridiculous to say that it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not treating Atheism correctly?  You mean they don't follow doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there is no doctrine, how can Atheism be treated incorrectly?
Click to expand...


You don't need a "doctrine" to misdefine something.  There's plenty of it going on right here, no "doctrine"  required.

If there is no doctrine, how can atheism be a religion?
And why do you keep capitalizing it?
Y'all are reaaaally stretching this to try to make it work -- same question: why do you *need* atheism to be a "religion"?


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands. * If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion.  Some are just too dense to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.* While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."
> 
> The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. *Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds.* We are as unique as our fingerprints.
> 
> What is Atheism American Atheists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is this claim of a lack of beliefs which does you in.  It is bullshit.  You do not lack beliefs.  If you actually did lack beliefs you would be entirely neutral on the question.  Any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief. You have said you think there probably is no god, what evidence do you have to think that? If the answer is none, then it is a belief.  You cannot have a belief and lack beliefs at the same time.
Click to expand...

For the majority of non-believers I know, there is no specific "lack of belief" as there is a _conclusion_ that the Christian gods or any other gods simply don't exist.

Promoting a position generally commences with premises that must first be shown to likely be true, and at least have some measure of testable support. *Only then* can you use logic to reason from those premises to a conclusion.

The only premises that religions (plural) provide are a litany of claims that only an apologist would even consider accepting. You cannot apply reason to a premise that requires belief in the supernatural to reach conclusions from. That’s ridiculous because you have assumed your entire desired conclusion based upon an assumed supernatural premise. 

The claims of ALL religions requiring supernatural belief are merely repetitions of particular sectarian dogma, with no connection to supported reasoning. They are carelessly asserted and the adherents assume that others must take their word for it. Or, even more absurd that, they are requiring us to take someone else's word for it.

I don’t see that accepting _reason_ as the criteria for perception is stripping away anything. Human emotions have their source in natural instincts we see every day in the common animal kingdom. We simply have added a vast array of texture to emotions that simpler animals do not.


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands. * If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion.  Some are just too dense to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think so?  What's it's creed?  "Creed" of course meaning a set of beliefs -- not non-beliefs.
> What's it's philosophy on Nature's mysteries then?  What questions does it _answer_?
> 
> And more basically -- why are you so desperate to turn a simple logical conclusion of a single concept -- into a "religion"?  You have yet to tell us that.
Click to expand...

Strawman again.  I am not desperate in any regard.  I have not turned atheism into a religion.  Atheists have done that all on their own.  (There's an Atheist Church you can join...even become a minister, perform weddings and such...and you get a magic decoder ring...all for free...and you can donate to the building fund...they only need $900,000...see above^^^^^Post#137)  But then, you don't bother reading the information posted here...you are TOTALLY self sufficient...in your own mind.

I'm am quite simply refuting the lame argument that Atheism is not a religion....and I don't know what "logical conclusion" you mean.  If it is that God does not exist because of lack of evidence for His existence, then you're arguing for an illogical conclusion.  Even Einstein acknowledged there must be a God.

As to the creed of Atheism, I have no idea what it might include.  I suspect that ridicule of believers is among the tenets, tacitly agreed upon by most of the self-anointed "intellectual" followers.

IMHO, atheists are just two weak minded to realize that God allowed millions of years of weather, tides, cooling of the earth, the emergence of life forms, selective breeding and adaptive evolution of plant and animal species to produce that which is described in the Bible as having happened in 7 days.  The inspired writers of Genesis and the rest of the Bible had no conception whatsoever of geological time or evolution.  Their stories were meant to be passed down for generations and had to be told in parables that could be understood by those living in the time.  Their explanation necessarily collapsed millions of years into a single day.  The one truth that they did not have to alter is that God made it all!


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands. * If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion.  Some are just too dense to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think so?  What's it's creed?  "Creed" of course meaning a set of beliefs -- not non-beliefs.
> What's it's philosophy on Nature's mysteries then?  What questions does it _answer_?
> 
> And more basically -- why are you so desperate to turn a simple logical conclusion of a single concept -- into a "religion"?  You have yet to tell us that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman again.  I am not desperate in any regard.  I have not turned atheism into a religion.  Atheists have done that all on their own.  (There's an Atheist Church you can join...even become a minister, perform weddings and such...and you get a magic decoder ring...all for free...and you can donate to the building fund...they only need $900,000...see above^^^^^Post#137)  But then, you don't bother reading the information posted here...you are TOTALLY self sufficient...in your own mind.
> 
> I'm am quite simply refuting the lame argument that Atheism is not a religion....and I don't know what "logical conclusion" you mean.  If it is that God does not exist because of lack of evidence for His existence, then you're arguing for an illogical conclusion.  Even Einstein acknowledged there must be a God.
> 
> As to the creed of Atheism, I have no idea what it might include.  I suspect that ridicule of believers is among the tenets, tacitly agreed upon by most of the self-anointed "intellectual" followers.
> 
> IMHO, atheists are just two weak minded to realize that God allowed millions of years of weather, tides, cooling of the earth, the emergence of life forms, selective breeding and adaptive evolution of plant and animal species to produce that which is described in the Bible as having happened in 7 days.  The inspired writers of Genesis and the rest of the Bible had no conception whatsoever of geological time or evolution.  Their stories were meant to be passed down for generations and had to be told in parables that could be understood by those living in the time.  Their explanation necessarily collapsed millions of years into a single day.  The one truth that they did not have to alter is that God made it all!
Click to expand...

"..... because I say so!"


----------



## turzovka

Pogo said:


> No, you don't "know" that -- you believe it.  We won't get into the flaws undermining that belief, we'll just leave it at the definition.
> What this is getting at is the attitude that "I know what's best for you", which is I'm afraid the sort of arrogance that comes from egocentric proselytizing.  That's a different question though from theism versus atheism so we won't go further down that road; suffice to say that your beliefs/opinions are no better or worse than anyone else's, and that each of us _still _has individual choice.


Well if I agreed with all of your contentions and conclusions then we surely would have little to disagree about.  But I do not.  Sorry to startle you, but ‘yes’ I do know that God is absolutely real, absolutely the One and Only, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  I know this by evidence, empirical evidence, and all the reason that flows from that.  So perhaps that explains my joy and also my “egocentric proselytizing” as you would have it.

What puzzles me is how easily offended unbelievers get when they hear Christians publicly preaching or sounding so sure of themselves.  As though me having to listen to an atheist or agnostic scoff at them, even ridicule them, bothers me in the least.  It surely does not.  As though I get unnerved to hear some Muslim make just as bold claims and ridicule Christianity.  Does not bother me at all.  They have no legs to stand on and a civil discussion would bear that out.

So for you to say my beliefs are no better than your beliefs, I ask, how so?  Maybe no better in that both of us are free to give our opinions and the listener or reader is free to choose what he wants to listen to or ignore.  Sure, in that sense, no better or worse.  But for you to suggest my beliefs are no better than yours because I have no more solid evidence to base them on than hearsay, or what others (unbelievers) may base theirs on --- that I call grand folly.  You simply have no idea what you are claiming.




Pogo said:


> Do you not understand what a strawman is?  Nobody here made any such point.  You brought it in to knock it down.  It has no advocate.  It's a logical fallacy.  I'm afraid "any number of" unseen imaginary speakers doesn't count.


Oh, please.  That idea has been aired countless times.  Just because not on this thread does not mean I cannot raise the issue because it is very much related to the topic.  And frankly, I do not care if they say it or not.  Does not bother me, but I not going to hesitate to point out the folly of it.  In fact, I cannot think of anything a pagan or unbeliever might bring up or even rage against that would cause me the slightest discomfort.


And --- Sorry, I do not know how to use that "Quote" button option?   So I have to copy your whole message multiple times and then delete the excess.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands. * If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion.  Some are just too dense to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think so?  What's it's creed?  "Creed" of course meaning a set of beliefs -- not non-beliefs.
> What's it's philosophy on Nature's mysteries then?  What questions does it _answer_?
> 
> And more basically -- why are you so desperate to turn a simple logical conclusion of a single concept -- into a "religion"?  You have yet to tell us that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman again.  I am not desperate in any regard.  I have not turned atheism into a religion.  Atheists have done that all on their own.  (There's an Atheist Church you can join...even become a minister, perform weddings and such...and you get a magic decoder ring...all for free...and you can donate to the building fund...they only need $900,000...see above^^^^^Post#137)  But then, you don't bother reading the information posted here...you are TOTALLY self sufficient...in your own mind.
Click to expand...



Correct.  As are we all about any individual personal decision.  Fatal composition fallacies notwithstanding.




asaratis said:


> I'm am quite simply refuting the lame argument that Atheism is not a religion....and I don't know what "logical conclusion" you mean.  If it is that God does not exist because of lack of evidence for His existence, then you're arguing for an illogical conclusion.  Even Einstein acknowledged there must be a God.
> 
> As to the creed of Atheism, I have no idea what it might include.  I suspect that ridicule of believers is among the tenets, tacitly agreed upon by most of the self-anointed "intellectual" followers.



And with that imaginary "doctrine" you continue to sidestep the question -- WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT?  A credo means "what you believe" -- not "what theories have you considered and declined".

Atheism is not a theroy --- *theism* is a theory.  Atheism is simply the act of deciding that theory doesn't work.

And no, you're not "refuting that atheism (small A remember) is not a religion" -- you're making the claim that it IS.



asaratis said:


> IMHO, atheists are just two weak minded to realize that God allowed millions of years of weather, tides, cooling of the earth, the emergence of life forms, selective breeding and adaptive evolution of plant and animal species to produce that which is described in the Bible as having happened in 7 days.  The inspired writers of Genesis and the rest of the Bible had no conception whatsoever of geological time or evolution.  Their stories were meant to be passed down for generations and had to be told in parables that could be understood by those living in the time.  Their explanation necessarily collapsed millions of years into a single day.  The one truth that they did not have to alter is that God made it all!



Completely circular argument.  You presuppose the existence of "God" in order to conclude "God".


----------



## Pogo

turzovka said:


> And --- Sorry, I do not know how to use that "Quote" button option?   So I have to copy your whole message multiple times and then delete the excess.



In this system it's no longer "quote" -- it's "reply".  Try it, it'll set you up.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands. * If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion.  Some are just too dense to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think so?  What's it's creed?  "Creed" of course meaning a set of beliefs -- not non-beliefs.
> What's it's philosophy on Nature's mysteries then?  What questions does it _answer_?
> 
> And more basically -- why are you so desperate to turn a simple logical conclusion of a single concept -- into a "religion"?  You have yet to tell us that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman again.  I am not desperate in any regard.  I have not turned atheism into a religion.  Atheists have done that all on their own.  (There's an Atheist Church you can join...even become a minister, perform weddings and such...and you get a magic decoder ring...all for free...and you can donate to the building fund...they only need $900,000...see above^^^^^Post#137)  But then, you don't bother reading the information posted here...you are TOTALLY self sufficient...in your own mind.
> 
> I'm am quite simply refuting the lame argument that Atheism is not a religion....and I don't know what "logical conclusion" you mean.  If it is that God does not exist because of lack of evidence for His existence, then you're arguing for an illogical conclusion.  Even Einstein acknowledged there must be a God.
> 
> As to the creed of Atheism, I have no idea what it might include.  I suspect that ridicule of believers is among the tenets, tacitly agreed upon by most of the self-anointed "intellectual" followers.
> 
> IMHO, atheists are just two weak minded to realize that God allowed millions of years of weather, tides, cooling of the earth, the emergence of life forms, selective breeding and adaptive evolution of plant and animal species to produce that which is described in the Bible as having happened in 7 days.  The inspired writers of Genesis and the rest of the Bible had no conception whatsoever of geological time or evolution.  Their stories were meant to be passed down for generations and had to be told in parables that could be understood by those living in the time.  Their explanation necessarily collapsed millions of years into a single day.  The one truth that they did not have to alter is that God made it all!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "..... because I say so!"
Click to expand...

Duh!  You missed the part where I inserted "IMHO"..in my humble opinion...a commonly accepted expression that the claim is subject to OPINION.


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> 
> And --- Sorry, I do not know how to use that "Quote" button option?   So I have to copy your whole message multiple times and then delete the excess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this system it's no longer "quote" -- it's "reply".  Try it, it'll set you up.
Click to expand...

It uses both multi-quote and reply.  Don't confuse our friend, turzovka.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..... because I say so!"
> 
> 
> 
> Duh!  You missed the part where I inserted "IMHO"..in my humble opinion...a commonly accepted expression that the claim is subject to OPINION.
Click to expand...


I believe the word "because" tells us it's an analysis of how you got there -- your _reasoning_.  IOW you didn't present a logical path from premise to conclusion.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> 
> And --- Sorry, I do not know how to use that "Quote" button option?   So I have to copy your whole message multiple times and then delete the excess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this system it's no longer "quote" -- it's "reply".  Try it, it'll set you up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It uses both multi-quote and reply.  Don't confuse our friend, turzovka.
Click to expand...


I don't believe in multi-quote.  I have no evidence that it exists.  

But serially, multi-quote is more complex.  You don't need it for a single response.  One step at a time.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for the sources and I gave you what you asked for.  It is not my fault you asked for it.
> 
> Who says it must be founded by someone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well done grasshopper.  Just wanted to see how you'd handle that.
> 
> But the sources are still nonpresent entities here.  You can't fairly  present somebody else's point that you already disagree with.  Why don't you invite those people here and let them speak for themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who wants to join in is free to.  All three of them are active posters here.  So we can let that go as something we are not going to agree on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a logical fallacy; there's nothing to "agree" or "disagree" on -- it's simply _not a valid argument_.  You cannot speak for someone else's position any more than I can speak for the reverse of it.  Nor was whatever they wrote in response to, or in the context of, this topic.
Click to expand...


I was quoting them, that is all.  You asked and I provided.  Whether you think that is valid or not makes no difference.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands. * If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion.  Some are just too dense to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then those people are treating atheism incorrectly. It is not a religion, and it's ridiculous to say that it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not treating Atheism correctly?  You mean they don't follow doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there is no doctrine, how can Atheism be treated incorrectly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need a "doctrine" to misdefine something.  There's plenty of it going on right here, no "doctrine"  required.
> 
> If there is no doctrine, how can atheism be a religion?
> And why do you keep capitalizing it?
> Y'all are reaaaally stretching this to try to make it work -- same question: why do you *need* atheism to be a "religion"?
Click to expand...


How does one treat Atheism correctly?  What are the standards to be applied?  What are the rules?  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say there are no rules but those people over there are breaking them.

I capitalize Atheism for the same reason I capitalize Christianity, Hinduism and Libertarianism. 

I don't need it to be a religion.  I am simply pointing out that it is being treated as a religion.  Why do you need your beliefs to be called non-beliefs?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Progressives want to make atheism America's National Religion


----------



## Pogo

turzovka said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't "know" that -- you believe it.  We won't get into the flaws undermining that belief, we'll just leave it at the definition.
> What this is getting at is the attitude that "I know what's best for you", which is I'm afraid the sort of arrogance that comes from egocentric proselytizing.  That's a different question though from theism versus atheism so we won't go further down that road; suffice to say that your beliefs/opinions are no better or worse than anyone else's, and that each of us _still _has individual choice.
> 
> 
> 
> Well if I agreed with all of your contentions and conclusions then we surely would have little to disagree about.  But I do not.  Sorry to startle you, but ‘yes’ I do know that God is absolutely real, absolutely the One and Only, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  I know this by evidence, empirical evidence, and all the reason that flows from that.  So perhaps that explains my joy and also my “egocentric proselytizing” as you would have it.
Click to expand...


"Empirical evidence" isn't evidence.  It's opinion.  So as I said --  no proof.
"Egocentric" means the attitude that whatever "I" believe of that empirical evidence is necessarily "all that", and that there is no possibility that "I" could be wrong or don't have enough information, and that everybody who doesn't believe what "I" believe, is wrong.  That's what I mean by arrogance.



turzovka said:


> What puzzles me is how easily offended unbelievers get when they hear Christians publicly preaching or sounding so sure of themselves.  As though me having to listen to an atheist or agnostic scoff at them, even ridicule them, bothers me in the least.  It surely does not.  As though I get unnerved to hear some Muslim make just as bold claims and ridicule Christianity.  Does not bother me at all.  They have no legs to stand on and a civil discussion would bear that out.



Good for you, but that's not the topic here.  The topic is what atheism is.



turzovka said:


> So for you to say my beliefs are no better than your beliefs, I ask, how so?  Maybe no better in that both of us are free to give our opinions and the listener or reader is free to choose what he wants to listen to or ignore.  Sure, in that sense, no better or worse.  But for you to suggest my beliefs are no better than yours because I have no more solid evidence to base them on than hearsay, or what others (unbelievers) may base theirs on --- that I call grand folly.  You simply have no idea what you are claiming.



-- and that's a demonstration of the egocentrism.  Your vision of your own opinion as superior to everyone else's.



turzovka said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not understand what a strawman is?  Nobody here made any such point.  You brought it in to knock it down.  It has no advocate.  It's a logical fallacy.  I'm afraid "any number of" unseen imaginary speakers doesn't count.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please.  That idea has been aired countless times.  Just because not on this thread does not mean I cannot raise the issue because it is very much related to the topic.  And frankly, I do not care if they say it or not.  Does not bother me, but I not going to hesitate to point out the folly of it.  In fact, I cannot think of anything a pagan or unbeliever might bring up or even rage against that would cause me the slightest discomfort.
Click to expand...


Whatever -- again it's not the topic.  We're not here to debate whether God exists.  That would be a very long and unending thread, whirled without end, amen.  We're just here to debunk the myth that want to make atheism into a "religion".



turzovka said:


> And --- Sorry, I do not know how to use that "Quote" button option?   So I have to copy your whole message multiple times and then delete the excess.



Looks like you did just fine.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands. * If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion.  Some are just too dense to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.* While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."
> 
> The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. *Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds.* We are as unique as our fingerprints.
> 
> What is Atheism American Atheists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is this claim of a lack of beliefs which does you in.  It is bullshit.  You do not lack beliefs.  If you actually did lack beliefs you would be entirely neutral on the question.  Any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief. You have said you think there probably is no god, what evidence do you have to think that? If the answer is none, then it is a belief.  You cannot have a belief and lack beliefs at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the majority of non-believers I know, there is no specific "lack of belief" as there is a _conclusion_ that the Christian gods or any other gods simply don't exist.
> 
> Promoting a position generally commences with premises that must first be shown to likely be true, and at least have some measure of testable support. *Only then* can you use logic to reason from those premises to a conclusion.
> 
> The only premises that religions (plural) provide are a litany of claims that only an apologist would even consider accepting. You cannot apply reason to a premise that requires belief in the supernatural to reach conclusions from. That’s ridiculous because you have assumed your entire desired conclusion based upon an assumed supernatural premise.
> 
> The claims of ALL religions requiring supernatural belief are merely repetitions of particular sectarian dogma, with no connection to supported reasoning. They are carelessly asserted and the adherents assume that others must take their word for it. Or, even more absurd that, they are requiring us to take someone else's word for it.
> 
> I don’t see that accepting _reason_ as the criteria for perception is stripping away anything. Human emotions have their source in natural instincts we see every day in the common animal kingdom. We simply have added a vast array of texture to emotions that simpler animals do not.
Click to expand...


I will accept as a given that there is absolutely no evidence to support the position there are gods.  However, at the same time there is absolutely no evidence to support the position there are no gods.  You have stated, for you at least, there is a conclusion gods simply don't exist.  Given your position has no more factual support than the position that gods do exist, how is it anything more than believing A rather than B?

Mind you, I do not object to your belief in the least.  Your beliefs are certainly as valid as my own since neither of us has a clue about the subject.


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is no doctrine, how can Atheism be treated incorrectly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need a "doctrine" to misdefine something.  There's plenty of it going on right here, no "doctrine"  required.
> 
> If there is no doctrine, how can atheism be a religion?
> And why do you keep capitalizing it?
> Y'all are reaaaally stretching this to try to make it work -- same question: why do you *need* atheism to be a "religion"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does one treat Atheism correctly?  What are the standards to be applied?  What are the rules?  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say there are no rules but those people over there are breaking them.
Click to expand...

.
Once again, faulty definitions are not "rules".  Nor are they "doctrine", "dogma", "credo", "liturgy" or anything else.  They're faulty definitions of a simple logical-philosophical term.  That's all they are. 

Do you believe in the Easter Bunny?
Assuming no, does that "no" answer constitute a religion?  The church of "Abunnyism"?
Same thing.



PratchettFan said:


> [I capitalize Atheism for the same reason I capitalize Christianity, Hinduism and Libertarianism.
> 
> In other words you're trying to morph a definition by clicking your heels three times and muttering "there's no place like home".
> 
> I don't need it to be a religion.  I am simply pointing out that it is being treated as a religion.  Why do you need your beliefs to be called non-beliefs?



Not my beliefs personally but you cannot have a "belief" in a nonentity.  Theism is a belief (in a deity).  It refers to a concept, however imaginary.  All atheism does is reject that belief.  That's it.  The fact that it's being "treated as a religion" (by you capitalizing it) does not revisionist history make.

You still haven't told us why you're doing that.

*Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.* While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position." -- atheists.org​


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> 
> And --- Sorry, I do not know how to use that "Quote" button option?   So I have to copy your whole message multiple times and then delete the excess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this system it's no longer "quote" -- it's "reply".  Try it, it'll set you up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It uses both multi-quote and reply.  Don't confuse our friend, turzovka.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe in multi-quote.  I have no evidence that it exists.
> 
> But serially, multi-quote is more complex.  You don't need it for a single response.  One step at a time.
Click to expand...

If one replies to a post that includes quotes of others, you have the multi-quote mess to deal with anyway...might as well learn how to manipulate the quote commands.

For example:



			
				God said:
			
		

> *asaratis* is correct. Listen to what he says and learn from it.  I command you!


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands. * If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion.  Some are just too dense to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.* While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."
> 
> The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. *Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds.* We are as unique as our fingerprints.
> 
> What is Atheism American Atheists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is this claim of a lack of beliefs which does you in.  It is bullshit.  You do not lack beliefs.  If you actually did lack beliefs you would be entirely neutral on the question.  Any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief. You have said you think there probably is no god, what evidence do you have to think that? If the answer is none, then it is a belief.  You cannot have a belief and lack beliefs at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the majority of non-believers I know, there is no specific "lack of belief" as there is a _conclusion_ that the Christian gods or any other gods simply don't exist.
> 
> Promoting a position generally commences with premises that must first be shown to likely be true, and at least have some measure of testable support. *Only then* can you use logic to reason from those premises to a conclusion.
> 
> The only premises that religions (plural) provide are a litany of claims that only an apologist would even consider accepting. You cannot apply reason to a premise that requires belief in the supernatural to reach conclusions from. That’s ridiculous because you have assumed your entire desired conclusion based upon an assumed supernatural premise.
> 
> The claims of ALL religions requiring supernatural belief are merely repetitions of particular sectarian dogma, with no connection to supported reasoning. They are carelessly asserted and the adherents assume that others must take their word for it. Or, even more absurd that, they are requiring us to take someone else's word for it.
> 
> I don’t see that accepting _reason_ as the criteria for perception is stripping away anything. Human emotions have their source in natural instincts we see every day in the common animal kingdom. We simply have added a vast array of texture to emotions that simpler animals do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will accept as a given that there is absolutely no evidence to support the position there are gods.  However, at the same time there is absolutely no evidence to support the position there are no gods.  You have stated, for you at least, there is a conclusion gods simply don't exist.  Given your position has no more factual support than the position that gods do exist, how is it anything more than believing A rather than B?
> 
> Mind you, I do not object to your belief in the least.  Your beliefs are certainly as valid as my own since neither of us has a clue about the subject.
Click to expand...


No, I haven't stated that.  I'm in no position to know.  And actually I have evidence to the contrary.

We're not talking about personal beliefs here -- we're talking about what "is" is.  So to speak.


----------



## emilynghiem

PratchettFan said:


> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands.  If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.



yes, same with Buddhism, Christianity, Constitutionalism, even Hinduism has been described as NOT a religion but teaching about naturally existing laws of spirituality and not exclusive like a religion.

All these depend on how they are taught or treated, if they serve as religions or not.
and if they are perceived as such.  Thank you.

I have friends who are nonreligious about their nontheist/atheist views as others are nonreligious with their spirituality through Christianity, Buddhism etc.

i have friends who are religious about their views/beliefs and depend on representation through groups in order to feel connection and standing as others do. So the same thing applies to any type of view individual or collective.
it can go either way, depending on the context!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]



Almost as ridiculous as saying it isn't.

If atheism is not a religion, than your opinion is not protected by the Constitution. Fortunately for you, the rest of the world understands that the word religion involves more than a belief in a god, and uses that knowledge to defend your beliefs from the government.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands. * If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion.  Some are just too dense to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.* While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."
> 
> The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. *Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds.* We are as unique as our fingerprints.
> 
> What is Atheism American Atheists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.   If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass.
> 
> These make more sense than your lame retorts.
> 
> 
> ..and Bill Maher is nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual shock jock, cute but laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> Try to watch this and LISTEN to what is said....on both sides.
> 
> Naturally, Bill jokes his way out of being caught with illogical utterances and evokes laughter from his screened audience.  I think he's just pissed at the world because God put his ears on upside down.
> 
> It's only 8 minutes 22 seconds long.  I'm confident that you can muster more patience than Pogo has exhibited here.
> 
> Click on the bar at the top of the screen rather than the start arrow in the center.
Click to expand...




Was there a point here that you're trying to make? I watched it....again. I watched it when it originally aired. I happen to agree with Bill Maher, for the most part. What does the video have to do with this thread?


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Almost as ridiculous as saying it isn't.
> 
> If atheism is not a religion, than your opinion is not protected by the Constitution. Fortunately for you, the rest of the world understands that the word religion involves more than a belief in a god, and uses that knowledge to defend your beliefs from the government.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  You don't need a religion for your opinion to be protected by the Constitution.  On religion or on anything else.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear POGO : i tried to cite your post about if Atheism is a religion, then who FOUNDED it?
(but this website is posting ads and downloading cookies triggering my firewall program to block the page)

Can I answer this way by giving an example of how Hinduism is also considered
not a religion but an expression of spiritual teachings that were already in existence and just passed
down until they were written down and given a name:

"*Hinduism is a collective term applied to the many philosophical and religious traditions native to India. Hinduism has neither a specific moment of origin nor a specific founder. Rather, the tradition understands itself to be timeless, having always existed.*" Hinduism Origins Hinduism History Hinduism Beliefs

Thus the view of "Hinduism as a religion" is mostly imposed from the outside.
Same with views of Atheism and Constitutionalism.

Who founded Constitutionalism? These came from natural laws, that no man invented.
They were debated and written down in books from Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, etc etc.
and ended up as the influence that went into the Constitution and Amendments that WERE written down
by specific leaders. But still many will say these laws were Given by God and not made by man.

NOTE: As for not believing in God
Do you believe in Life or Love? Wisdom or Truth?
if you substitute that for God then you believe in THAT.
So what we are arguing about is the meaning or definition of God we do or do not believe in.



asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above essentially says that you do not believe in God because you don't see any evidence that there is a God.
> 
> This is a logical fallacy. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you just changed what she said by extending to "evidence of absence".  That's beyond her scope.  So I'm afraid the rest of your post is irrelevant.  Everything is not black/white, belief/disbelief.  The component you're leaving out as inconvenient is *doubt*.  *Skepticism.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> To use an illustration from everyday life may help clarify the issue further and demonstrate how the argument when used in its reverse form, is most illogical. The assertion 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence' cannot be applied to any unknown discovery or else the following propositions would be true:
> 
> Since William Herschel discovered Uranus in 1781 it did not exist until then because evidence of its existence was absent.
> 
> Since Neptune was not discovered until September 23rd 1846 by Galle and Arrest it did not exist until then, since there was no real evidence.
> 
> Pluto didn't exist until 1930 when it was discovered by Clyde W. Tombaugh, since there was no evidence of its existence.
> 
> What does the phrase absence of evidence is not evidence of absence mean in relation to discoveries supporting the Bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a problem with logic and comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I just don't see any evidence that there is a God *<<<(absence of evidence)
> 
> *so *(therefore)
> 
> * I don't live my life as if a God exists *<<<(Poor Carla  believes there is no God...she interprets the above absence of evidence as "evidence of absence")
Click to expand...


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> ....
> 
> Was there a point here that you're trying to make? I watched it....again. I watched it when it originally aired. I happen to agree with Bill Maher, for the most part. What does the video have to do with this thread?


You brought Bill Maher into the conversation, claiming he'd come up with a catchy retort.  I merely presented evidence of his incompetency when faced with an intelligent Christian.


----------



## Pogo

emilynghiem said:


> Dear POGO : i tried to cite your post about if Atheism is a religion, then who FOUNDED it?
> (but this website is posting ads and downloading cookies triggering my firewall program to block the page)
> 
> Can I answer this way by giving an example of how Hinduism is also considered
> not a religion but an expression of spiritual teachings that were already in existence and just passed
> down until they were written down and given a name:
> 
> "*Hinduism is a collective term applied to the many philosophical and religious traditions native to India. Hinduism has neither a specific moment of origin nor a specific founder. Rather, the tradition understands itself to be timeless, having always existed.*" Hinduism Origins Hinduism History Hinduism Beliefs
> 
> Thus the view of "Hinduism as a religion" is mostly imposed from the outside.
> Same with views of Atheism and Constitutionalism.
> 
> Who founded Constitutionalism? These came from natural laws, that no man invented.
> They were debated and written down in books from Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, etc etc.
> and ended up as the influence that went into the Constitution and Amendments that WERE written down
> by specific leaders. But still many will say these laws were Given by God and not made by man.
> 
> NOTE: As for not believing in God
> Do you believe in Life or Love? Wisdom or Truth?
> if you substitute that for God then you believe in THAT.
> So what we are arguing about is the meaning or definition of God we do or do not believe in.



Hi Emily -- nice to see you here in the new playground.  Forgive me if the post material I edited out below was relevant - it didn't look like it.

The question about "who founded it" was just a little test to see how the poster would handle it.  I know a religion doesn't need a founder.  I pointed out earlier that religion is not the same as theism, lest we conflate the two, indeed everybody in history has some sort of religion but not everybody has theism.  Taoism is another example.

On Constitutionalism, it's probably going to be counterproductive to muddy these waters with political philosophies.  We've already wandered more than once into the question of whether God(s) exist, which is not the topic.  The thread is simply about the definition of "atheism", as a result of another thread where one poster here kept trying to make the case that it is a "religion".

And that's where we are.


----------



## Carla_Danger

*Isn’t atheism a religion?*
Sure. And not smoking is a habit.

The Thinking Atheist - FAQ


----------



## Blackrook

Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."

I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?

Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?


----------



## Pogo

Carla_Danger said:


> *Isn’t atheism a religion?*
> Sure. And not smoking is a habit.
> 
> The Thinking Atheist - FAQ



Yeah, I'm afraid I'm guilty of that 

And another thing... a confession:

"Hi everybody, my name is Pogo and I'm a non-alcoholic.

Every damn day I think, this is gonna be the day I take a drink.  But I keep forgetting.
I've kept my job, still have friends, and now I'm stuck with a perfect driving record from never getting pulled over.
I keep coming home early, my family knows me.... I'm afraid I'm never going to get cirrhosis!
The damn bottle -- it's all I never think about."


----------



## Pogo

Blackrook said:


> Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."
> 
> I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?
> 
> Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?



Dunno --- what do y'all gain from pretending it IS a "religion"?

I have no idea.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Pogo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Isn’t atheism a religion?*
> Sure. And not smoking is a habit.
> 
> The Thinking Atheist - FAQ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm afraid I'm guilty of that
> 
> And another thing... a confession:
> 
> "Hi everybody, my name is Pogo and I'm a non-alcoholic.
> 
> Every damn day I think, this is gonna be the day I take a drink.  But I keep forgetting.
> I've kept my job, still have friends, and now I'm stuck with a perfect driving record from never getting pulled over.
> I keep coming home early, my family knows me.... I'm afraid I'm never going to get cirrhosis!
> The damn bottle -- it's all I never think about."
Click to expand...



We need to get you signed up for a NAA meeting!


----------



## Blackrook

Pogo said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."
> 
> I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?
> 
> Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno --- what do y'all gain from pretending it IS a "religion"?
> 
> I have no idea.
Click to expand...

I have no dog in this fight.  I don't care if you call atheism a religion, or a philosophy, or the absence of a religion or philosophy.

But it does seem that many atheists, especially on the internet, share a common attitude: they carry a big chip on their shoulder and constantly challenge others to push it off.

Why the belligerence?  Why are you trying so hard to "convert" people to your absence of religion?


----------



## BreezeWood

> Atheist must swear to God -- or leave US Air Force - Yahoo News
> 
> Washington (AFP) - The US Air Force has told a sergeant he will have to leave the military unless he agrees to take an oath with the phrase "so help me God," officials said Tuesday.




does that mean without the religion there is no freedom of ?

.


----------



## Blackrook

Any atheist can stand on a soapbox and spout off all day about atheism and no harm will come to him.

Where does the paranoia come from?


----------



## Pogo

Blackrook said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."
> 
> I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?
> 
> Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno --- what do y'all gain from pretending it IS a "religion"?
> 
> I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no dog in this fight.  I don't care if you call atheism a religion, or a philosophy, or the absence of a religion or philosophy.
> 
> But it does seem that many atheists, especially on the internet, share a common attitude: they carry a big chip on their shoulder and constantly challenge others to push it off.
> 
> Why the belligerence?  Why are you trying so hard to "convert" people to your absence of religion?
Click to expand...


You would have to ask a belligerent atheist.  When you find one.
I've never seen an atheist try go "convert" anybody, ever.  I don't even know who the atheists are, unless it comes up in conversation.   So I dunno.

One correction though (there's always one more) -- atheism isn't an "absence of religion".  It''s an absence of _theism_.  Nice try.


----------



## Pogo

Blackrook said:


> Any atheist can stand on a soapbox and spout off all day about atheism and no harm will come to him.
> 
> Where does the paranoia come from?




uhhhhh.......

your posts?


I see you've put a bunch of threads up a-lookin' tuh round them varmints up.  Anybody bitin', sheriff?


----------



## Blackrook

Pogo said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."
> 
> I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?
> 
> Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno --- what do y'all gain from pretending it IS a "religion"?
> 
> I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no dog in this fight.  I don't care if you call atheism a religion, or a philosophy, or the absence of a religion or philosophy.
> 
> But it does seem that many atheists, especially on the internet, share a common attitude: they carry a big chip on their shoulder and constantly challenge others to push it off.
> 
> Why the belligerence?  Why are you trying so hard to "convert" people to your absence of religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would have to ask a belligerent atheist.  When you find one.
> I've never seen an atheist try go "convert" anybody, ever.  I don't even know who the atheists are, unless it comes up in conversation.   So I dunno.
Click to expand...

You are being deliberately dense.  Who is writing the "Is Yeshua gay?" or "Did Jesus exist?" threads.  Atheists are trying to convert people on this forum, trying to sow seeds of doubt and confusion.


----------



## asaratis

Blackrook said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."
> 
> I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?
> 
> Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno --- what do y'all gain from pretending it IS a "religion"?
> 
> I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no dog in this fight.  I don't care if you call atheism a religion, or a philosophy, or the absence of a religion or philosophy.
> 
> But it does seem that many atheists, especially on the internet, share a common attitude: they carry a big chip on their shoulder and constantly challenge others to push it off.
> 
> Why the belligerence?  Why are you trying so hard to "convert" people to your absence of religion?
Click to expand...

It's already been shown in this thread to be a religion...complete with homeless churches, invitations to become ordained ministers, solicitation of donations to help them build their own church house...now they are pushing ridiculous denials of the facts presented here...including that the federal courts have recognized Atheism as a religion protected by the 1st Amendment.

But...as all good atheists do...they never give up!  They desperately seek the comfort of like-minded followers...as do many other religions.  Sadly, their only attraction is the promise to be considered highly intelligent for denying that God exists.  This is what draws so many malleable college students into their fold.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Blackrook said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."
> 
> I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?
> 
> Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno --- what do y'all gain from pretending it IS a "religion"?
> 
> I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no dog in this fight.  I don't care if you call atheism a religion, or a philosophy, or the absence of a religion or philosophy.
> 
> But it does seem that many atheists, especially on the internet, share a common attitude: they carry a big chip on their shoulder and constantly challenge others to push it off.
> 
> Why the belligerence?  Why are you trying so hard to "convert" people to your absence of religion?
Click to expand...



Nowhere on this thread has anyone tried to convert you.  Why do you feel it necessary to lie?


----------



## Blackrook

Every atheist is alone, and will die alone.


----------



## Blackrook

Carla_Danger said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."
> 
> I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?
> 
> Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno --- what do y'all gain from pretending it IS a "religion"?
> 
> I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no dog in this fight.  I don't care if you call atheism a religion, or a philosophy, or the absence of a religion or philosophy.
> 
> But it does seem that many atheists, especially on the internet, share a common attitude: they carry a big chip on their shoulder and constantly challenge others to push it off.
> 
> Why the belligerence?  Why are you trying so hard to "convert" people to your absence of religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere on this thread has anyone tried to convert you.  Why do you feel it necessary to lie?
Click to expand...

Maybe because you're telling people heaven is boring and hell is fun.  I felt the need to respond to your lies, which come from the evil one.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Blackrook said:


> Every atheist is alone, and will die alone.


And the same is true of every theist.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Bullshit.  You don't need a religion for your opinion to be protected by the Constitution.  On religion or on anything else.



Dayam you are still a complete idiot despite me taking you to school multiple times and proving you wrong every single time. Will you ever learn? The Constitution protects you from the government. Even without it, you are free to be an atheist, but you would not be able to argue that your beliefs should be protected from government infringement.

The only way the courts will step in and protect your beliefs against a law that infringes on them is when they are important enough to you that you are able to prove that they place an undue burden upon you when you obey them. That is why the owners of Hobby Lobby won when they filed a suit against the contraception mandate, and why everyone else who holds a sincere belief will also win.

By the way, since you are one of the idiots that think atheism is not a religion, even though there are religions that do not believe in gods of any type, let me point out that words can actually have more than one meaning. The one you should concentrate on when thinking about the law is the third one below, which is why atheism is legally a religion in this country, and why it receives Constitutional protection. 

Wait, you do know that words can have more than one meaning, don't you? And did you know that religion is not an exception to that little factoid? The one that is pertinent in the legal world is the third one below.

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

: *an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group*​If you simply file a lawsuit, and then argue that you really don't believe the law places a burden on you because you don't have any beliefs it infringes upon, you will lose every single time.

Feel free to run off and pretend you never challenged me, just like you do every single time I prove how ignorant you are.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

BreezeWood said:


> Atheist must swear to God -- or leave US Air Force - Yahoo News
> 
> Washington (AFP) - The US Air Force has told a sergeant he will have to leave the military unless he agrees to take an oath with the phrase "so help me God," officials said Tuesday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> does that mean without the religion there is no freedom of ?
> 
> No, it means the Air Force is wrong, and I can cite court cases, and law, to prove it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> You would have to ask a belligerent atheist.  When you find one.
> I've never seen an atheist try go "convert" anybody, ever.  I don't even know who the atheists are, unless it comes up in conversation.   So I dunno.
> 
> One correction though (there's always one more) -- atheism isn't an "absence of religion".  It''s an absence of _theism_.  Nice try.



Liar.

You have seen examples of exactly what you say does not exist right here in this thread. My guess is your brain refuses to acknowledge them just like it refuses to acknowledge that I have proven you wrong more than once on this forum.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Blackrook said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."
> 
> I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?
> 
> Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno --- what do y'all gain from pretending it IS a "religion"?
> 
> I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no dog in this fight.  I don't care if you call atheism a religion, or a philosophy, or the absence of a religion or philosophy.
> 
> But it does seem that many atheists, especially on the internet, share a common attitude: they carry a big chip on their shoulder and constantly challenge others to push it off.
> 
> Why the belligerence?  Why are you trying so hard to "convert" people to your absence of religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere on this thread has anyone tried to convert you.  Why do you feel it necessary to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe because you're telling people heaven is boring and hell is fun.  I felt the need to respond to your lies, which come from the evil one.
Click to expand...



My goodness, you're dishonest.  You already know I put that thread up because I thought it was humorous.  You don't, and that's just fine. No need to lie about it.


----------



## THE LIGHT

Carla_Danger said:


> I don't need the Ten Commandments to know right from wrong.



Because you are the god of your own universe. You make up what is right and wrong. And if you mess up you change the rules to suit you. And if someone bothers you then you say that is evil. Problem is, according to that thinking, there are billions of gods in the world. Whose rules do we follow?


----------



## Blackrook

Carla_Danger said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."
> 
> I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?
> 
> Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno --- what do y'all gain from pretending it IS a "religion"?
> 
> I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no dog in this fight.  I don't care if you call atheism a religion, or a philosophy, or the absence of a religion or philosophy.
> 
> But it does seem that many atheists, especially on the internet, share a common attitude: they carry a big chip on their shoulder and constantly challenge others to push it off.
> 
> Why the belligerence?  Why are you trying so hard to "convert" people to your absence of religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere on this thread has anyone tried to convert you.  Why do you feel it necessary to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe because you're telling people heaven is boring and hell is fun.  I felt the need to respond to your lies, which come from the evil one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My goodness, you're dishonest.  You already know I put that thread up because I thought it was humorous.  You don't, and that's just fine. No need to lie about it.
Click to expand...

Is it also humorous to start a thread called "Was Yeshua gay?" or "Is religion a haven for sex perverts?"


----------



## THE LIGHT

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]



*Atheism IS a religion according to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.*



> “Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
> Read more at Court rules atheism a religion



I rest my case. End of thread.


----------



## Pogo

THE LIGHT said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need the Ten Commandments to know right from wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are the god of your own universe. You make up what is right and wrong. And if you mess up you change the rules to suit you. And if someone bothers you then you say that is evil. Problem is, according to that thinking, there are billions of gods in the world. Whose rules do we follow?
Click to expand...


Cultures figure these things out.  It's not necessary to anthropomorphize a "god" to be the messenger.  It's one way, albeit a primitive one


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to ask a belligerent atheist.  When you find one.
> I've never seen an atheist try go "convert" anybody, ever.  I don't even know who the atheists are, unless it comes up in conversation.   So I dunno.
> 
> One correction though (there's always one more) -- atheism isn't an "absence of religion".  It''s an absence of _theism_.  Nice try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You have seen examples of exactly what you say does not exist right here in this thread. My guess is your brain refuses to acknowledge them just like it refuses to acknowledge that I have proven you wrong more than once on this forum.
Click to expand...






​Danth shows up, reaches around to pat self on back, sprains shoulder, goes to ER.  Film at 11.


----------



## Pogo

Blackrook said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."
> 
> I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?
> 
> Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno --- what do y'all gain from pretending it IS a "religion"?
> 
> I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no dog in this fight.  I don't care if you call atheism a religion, or a philosophy, or the absence of a religion or philosophy.
> 
> But it does seem that many atheists, especially on the internet, share a common attitude: they carry a big chip on their shoulder and constantly challenge others to push it off.
> 
> Why the belligerence?  Why are you trying so hard to "convert" people to your absence of religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would have to ask a belligerent atheist.  When you find one.
> I've never seen an atheist try go "convert" anybody, ever.  I don't even know who the atheists are, unless it comes up in conversation.   So I dunno.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are being deliberately dense.  Who is writing the "Is Yeshua gay?" or "Did Jesus exist?" threads.  Atheists are trying to convert people on this forum, trying to sow seeds of doubt and confusion.
Click to expand...


I don't have a clue what you're talking about.


----------



## THE LIGHT

Pogo said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need the Ten Commandments to know right from wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are the god of your own universe. You make up what is right and wrong. And if you mess up you change the rules to suit you. And if someone bothers you then you say that is evil. Problem is, according to that thinking, there are billions of gods in the world. Whose rules do we follow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cultures figure these things out.  It's not necessary to anthropomorphize a "god" to be the messenger.  It's one way, albeit a primitive one
Click to expand...


Exactly my point. Hitler "figured these things out". In some cultures rape is okay. In some cultures murder is okay. In other cultures murdering babies is okay.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."
> 
> I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?
> 
> Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno --- what do y'all gain from pretending it IS a "religion"?
> 
> I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no dog in this fight.  I don't care if you call atheism a religion, or a philosophy, or the absence of a religion or philosophy.
> 
> But it does seem that many atheists, especially on the internet, share a common attitude: they carry a big chip on their shoulder and constantly challenge others to push it off.
> 
> Why the belligerence?  Why are you trying so hard to "convert" people to your absence of religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's already been shown in this thread to be a religion...complete with homeless churches, invitations to become ordained ministers, solicitation of donations to help them build their own church house...now they are pushing ridiculous denials of the facts presented here...including that the federal courts have recognized Atheism as a religion protected by the 1st Amendment.
> 
> But...as all good atheists do...they never give up!  They desperately seek the comfort of like-minded followers...as do many other religions.  Sadly, their only attraction is the promise to be considered highly intelligent for denying that God exists.  This is what draws so many malleable college students into their fold.
Click to expand...


Four days I've asked you, four days I get crickets ---- what would be the *POINT*?
What exactly can you _do_ with a "church" with no doctrine?  A car with no engine?  A stove with no food?

Ergo, not a "religion".
And you're still fueling on a Composition fallacy..  See "Rudolph, Eric" from earlier.


----------



## Pogo

THE LIGHT said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need the Ten Commandments to know right from wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are the god of your own universe. You make up what is right and wrong. And if you mess up you change the rules to suit you. And if someone bothers you then you say that is evil. Problem is, according to that thinking, there are billions of gods in the world. Whose rules do we follow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cultures figure these things out.  It's not necessary to anthropomorphize a "god" to be the messenger.  It's one way, albeit a primitive one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly my point. Hitler "figured these things out". In some cultures rape is okay. In some cultures murder is okay. In other cultures murdering babies is okay.
Click to expand...

 
Uh - really?  In what culture is "murder OK"?


----------



## Pogo

Blackrook said:


> Every atheist is alone, and will die alone.



Highly unlikely, though mathematically possible.


----------



## Pogo

Blackrook said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."
> 
> I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?
> 
> Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno --- what do y'all gain from pretending it IS a "religion"?
> 
> I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no dog in this fight.  I don't care if you call atheism a religion, or a philosophy, or the absence of a religion or philosophy.
> 
> But it does seem that many atheists, especially on the internet, share a common attitude: they carry a big chip on their shoulder and constantly challenge others to push it off.
> 
> Why the belligerence?  Why are you trying so hard to "convert" people to your absence of religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere on this thread has anyone tried to convert you.  Why do you feel it necessary to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe because you're telling people heaven is boring and hell is fun.  I felt the need to respond to your lies, which come from the evil one.
Click to expand...


Can you link us to that post?  TIA.
As for the evil one, be fair, Windbag just got here.


----------



## Pogo

THE LIGHT said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism IS a religion according to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
> Read more at Court rules atheism a religion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I rest my case. End of thread.
Click to expand...


You rest more than that -- yer gonna need a liiiiiiiiitle more credible source than "Whirled Nuts Daily" the birfer rag.


----------



## THE LIGHT

Pogo said:


> Uh - really?  In what culture is "murder OK"?



Islam, Communism, Korowai etc.

Why do you think murder is wrong? To you it is wrong, to them it isn't. Get over it.


----------



## Pogo

THE LIGHT said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh - really?  In what culture is "murder OK"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Islam, Communism, Korowai etc.
> 
> Why do you think murder is wrong? To you it is wrong, to them it isn't. Get over it.
Click to expand...


Murder is not OK in Islam; Communism is not a religion either, nor does any "communist" society tolerate murder; and I have no clue what Korowai is.  I believe they make electric pianos.


----------



## THE LIGHT

Pogo said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism IS a religion according to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
> Read more at Court rules atheism a religion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I rest my case. End of thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You rest more than that -- yer gonna need a liiiiiiiiitle more credible source than "Whirled Nuts Daily" the birfer rag.
Click to expand...


As you wish...

KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY - FindLaw


----------



## THE LIGHT

Pogo said:


> Murder is not OK in Islam; Communism is not a religion either, nor does any "communist" society tolerate murder; and I have no clue what Korowai is.  I believe they make electric pianos.



Where did I say Communism is a religion?

Murder is not OK in Islam? You don't get out much do you?



> mur·der
> ˈmərdər/
> _noun_
> noun: *murder*; plural noun: *murders*
> 
> *1*.
> the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
> "the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer"
> 
> synonyms:killing, homicide, assassination, liquidation, extermination, execution, slaughter, butchery, massacre;More
> manslaughter;
> _literary_slaying
> "a brutal murder"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> informal
> a very difficult or unpleasant task or experience.
> "my first job at the steel mill was murder"
> 
> synonyms:hell, hell on earth, a nightmare, an ordeal, a trial, misery, torture, agony
> "driving there was murder"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> _verb_
> verb: *murder*; 3rd person present: *murders*; past tense: *murdered*; past participle: *murdered*; gerund or present participle: *murdering*
> 
> *1*.
> kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.
> "somebody tried to murder Joe"
> 
> synonyms:kill, put to death, assassinate, execute, liquidate, eliminate, dispatch, butcher, slaughter, massacre, wipe out;More
> _informal_bump off, do in, do away with, knock off, blow away, blow someone's brains out, take out, dispose of, ice, rub out, smoke, waste;
> _literary_slay
> "someone tried to murder him"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> informal
> punish severely or be very angry with.
> "my father will murder me if I'm home late"
> informal
> conclusively defeat (an opponent) in a game or sport.
> spoil by lack of skill or knowledge.
> "the only thing he had murdered was the English language"
> 
> Origin


----------



## Blackrook

Atheism claim they are as moral as Christians, but then, when it comes to abortion and homosexuality, no they are not.  They do not agree that abortion and homosexuality is immoral, and the reason for that is because the "world" says it is not.  Atheists follow the latest trends when it comes to morality, they will never stand as a dissenting voice.


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."
> 
> I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?
> 
> Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno --- what do y'all gain from pretending it IS a "religion"?
> 
> I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no dog in this fight.  I don't care if you call atheism a religion, or a philosophy, or the absence of a religion or philosophy.
> 
> But it does seem that many atheists, especially on the internet, share a common attitude: they carry a big chip on their shoulder and constantly challenge others to push it off.
> 
> Why the belligerence?  Why are you trying so hard to "convert" people to your absence of religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's already been shown in this thread to be a religion...complete with homeless churches, invitations to become ordained ministers, solicitation of donations to help them build their own church house...now they are pushing ridiculous denials of the facts presented here...including that the federal courts have recognized Atheism as a religion protected by the 1st Amendment.
> 
> But...as all good atheists do...they never give up!  They desperately seek the comfort of like-minded followers...as do many other religions.  Sadly, their only attraction is the promise to be considered highly intelligent for denying that God exists.  This is what draws so many malleable college students into their fold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Four days I've asked you, four days I get crickets ---- what would be the *POINT*?
> What exactly can you _do_ with a "church" with no doctrine?  A car with no engine?  A stove with no food?
> 
> Ergo, not a "religion".
> And you're still fueling on a Composition fallacy..  See "Rudolph, Eric" from earlier.
Click to expand...

You might ought to lay off the booze for a while there, Pogo.  You suffer from the "last post wins" syndrome.


----------



## Pogo

THE LIGHT said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murder is not OK in Islam; Communism is not a religion either, nor does any "communist" society tolerate murder; and I have no clue what Korowai is.  I believe they make electric pianos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say Communism is a religion?
Click to expand...


OK, it's not a "culture" either; it's a socioeconomic system.  That really doesn't take a stance on murder.  It takes a stance on how economy should work.  That doesn't even relate to murder.



THE LIGHT said:


> Murder is not OK in Islam? You don't get out much do you?



Quite a lot actually.  Big world out there.  You?


----------



## Pogo

Blackrook said:


> Atheism claim they are as moral as Christians, but then, when it comes to abortion and homosexuality, no they are not.  They do not agree that abortion and homosexuality is immoral, and the reason for that is because the "world" says it is not.  Atheists follow the latest trends when it comes to morality, they will never stand as a dissenting voice.



Strawman... strawman... aaand let's see, yes, Strawman.  Off to see the wizard, are we?


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."
> 
> I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?
> 
> Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno --- what do y'all gain from pretending it IS a "religion"?
> 
> I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no dog in this fight.  I don't care if you call atheism a religion, or a philosophy, or the absence of a religion or philosophy.
> 
> But it does seem that many atheists, especially on the internet, share a common attitude: they carry a big chip on their shoulder and constantly challenge others to push it off.
> 
> Why the belligerence?  Why are you trying so hard to "convert" people to your absence of religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's already been shown in this thread to be a religion...complete with homeless churches, invitations to become ordained ministers, solicitation of donations to help them build their own church house...now they are pushing ridiculous denials of the facts presented here...including that the federal courts have recognized Atheism as a religion protected by the 1st Amendment.
> 
> But...as all good atheists do...they never give up!  They desperately seek the comfort of like-minded followers...as do many other religions.  Sadly, their only attraction is the promise to be considered highly intelligent for denying that God exists.  This is what draws so many malleable college students into their fold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Four days I've asked you, four days I get crickets ---- what would be the *POINT*?
> What exactly can you _do_ with a "church" with no doctrine?  A car with no engine?  A stove with no food?
> 
> Ergo, not a "religion".
> And you're still fueling on a Composition fallacy..  See "Rudolph, Eric" from earlier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You might ought to lay off the booze for a while there, Pogo.  You suffer from the "last post wins" syndrome.
Click to expand...


I don't drink actually.  But I do believe drinking exists.  

Hey wait.......... I see what you did there.


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism IS a religion according to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
> Read more at Court rules atheism a religion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I rest my case. End of thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You rest more than that -- yer gonna need a liiiiiiiiitle more credible source than "Whirled Nuts Daily" the birfer rag.
Click to expand...

Rather than ridicule the source, why don't you refute the message?  Why?  Because you really hate to admit what is says is true.   How typically liberal of you!


----------



## Blackrook

Pogo said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism claim they are as moral as Christians, but then, when it comes to abortion and homosexuality, no they are not.  They do not agree that abortion and homosexuality is immoral, and the reason for that is because the "world" says it is not.  Atheists follow the latest trends when it comes to morality, they will never stand as a dissenting voice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman... strawman... aaand let's see, yes, Strawman.  Off to see the wizard, are we?
Click to expand...

OK, fine.  Give me an atheist reason why abortion is wrong.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism IS a religion according to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
> Read more at Court rules atheism a religion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I rest my case. End of thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You rest more than that -- yer gonna need a liiiiiiiiitle more credible source than "Whirled Nuts Daily" the birfer rag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rather than ridicule the source, why don't you refute the message?  Why?  Because you really hate to admit what is says is true.   How typically liberal of you!
Click to expand...


Because Whirled Nuts is a bullshit source and their material is laughable.  Now I see the poster has brought in the case from a credible source, so before opining on it I'm going to read through the case so that unlike Whirled Nuts I might know what I'm talking about.

Imagine, knowing what one's talking about.  How typically "liberal" of me!

In a thread that doesn't even have anything to do with politics!  Nice trick.


----------



## Pogo

Blackrook said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism claim they are as moral as Christians, but then, when it comes to abortion and homosexuality, no they are not.  They do not agree that abortion and homosexuality is immoral, and the reason for that is because the "world" says it is not.  Atheists follow the latest trends when it comes to morality, they will never stand as a dissenting voice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman... strawman... aaand let's see, yes, Strawman.  Off to see the wizard, are we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, fine.  Give me an atheist reason why abortion is wrong.
Click to expand...


Atheism has nothing to do with "abortion" so there's no such thing.  Perhaps if you realized atheism isn't a religion, you could see that there could *be* no such thing.

Someone has lost the track.  This thread is about whether atheism constitutes a religion.


Hey tell me something -- I've never been in a discussion like this before -- is it always this easy?
And how come you're so busy starting atheism threads, if the atheists are the "enraged" ones?


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism IS a religion according to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
> Read more at Court rules atheism a religion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I rest my case. End of thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You rest more than that -- yer gonna need a liiiiiiiiitle more credible source than "Whirled Nuts Daily" the birfer rag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rather than ridicule the source, why don't you refute the message?  Why?  Because you really hate to admit what is says is true.   How typically liberal of you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Whirled Nuts is a bullshit source and their material is laughable.  Now I see the poster has brought in the case from a credible source, so before opining on it I'm going to read through the case so that unlike Whirled Nuts I might know what I'm talking about.
> 
> Imagine, knowing what one's talking about.  How typically "liberal" of me!
Click to expand...

I'm betting your eyes are brown.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism IS a religion according to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
> Read more at Court rules atheism a religion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I rest my case. End of thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You rest more than that -- yer gonna need a liiiiiiiiitle more credible source than "Whirled Nuts Daily" the birfer rag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rather than ridicule the source, why don't you refute the message?  Why?  Because you really hate to admit what is says is true.   How typically liberal of you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Whirled Nuts is a bullshit source and their material is laughable.  Now I see the poster has brought in the case from a credible source, so before opining on it I'm going to read through the case so that unlike Whirled Nuts I might know what I'm talking about.
> 
> Imagine, knowing what one's talking about.  How typically "liberal" of me!
> 
> In a thread that doesn't even have anything to do with politics! Nice trick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm betting your eyes are brown.
Click to expand...


Nope! Wrong again.  But if it's any consolation I do believe that brown eyes exist.


----------



## THE LIGHT

Pogo said:


> Because Whirled Nuts is a bullshit source and their material is laughable.  Now I see the poster has brought in the case from a credible source, so before opining on it I'm going to read through the case so that unlike Whirled Nuts I might know what I'm talking about.
> 
> Imagine, knowing what one's talking about.  How typically "liberal" of me!
> 
> In a thread that doesn't even have anything to do with politics!  Nice trick.



You were the first one to bring politics into the issue. So don't complain.


----------



## Pogo

THE LIGHT said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Whirled Nuts is a bullshit source and their material is laughable.  Now I see the poster has brought in the case from a credible source, so before opining on it I'm going to read through the case so that unlike Whirled Nuts I might know what I'm talking about.
> 
> Imagine, knowing what one's talking about.  How typically "liberal" of me!
> 
> In a thread that doesn't even have anything to do with politics!  Nice trick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were the first one to bring politics into the issue. So don't complain.
Click to expand...


Uh ....nnnnnnno. 
Where is it?


----------



## THE LIGHT

Pogo said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Whirled Nuts is a bullshit source and their material is laughable.  Now I see the poster has brought in the case from a credible source, so before opining on it I'm going to read through the case so that unlike Whirled Nuts I might know what I'm talking about.
> 
> Imagine, knowing what one's talking about.  How typically "liberal" of me!
> 
> In a thread that doesn't even have anything to do with politics!  Nice trick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were the first one to bring politics into the issue. So don't complain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh ....nnnnnnno.
> Where is it?
Click to expand...

Uh... yes

You said that the source was a "birfer rag"


----------



## Pogo

THE LIGHT said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Whirled Nuts is a bullshit source and their material is laughable.  Now I see the poster has brought in the case from a credible source, so before opining on it I'm going to read through the case so that unlike Whirled Nuts I might know what I'm talking about.
> 
> Imagine, knowing what one's talking about.  How typically "liberal" of me!
> 
> In a thread that doesn't even have anything to do with politics!  Nice trick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were the first one to bring politics into the issue. So don't complain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh ....nnnnnnno.
> Where is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh... yes
> 
> You said that the source was a "birfer rag"
Click to expand...


That's not a political comment.  It's a journalistic one.  And that was _after_ you had already brought in "communism".  Anyway, Astartlemeyer tried to fling political poo and I called him on it.


----------



## HUGGY

Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

Oh for fyuck's sakes...  You biatches should feel lucky that atheism IS NOT a religion.

If it was a religion and atheists started gathering in buildings and discussing what they needed to do as organized atheists the first thing on the agenda would be to swear to hunt down and kill every Christian and Muslim leader that advocates death to atheists.   AND believe me there are PLENTY of them to pick from.

Just count your damned lucky stars that we don't take you idiots seriously. 

Believe me that everyone is within their rights to defend themselves from threats.  Self defense is a two way street. 

Riling people up against atheism is not free speach you fyuckwads.  It is the same as yelling "fire" in a theater. 

You religists go over the line more times than I can count and think it is all just fun and games. 

Just remember...it is the religists that have all the crazy stories about sky fairies and walking dead people and talking snakes.

We don't have to take all your wack fantasies seriously. 

BUT when you start talking about how "evil" atheists are and running off at the mouth like that we have the inherent right to protect our own.


----------



## THE LIGHT

HUGGY said:


> Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!
> 
> Oh for fyuck's sakes...  You biatches should feel lucky that atheism IS NOT a religion.
> 
> If it was a religion and atheists started gathering in buildings and discussing what they needed to do as organized atheists the first thing on the agenda would be to swear to hunt down and kill every Christian and Muslim leader that advocates death to atheists.   AND believe me there are PLENTY of them to pick from.
> 
> Just count your damned lucky stars that we don't take you idiots seriously.
> 
> Believe me that everyone is within their rights to defend themselves from threats.  Self defense is a two way street.
> 
> Riling people up against atheism is not free speach you fyuckwads.  It is the same as yelling "fire" in a theater.
> 
> You religists go over the line more times than I can count and think it is all just fun and games.
> 
> Just remember...it is the religists that have all the crazy stories about sky fairies and walking dead people and talking snakes.
> 
> We don't have to take all your wack fantasies seriously.
> 
> BUT when you start talking about how "evil" atheists are and running off at the mouth like that we have the inherent right to protect our own.



And you believe you evolved from a snake and somehow millions of years later, you can talk but the snake can't. Which one is worse?


----------



## HUGGY

THE LIGHT said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!
> 
> Oh for fyuck's sakes...  You biatches should feel lucky that atheism IS NOT a religion.
> 
> If it was a religion and atheists started gathering in buildings and discussing what they needed to do as organized atheists the first thing on the agenda would be to swear to hunt down and kill every Christian and Muslim leader that advocates death to atheists.   AND believe me there are PLENTY of them to pick from.
> 
> Just count your damned lucky stars that we don't take you idiots seriously.
> 
> Believe me that everyone is within their rights to defend themselves from threats.  Self defense is a two way street.
> 
> Riling people up against atheism is not free speach you fyuckwads.  It is the same as yelling "fire" in a theater.
> 
> You religists go over the line more times than I can count and think it is all just fun and games.
> 
> Just remember...it is the religists that have all the crazy stories about sky fairies and walking dead people and talking snakes.
> 
> We don't have to take all your wack fantasies seriously.
> 
> BUT when you start talking about how "evil" atheists are and running off at the mouth like that we have the inherent right to protect our own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you believe you evolved from a snake and somehow millions of years later, you can talk but the snake can't. Which one is worse?
Click to expand...

 
Who says we don't need a mental health forum?

Talking snakes..etc...??

That's in *your* bag of tricks Sparky.

If that's some ass backwards reference to evolution you are just proving my point that there is no talking to crazy people and expecting anything resembling a rational conversation.

I don't know exactly what the breakdown of the trail of creatures we came from is.

All kinds of animals communicate to some degree.  That is obvious.

If you are asking about "talking" I suppose in some sense survival which is the prime contributor to evolution includes the ability to convey some basic animal sounds all the way to a percentage of humans that can share information in several languages.
There are probably a chimp or two that can communicate with people and even some family dogs that can speak "dog" and also respond to some visual directives and verbal human noises.

That is not the same thing as what the bible says about talking snakes though is it.

Christians are constantly attempting to "normalize" the myths they privately take at face value.

The fairly recent push by many Christians to call much of their mysticism "Intelligent design" is an example of the dishonesty of religion.  You people just don't get that at the foundation of your beliefs is a crazy concept that no matter how you try to clean it up it is still madness.

In short, glib responses to serious questions about your beliefs don't advance any better or a more positive understanding.

If you have a serious explaination of the myths in your bibles I'm all ears.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is no doctrine, how can Atheism be treated incorrectly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need a "doctrine" to misdefine something.  There's plenty of it going on right here, no "doctrine"  required.
> 
> If there is no doctrine, how can atheism be a religion?
> And why do you keep capitalizing it?
> Y'all are reaaaally stretching this to try to make it work -- same question: why do you *need* atheism to be a "religion"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does one treat Atheism correctly?  What are the standards to be applied?  What are the rules?  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say there are no rules but those people over there are breaking them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> Once again, faulty definitions are not "rules".  Nor are they "doctrine", "dogma", "credo", "liturgy" or anything else.  They're faulty definitions of a simple logical-philosophical term.  That's all they are.
> 
> Do you believe in the Easter Bunny?
> Assuming no, does that "no" answer constitute a religion?  The church of "Abunnyism"?
> Same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [I capitalize Atheism for the same reason I capitalize Christianity, Hinduism and Libertarianism.
> 
> In other words you're trying to morph a definition by clicking your heels three times and muttering "there's no place like home".
> 
> I don't need it to be a religion.  I am simply pointing out that it is being treated as a religion.  Why do you need your beliefs to be called non-beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not my beliefs personally but you cannot have a "belief" in a nonentity.  Theism is a belief (in a deity).  It refers to a concept, however imaginary.  All atheism does is reject that belief.  That's it.  The fact that it's being "treated as a religion" (by you capitalizing it) does not revisionist history make.
> 
> You still haven't told us why you're doing that.
> 
> *Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.* While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position." -- atheists.org​
Click to expand...

 
So it is a definition, not a doctrine.  And if they don't follow the definition correctly they are not treating Atheism correctly.  You'll have to excuse me if I don't see the difference.  Replacing one word with another does not change the action.  Whether you call it a doctrine or a definition, it amounts to exactly the same thing.

Your statement that you can't have a belief in a nonentity is false on its face.  If there is no God, then most of the planet have positive beliefs in a nonentity.  You have negative beliefs about it.  What you are doing here is applying circular reasoning.  Atheism is a lack of beliefs, I am an Atheist so I lack beliefs, because I lack belief that proves Atheism is a lack of beliefs.  The simple fact that you don't lack beliefs is irrelevant because that does not conform to the dogma....  oh excuse me, the definition.

Until you can provide objective evidence, and you have yet to do so, a lack of belief is a position of neutrality.  That you are not neutral demonstrates you do not lack beliefs.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> You asked for sources and I gave some to you.  That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist.  So my point stands. * If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion.  Some are just too dense to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.* While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."
> 
> The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. *Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds.* We are as unique as our fingerprints.
> 
> What is Atheism American Atheists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is this claim of a lack of beliefs which does you in.  It is bullshit.  You do not lack beliefs.  If you actually did lack beliefs you would be entirely neutral on the question.  Any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief. You have said you think there probably is no god, what evidence do you have to think that? If the answer is none, then it is a belief.  You cannot have a belief and lack beliefs at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the majority of non-believers I know, there is no specific "lack of belief" as there is a _conclusion_ that the Christian gods or any other gods simply don't exist.
> 
> Promoting a position generally commences with premises that must first be shown to likely be true, and at least have some measure of testable support. *Only then* can you use logic to reason from those premises to a conclusion.
> 
> The only premises that religions (plural) provide are a litany of claims that only an apologist would even consider accepting. You cannot apply reason to a premise that requires belief in the supernatural to reach conclusions from. That’s ridiculous because you have assumed your entire desired conclusion based upon an assumed supernatural premise.
> 
> The claims of ALL religions requiring supernatural belief are merely repetitions of particular sectarian dogma, with no connection to supported reasoning. They are carelessly asserted and the adherents assume that others must take their word for it. Or, even more absurd that, they are requiring us to take someone else's word for it.
> 
> I don’t see that accepting _reason_ as the criteria for perception is stripping away anything. Human emotions have their source in natural instincts we see every day in the common animal kingdom. We simply have added a vast array of texture to emotions that simpler animals do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will accept as a given that there is absolutely no evidence to support the position there are gods.  However, at the same time there is absolutely no evidence to support the position there are no gods.  You have stated, for you at least, there is a conclusion gods simply don't exist.  Given your position has no more factual support than the position that gods do exist, how is it anything more than believing A rather than B?
> 
> Mind you, I do not object to your belief in the least.  Your beliefs are certainly as valid as my own since neither of us has a clue about the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I haven't stated that.  I'm in no position to know.  And actually I have evidence to the contrary.
> 
> We're not talking about personal beliefs here -- we're talking about what "is" is.  So to speak.
Click to expand...

 
I was responding to Hollie.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."
> 
> I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?
> 
> Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno --- what do y'all gain from pretending it IS a "religion"?
> 
> I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no dog in this fight.  I don't care if you call atheism a religion, or a philosophy, or the absence of a religion or philosophy.
> 
> But it does seem that many atheists, especially on the internet, share a common attitude: they carry a big chip on their shoulder and constantly challenge others to push it off.
> 
> Why the belligerence?  Why are you trying so hard to "convert" people to your absence of religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's already been shown in this thread to be a religion...complete with homeless churches, invitations to become ordained ministers, solicitation of donations to help them build their own church house...now they are pushing ridiculous denials of the facts presented here...including that the federal courts have recognized Atheism as a religion protected by the 1st Amendment.
> 
> But...as all good atheists do...they never give up!  They desperately seek the comfort of like-minded followers...as do many other religions.  Sadly, their only attraction is the promise to be considered highly intelligent for denying that God exists.  This is what draws so many malleable college students into their fold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Four days I've asked you, four days I get crickets ---- what would be the *POINT*?
> What exactly can you _do_ with a "church" with no doctrine?  A car with no engine?  A stove with no food?
> 
> Ergo, not a "religion".
> And you're still fueling on a Composition fallacy..  See "Rudolph, Eric" from earlier.
Click to expand...

 
Well, everyone likes a good sing-song and smores are more fun with other people.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Isn’t atheism a religion?*
> Sure. And not smoking is a habit.
> 
> The Thinking Atheist - FAQ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm afraid I'm guilty of that
> 
> And another thing... a confession:
> 
> "Hi everybody, my name is Pogo and I'm a non-alcoholic.
> 
> Every damn day I think, this is gonna be the day I take a drink.  But I keep forgetting.
> I've kept my job, still have friends, and now I'm stuck with a perfect driving record from never getting pulled over.
> I keep coming home early, my family knows me.... I'm afraid I'm never going to get cirrhosis!
> The damn bottle -- it's all I never think about."
Click to expand...

 
An interesting comparison.  Do you frequent message boards about your non-alcoholism? 

The only thing pithy little sayings prove is that you can come up with pithy little sayings.


----------



## HUGGY

Blackrook said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."
> 
> I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?
> 
> Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno --- what do y'all gain from pretending it IS a "religion"?
> 
> I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no dog in this fight.  I don't care if you call atheism a religion, or a philosophy, or the absence of a religion or philosophy.
> 
> But it does seem that many atheists, especially on the internet, share a common attitude: they carry a big chip on their shoulder and constantly challenge others to push it off.
> 
> Why the belligerence? * Why are you trying so hard to "convert" people to your absence of religion*?
Click to expand...

 
Some of us feel pretty strongly that the world would be a better place if we stop lying to ourselves and those around us.


----------



## PratchettFan

HUGGY said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."
> 
> I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?
> 
> Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno --- what do y'all gain from pretending it IS a "religion"?
> 
> I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no dog in this fight.  I don't care if you call atheism a religion, or a philosophy, or the absence of a religion or philosophy.
> 
> But it does seem that many atheists, especially on the internet, share a common attitude: they carry a big chip on their shoulder and constantly challenge others to push it off.
> 
> Why the belligerence? * Why are you trying so hard to "convert" people to your absence of religion*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of us feel pretty strongly that the world would be a better place if we stop lying to ourselves and those around us.
Click to expand...

 
If you could just clarify this for me because I don't want to assume I understand you.  Are you saying that you actively trying to convince people to become Atheists?


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is no doctrine, how can Atheism be treated incorrectly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need a "doctrine" to misdefine something.  There's plenty of it going on right here, no "doctrine"  required.
> 
> If there is no doctrine, how can atheism be a religion?
> And why do you keep capitalizing it?
> Y'all are reaaaally stretching this to try to make it work -- same question: why do you *need* atheism to be a "religion"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does one treat Atheism correctly?  What are the standards to be applied?  What are the rules?  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say there are no rules but those people over there are breaking them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> Once again, faulty definitions are not "rules".  Nor are they "doctrine", "dogma", "credo", "liturgy" or anything else.  They're faulty definitions of a simple logical-philosophical term.  That's all they are.
> 
> Do you believe in the Easter Bunny?
> Assuming no, does that "no" answer constitute a religion?  The church of "Abunnyism"?
> Same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [I capitalize Atheism for the same reason I capitalize Christianity, Hinduism and Libertarianism.
> 
> In other words you're trying to morph a definition by clicking your heels three times and muttering "there's no place like home".
> 
> I don't need it to be a religion.  I am simply pointing out that it is being treated as a religion.  Why do you need your beliefs to be called non-beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not my beliefs personally but you cannot have a "belief" in a nonentity.  Theism is a belief (in a deity).  It refers to a concept, however imaginary.  All atheism does is reject that belief.  That's it.  The fact that it's being "treated as a religion" (by you capitalizing it) does not revisionist history make.
> 
> You still haven't told us why you're doing that.
> 
> *Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.* While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position." -- atheists.org​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it is a definition, not a doctrine.  And if they don't follow the definition correctly they are not treating Atheism correctly.  You'll have to excuse me if I don't see the difference.  Replacing one word with another does not change the action.  Whether you call it a doctrine or a definition, it amounts to exactly the same thing.
> 
> Your statement that you can't have a belief in a nonentity is false on its face.
Click to expand...


No, it's stating the obvious.  Do you believe in impultuous convanescence?  No you don't, because there's no such thing.  I just made it up.  That doesn't make you a follower of the religion of unimpultuous noncovanescence.
Stop being obtuse.




PratchettFan said:


> If there is no God, then most of the planet have positive beliefs in a nonentity.



That would follow --- IF "most of the planet" could be defined as theists.  If you can do that, then you have a logical conclusion.  



PratchettFan said:


> You have negative beliefs about it.



There's no such thing as "negative belief".  And don't presume to tell me what I believe, thank you very much.



PratchettFan said:


> What you are doing here is applying circular reasoning.  Atheism is a lack of beliefs, I am an Atheist so I lack beliefs, because I lack belief that proves Atheism is a lack of beliefs.  The simple fact that you don't lack beliefs is irrelevant because that does not conform to the dogma....  oh excuse me, the definition.



What you are doing here is babbling doubletalk.  Atheism isn't a "lack of beliefs"; it's a denial of theism.  It doesn't mean that an atheist is surprised that a light switch turns the light on because he doesn't believe in light switches.
Theism is a belief; atheism is simply the state where theism is not present.   _Shadow _is not a thing; _silence _is not a thing; _bald _is not a thing.  They are the absence of light, sound and hair.  They are abstract concepts.  And you cannot form a "religion" around the concept of a nonentity.



PratchettFan said:


> Until you can provide objective evidence, and you have yet to do so, a lack of belief is a position of neutrality.  That you are not neutral demonstrates you do not lack beliefs.



"Neutrality" if I read you correctly would describe agnosticism?  Not sure where you're going here.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is no doctrine, how can Atheism be treated incorrectly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need a "doctrine" to misdefine something.  There's plenty of it going on right here, no "doctrine"  required.
> 
> If there is no doctrine, how can atheism be a religion?
> And why do you keep capitalizing it?
> Y'all are reaaaally stretching this to try to make it work -- same question: why do you *need* atheism to be a "religion"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does one treat Atheism correctly?  What are the standards to be applied?  What are the rules?  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say there are no rules but those people over there are breaking them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> Once again, faulty definitions are not "rules".  Nor are they "doctrine", "dogma", "credo", "liturgy" or anything else.  They're faulty definitions of a simple logical-philosophical term.  That's all they are.
> 
> Do you believe in the Easter Bunny?
> Assuming no, does that "no" answer constitute a religion?  The church of "Abunnyism"?
> Same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [I capitalize Atheism for the same reason I capitalize Christianity, Hinduism and Libertarianism.
> 
> In other words you're trying to morph a definition by clicking your heels three times and muttering "there's no place like home".
> 
> I don't need it to be a religion.  I am simply pointing out that it is being treated as a religion.  Why do you need your beliefs to be called non-beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not my beliefs personally but you cannot have a "belief" in a nonentity.  Theism is a belief (in a deity).  It refers to a concept, however imaginary.  All atheism does is reject that belief.  That's it.  The fact that it's being "treated as a religion" (by you capitalizing it) does not revisionist history make.
> 
> You still haven't told us why you're doing that.
> 
> *Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.* While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position." -- atheists.org​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it is a definition, not a doctrine.  And if they don't follow the definition correctly they are not treating Atheism correctly.  You'll have to excuse me if I don't see the difference.  Replacing one word with another does not change the action.  Whether you call it a doctrine or a definition, it amounts to exactly the same thing.
> 
> Your statement that you can't have a belief in a nonentity is false on its face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's stating the obvious.  Do you believe in impultuous convanescence?  No you don't, because there's no such thing.  I just made it up.  That doesn't make you a follower of the religion of unimpultuous noncovanescence.
> Stop being obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is no God, then most of the planet have positive beliefs in a nonentity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would follow --- IF "most of the planet" could be defined as theists.  If you can do that, then you have a logical conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have negative beliefs about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as "negative belief".  And don't presume to tell me what I believe, thank you very much.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is applying circular reasoning.  Atheism is a lack of beliefs, I am an Atheist so I lack beliefs, because I lack belief that proves Atheism is a lack of beliefs.  The simple fact that you don't lack beliefs is irrelevant because that does not conform to the dogma....  oh excuse me, the definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is babbling doubletalk.  Atheism isn't a "lack of beliefs"; it's a denial of theism.  It doesn't mean that an atheist is surprised that a light switch turns the light on because he doesn't believe in light switches.
> Theism is a belief; atheism is simply the state where theism is not present.   _Shadow _is not a thing; _silence _is not a thing; _bald _is not a thing.  They are the absence of light, sound and hair.  They are abstract concepts.  And you cannot form a "religion" around the concept of a nonentity.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until you can provide objective evidence, and you have yet to do so, a lack of belief is a position of neutrality.  That you are not neutral demonstrates you do not lack beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Neutrality" if I read you correctly would describe agnosticism?  Not sure where you're going here.
Click to expand...

 
You mentioned impultuous convanescence.  Until you told me you made it up I was neutral on the subject.  I considered whether it existed or not existed to be equally possible.  That is what an Atheist would hold, if your definition were accurate.  The possibility of the existence or non-existence of God would be equally possible.  Neutral.  I have never met an Atheist who was neutral.  Of course, it is possible I have but I doubt such a person would care enough about the subject to engage in a conversation on it.   

Of course there are negative beliefs.  If you believe something is not, that is a negative belief.  I believe Jesus is not a god.  That's a negative belief.  What there is not is a non-belief.  So if by non-belief you mean something other than a lack of belief, please clarify it for me. 

Your comparisons are meaningless babble.  They have absolutely no weight in the discussion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Four days I've asked you, four days I get crickets ---- what would be the *POINT*?
> What exactly can you _do_ with a "church" with no doctrine?  A car with no engine?  A stove with no food?
> 
> Ergo, not a "religion".
> And you're still fueling on a Composition fallacy..  See "Rudolph, Eric" from earlier.



If you have a belief that is important to you, ie atheism, that means you have a religion. The rest of that stuff you insist is all important is merely window dressing for fools.

Are you a fool?


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is no doctrine, how can Atheism be treated incorrectly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need a "doctrine" to misdefine something.  There's plenty of it going on right here, no "doctrine"  required.
> 
> If there is no doctrine, how can atheism be a religion?
> And why do you keep capitalizing it?
> Y'all are reaaaally stretching this to try to make it work -- same question: why do you *need* atheism to be a "religion"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does one treat Atheism correctly?  What are the standards to be applied?  What are the rules?  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say there are no rules but those people over there are breaking them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> Once again, faulty definitions are not "rules".  Nor are they "doctrine", "dogma", "credo", "liturgy" or anything else.  They're faulty definitions of a simple logical-philosophical term.  That's all they are.
> 
> Do you believe in the Easter Bunny?
> Assuming no, does that "no" answer constitute a religion?  The church of "Abunnyism"?
> Same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [I capitalize Atheism for the same reason I capitalize Christianity, Hinduism and Libertarianism.
> 
> In other words you're trying to morph a definition by clicking your heels three times and muttering "there's no place like home".
> 
> I don't need it to be a religion.  I am simply pointing out that it is being treated as a religion.  Why do you need your beliefs to be called non-beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not my beliefs personally but you cannot have a "belief" in a nonentity.  Theism is a belief (in a deity).  It refers to a concept, however imaginary.  All atheism does is reject that belief.  That's it.  The fact that it's being "treated as a religion" (by you capitalizing it) does not revisionist history make.
> 
> You still haven't told us why you're doing that.
> 
> *Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.* While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position." -- atheists.org​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it is a definition, not a doctrine.  And if they don't follow the definition correctly they are not treating Atheism correctly.  You'll have to excuse me if I don't see the difference.  Replacing one word with another does not change the action.  Whether you call it a doctrine or a definition, it amounts to exactly the same thing.
> 
> Your statement that you can't have a belief in a nonentity is false on its face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's stating the obvious.  Do you believe in impultuous convanescence?  No you don't, because there's no such thing.  I just made it up.  That doesn't make you a follower of the religion of unimpultuous noncovanescence.
> Stop being obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is no God, then most of the planet have positive beliefs in a nonentity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would follow --- IF "most of the planet" could be defined as theists.  If you can do that, then you have a logical conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have negative beliefs about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as "negative belief".  And don't presume to tell me what I believe, thank you very much.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is applying circular reasoning.  Atheism is a lack of beliefs, I am an Atheist so I lack beliefs, because I lack belief that proves Atheism is a lack of beliefs.  The simple fact that you don't lack beliefs is irrelevant because that does not conform to the dogma....  oh excuse me, the definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is babbling doubletalk.  Atheism isn't a "lack of beliefs"; it's a denial of theism.  It doesn't mean that an atheist is surprised that a light switch turns the light on because he doesn't believe in light switches.
> Theism is a belief; atheism is simply the state where theism is not present.   _Shadow _is not a thing; _silence _is not a thing; _bald _is not a thing.  They are the absence of light, sound and hair.  They are abstract concepts.  And you cannot form a "religion" around the concept of a nonentity.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until you can provide objective evidence, and you have yet to do so, a lack of belief is a position of neutrality.  That you are not neutral demonstrates you do not lack beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Neutrality" if I read you correctly would describe agnosticism?  Not sure where you're going here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mentioned impultuous convanescence.  Until you told me you made it up I was neutral on the subject.  I considered whether it existed or not existed to be equally possible.  That is what an Atheist would hold, if your definition were accurate.  The possibility of the existence or non-existence of God would be equally possible.  Neutral.  I have never met an Atheist who was neutral.  Of course, it is possible I have but I doubt such a person would care enough about the subject to engage in a conversation on it.
> 
> Of course there are negative beliefs.  If you believe something is not, that is a negative belief.  I believe Jesus is not a god.  That's a negative belief.  What there is not is a non-belief.  So if by non-belief you mean something other than a lack of belief, please clarify it for me.
> 
> Your comparisons are meaningless babble.  They have absolutely no weight in the discussion.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid they do.  You considered "impultuous convanescence" and determined that it had no basis for belief.  So you don't believe in it -- which is fine, but it doesn't make that *disbelief*, in itself, a "religion".  It would be silly to do so.  Same thing.  You're not about to found a church for the purpose of knocking on doors to convince people that impultuous convanesence does not exist.  It would be pointless.

And that in a nutshell is the point of this thread.


>> I have never met an Atheist who was neutral. Of course, it is possible I have but I doubt such a person would care enough about the subject to engage in a conversation on it. <<

-- which perfectly illustrates the nonexistence of a religion called "Atheism" and explains why they walk among us unnoticed.  And puts the lie to the mythology of "proselytizing atheists".  Because, again, it's by definition a _personal _conclusion, not a communal one.


----------



## HUGGY

PratchettFan said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."
> 
> I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?
> 
> Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno --- what do y'all gain from pretending it IS a "religion"?
> 
> I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no dog in this fight.  I don't care if you call atheism a religion, or a philosophy, or the absence of a religion or philosophy.
> 
> But it does seem that many atheists, especially on the internet, share a common attitude: they carry a big chip on their shoulder and constantly challenge others to push it off.
> 
> Why the belligerence? * Why are you trying so hard to "convert" people to your absence of religion*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of us feel pretty strongly that the world would be a better place if we stop lying to ourselves and those around us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you could just clarify this for me because I don't want to assume I understand you.  Are you saying that you actively trying to convince people to become Atheists?
Click to expand...

 
I actively try to convince people to tell the truth and only share knowledge they can prove to be true.

I don't mind people using their imagination as long as they lable it so.

Many people are gulible or or living in fear and willing to grasp at straws.  It is immoral to offer them false hope.  They tend to give up on improving their situations and just resign themselves to having a better life after they are dead.  That is called fraud.

Do you promote truth or fraud?


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:
			
		

> No, it's stating the obvious. Do you believe in impultuous convanescence? No you don't, because there's no such thing. I just made it up. That doesn't make you a follower of the religion of unimpultuous noncovanescence.
> Stop being obtuse.


What an absolutely ridiculous argument!  You truly take the cake here.

You believe in Atheism...the practice of being an atheist.  Atheism has been shown  to be a religion.

Here, Thomas!  Deal with this:

Atheist Prayer Religious Activity Not Uncommon Among Nonbelievers
*Atheist Prayer: Religious Activity Not Uncommon Among Nonbelievers*

A Washington Post article by Michelle Boorstein spotlighted the fascinating phenomenon of a minority of atheists, agnostics and the religiously unaffiliated who take to prayer, chaplaincy and other commonly religious practices as a way to experience community with others, relax, meditate and connect to something other than the physical.

....

Among atheists and agnostics, 14 percent of said religion was "somewhat important" in their lives, while 17 percent said they took part in daily, weekly or monthly prayer.

....

Still, it's undeniable that atheists are picking up habits traditionally found among the religious. Just last week, an "atheist church" had it's first meeting in New York City.

*Did you get that ^^^^^ , Thomas?  There's another Atheist church in New York!*

*Coming soon to your hometown...Atheist Preachers and Choirs...spreading the Word of the Ungodly!*


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's stating the obvious. Do you believe in impultuous convanescence? No you don't, because there's no such thing. I just made it up. That doesn't make you a follower of the religion of unimpultuous noncovanescence.
> Stop being obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> What an absolutely ridiculous argument!  You truly take the cake here.
> 
> You believe in Atheism...the practice of being an atheist.
Click to expand...


*No I do not.*
I believe I know what the word "atheism" means, and that you do not.  That's what I believe.
Couple of y'all seem to have a strange predilection for telling other people what they believe.

Why is that exactly?



asaratis said:


> Atheism has been shown  to be a religion.
> 
> Here, Thomas!  Deal with this:



No it has not.  Come up with something that is not a Composition Fallacy.  Which is what the rest of this post is.

And/or please to answer the several-daze-old question, "what would be the point"?

[Composition fallacy deleted]


----------



## Carla_Danger

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  You don't need a religion for your opinion to be protected by the Constitution.  On religion or on anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayam you are still a complete idiot despite me taking you to school multiple times and proving you wrong every single time. Will you ever learn? The Constitution protects you from the government. Even without it, you are free to be an atheist, but you would not be able to argue that your beliefs should be protected from government infringement.
> 
> The only way the courts will step in and protect your beliefs against a law that infringes on them is when they are important enough to you that you are able to prove that they place an undue burden upon you when you obey them. That is why the owners of Hobby Lobby won when they filed a suit against the contraception mandate, and why everyone else who holds a sincere belief will also win.
> 
> By the way, since you are one of the idiots that think atheism is not a religion, even though there are religions that do not believe in gods of any type, let me point out that words can actually have more than one meaning. The one you should concentrate on when thinking about the law is the third one below, which is why atheism is legally a religion in this country, and why it receives Constitutional protection.
> 
> Wait, you do know that words can have more than one meaning, don't you? And did you know that religion is not an exception to that little factoid? The one that is pertinent in the legal world is the third one below.
> 
> : the belief in a god or in a group of gods
> 
> : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
> 
> : *an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group*​If you simply file a lawsuit, and then argue that you really don't believe the law places a burden on you because you don't have any beliefs it infringes upon, you will lose every single time.
> 
> Feel free to run off and pretend you never challenged me, just like you do every single time I prove how ignorant you are.
Click to expand...




Windbag, you are a legend in your own mind.


----------



## Carla_Danger

THE LIGHT said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need the Ten Commandments to know right from wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are the god of your own universe. You make up what is right and wrong. And if you mess up you change the rules to suit you. And if someone bothers you then you say that is evil. Problem is, according to that thinking, there are billions of gods in the world. Whose rules do we follow?
Click to expand...



I find your response odd.  We are complex social animals who have evolved morality, because we've learned that communities help us exist. We learn right from wrong from our parents, school, and human experience, and then we pass laws to keep us in check.

People like you scare me.  You act like you need someone minding the store, otherwise you'll run out and start murdering people.


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's stating the obvious. Do you believe in impultuous convanescence? No you don't, because there's no such thing. I just made it up. That doesn't make you a follower of the religion of unimpultuous noncovanescence.
> Stop being obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> What an absolutely ridiculous argument!  You truly take the cake here.
> 
> You believe in Atheism...the practice of being an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No I do not.*
> I believe I know what the word "atheism" means, and that you do not.  That's what I believe.
> Couple of y'all seem to have a strange predilection for telling other people what they believe.
> 
> Why is that exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism has been shown  to be a religion.
> 
> Here, Thomas!  Deal with this:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it has not.  Come up with something that is not a Composition Fallacy.  Which is what the rest of this post is.
> 
> And/or please to answer the several-daze-old question, "what would be the point"?
> 
> [Composition fallacy deleted]
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the point of an Atheist religion would be.  Here's a glint from the article I just linked...



> Among atheists and agnostics, 14 percent of said religion was "somewhat important" in their lives, while 17 percent said they took part in daily, weekly or monthly prayer.



So maybe the point is to satisfy the needs of the atheists that have such a need to be religious.

I noticed you cut out the last link and the text I printed from it.  Here it is again.  Refute it if you can.

Atheist Prayer Religious Activity Not Uncommon Among Nonbelievers
*Atheist Prayer: Religious Activity Not Uncommon Among Nonbelievers*

A Washington Post article by Michelle Boorstein spotlighted the fascinating phenomenon of a minority of atheists, agnostics and the religiously unaffiliated who take to prayer, chaplaincy and other commonly religious practices as a way to experience community with others, relax, meditate and connect to something other than the physical.

....

Among atheists and agnostics, 14 percent of said religion was "somewhat important" in their lives, while 17 percent said they took part in daily, weekly or monthly prayer.

....

Still, it's undeniable that atheists are picking up habits traditionally found among the religious. Just last week, an "atheist church" had it's first meeting in New York City.


----------



## Carla_Danger

THE LIGHT said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism IS a religion according to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
> Read more at Court rules atheism a religion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I rest my case. End of thread.
Click to expand...




That's because you didn't look at the source. You might try reading some actual documents.  Just saying...


----------



## boedicca

Atheism IS a religion when the true believers substitute a Secular State for an omnipotent source of life.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's stating the obvious. Do you believe in impultuous convanescence? No you don't, because there's no such thing. I just made it up. That doesn't make you a follower of the religion of unimpultuous noncovanescence.
> Stop being obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> What an absolutely ridiculous argument!  You truly take the cake here.
> 
> You believe in Atheism...the practice of being an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No I do not.*
> I believe I know what the word "atheism" means, and that you do not.  That's what I believe.
> Couple of y'all seem to have a strange predilection for telling other people what they believe.
> 
> Why is that exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism has been shown  to be a religion.
> 
> Here, Thomas!  Deal with this:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it has not.  Come up with something that is not a Composition Fallacy.  Which is what the rest of this post is.
> 
> And/or please to answer the several-daze-old question, "what would be the point"?
> 
> [Composition fallacy deleted]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea what the point of an Atheist religion would be.  Here's a glint from the article I just linked...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Among atheists and agnostics, 14 percent of said religion was "somewhat important" in their lives, while 17 percent said they took part in daily, weekly or monthly prayer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So maybe the point is to satisfy the needs of the atheists that have such a need to be religious.
> 
> I noticed you cut out the last link and the text I printed from it.  Here it is again.  Refute it if you can.
> 
> Atheist Prayer Religious Activity Not Uncommon Among Nonbelievers
> *Atheist Prayer: Religious Activity Not Uncommon Among Nonbelievers*
> 
> A Washington Post article by Michelle Boorstein spotlighted the fascinating phenomenon of a minority of atheists, agnostics and the religiously unaffiliated who take to prayer, chaplaincy and other commonly religious practices as a way to experience community with others, relax, meditate and connect to something other than the physical.
> 
> ....
> 
> Among atheists and agnostics, 14 percent of said religion was "somewhat important" in their lives, while 17 percent said they took part in daily, weekly or monthly prayer.
> 
> ....
> 
> Still, it's undeniable that atheists are picking up habits traditionally found among the religious. Just last week, an "atheist church" had it's first meeting in New York City.
Click to expand...




"*minority* of atheists, agnostics and the religiously unaffiliated "


----------



## Carla_Danger




----------



## asaratis

KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY - FindLaw



			
				US 7th Circuit said:
			
		

> In keeping with this idea, *the Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones.*   Thus, in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 81 S.Ct. 1680, 6 L.Ed.2d 982, it said that a state cannot “pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can [it] aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”  Id. at 495, 81 S.Ct. 1680.   Indeed, Torcaso specifically included “Secular Humanism” as an example of a religion.  Id. at 495 n. 11, 81 S.Ct. 1680.
> 
> ....
> 
> The problem with the district court's analysis is that the court failed to recognize that Kaufman was trying to start a “religious” group, in the sense we discussed earlier.  * Atheism is Kaufman's religion, *and the group that he wanted to start was* religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.*   As he explained in his application, the group wanted to study freedom of thought, religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices, all presumably from an atheistic perspective.



Atheism IS a religion.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> "*minority* of atheists, agnostics and the religiously unaffiliated "


I agreed with you there.  A growing minority of religious atheists have established Atheism as a religion that you are free to join.



Carla_Danger said:


>


Just another comedy show by the pseudo-intellectual Bill Maher.

...means nothing.  He says nothing that hasn't already been said.  He depends on jokes and ridicule to gain favor with his audience of willing idiots.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> "*minority* of atheists, agnostics and the religiously unaffiliated "
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with you there.  A growing minority of religious atheists have established Atheism as a religion that you are free to join.
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just another comedy show by the pseudo-intellectual Bill Maher.
> 
> ...means nothing.  He says nothing that hasn't already been said.  He depends on jokes and ridicule to gain favor with his audience of willing idiots.
Click to expand...


You can't have a religion that doesn't stand for anything.
That's been the challenge here since post number one.


----------



## JakeStarkey

An atheist believes (he cannot empirically or philosophically) that God does not exist.

Atheism is a faith belief then.

Tis what it is, yo


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY - FindLaw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US 7th Circuit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In keeping with this idea, *the Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones.*   Thus, in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 81 S.Ct. 1680, 6 L.Ed.2d 982, it said that a state cannot “pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can [it] aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”  Id. at 495, 81 S.Ct. 1680.   Indeed, Torcaso specifically included “Secular Humanism” as an example of a religion.  Id. at 495 n. 11, 81 S.Ct. 1680.
> 
> ....
> 
> The problem with the district court's analysis is that the court failed to recognize that Kaufman was trying to start a “religious” group, in the sense we discussed earlier.  * Atheism is Kaufman's religion, *and the group that he wanted to start was* religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.*   As he explained in his application, the group wanted to study freedom of thought, religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices, all presumably from an atheistic perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism IS a religion.
Click to expand...


Perhaps for the purpose of a legal definition within this challenge (haven't had a chance to read it yet) but in terms of English language definitions --- no it is not.

Cherrypicking court summaries is like taking a preordained conclusion to the Googles to "prove" that Barack O'bama was born in Kenya as Hitler's love child.   I bet I could find a court or legal artifact somewhere to say that a corporation is a person, or that another person is three-fifths of a person.  Try me.

We speak not of legal definitions here, but actual real life ones.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's stating the obvious. Do you believe in impultuous convanescence? No you don't, because there's no such thing. I just made it up. That doesn't make you a follower of the religion of unimpultuous noncovanescence.
> Stop being obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> What an absolutely ridiculous argument!  You truly take the cake here.
> 
> You believe in Atheism...the practice of being an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No I do not.*
> I believe I know what the word "atheism" means, and that you do not.  That's what I believe.
> Couple of y'all seem to have a strange predilection for telling other people what they believe.
> 
> Why is that exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism has been shown  to be a religion.
> 
> Here, Thomas!  Deal with this:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it has not.  Come up with something that is not a Composition Fallacy.  Which is what the rest of this post is.
> 
> And/or please to answer the several-daze-old question, "what would be the point"?
> 
> [Composition fallacy deleted]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea what the point of an Atheist religion would be.
Click to expand...


--- Then where is your basis to conclude it's a religion?
A religion needs a raison d'être.  Where is it?
I keep asking you that, you admit you don't have one.  So you have no basis.


'scuse me one sec...





asaratis said:


> Here's a glint from the article I just linked...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Among atheists and agnostics, 14 percent of said religion was "somewhat important" in their lives, while 17 percent said they took part in daily, weekly or monthly prayer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So maybe the point is to satisfy the needs of the atheists that have such a need to be religious.
> 
> I noticed you cut out the last link and the text I printed from it.  Here it is again.  Refute it if you can.
> 
> Atheist Prayer Religious Activity Not Uncommon Among Nonbelievers
> *Atheist Prayer: Religious Activity Not Uncommon Among Nonbelievers*
> 
> A Washington Post article by Michelle Boorstein spotlighted the fascinating phenomenon of a minority of atheists, agnostics and the religiously unaffiliated who take to prayer, chaplaincy and other commonly religious practices as a way to experience community with others, relax, meditate and connect to something other than the physical.
> 
> ....
> 
> Among atheists and agnostics, 14 percent of said religion was "somewhat important" in their lives, while 17 percent said they took part in daily, weekly or monthly prayer.
> 
> ....
> 
> Still, it's undeniable that atheists are picking up habits traditionally found among the religious. Just last week, an "atheist church" had it's first meeting in New York City.
Click to expand...


Biased Sample fallacy. 
This "atheist prayer" (to who?  to what?) would have to apply to *all *atheists in order to serve your definition.  It does not.  You're projecting them.

Thus I run rings around you logically.


----------



## Carla_Danger

JakeStarkey said:


> An atheist believes (he cannot empirically or philosophically) that God does not exist.
> 
> Atheism is a faith belief then.
> 
> Tis what it is, yo





That's incorrect.  I don't have faith that their is no God.  I have no evidence that there is a God. Atheism is not faith based. It is the opposite of faith based.  Religion is faith based, and cannot stand on its own merit.


----------



## Pogo

(quick snip)



asaratis said:


> Still, it's undeniable that atheists are picking up habits traditionally found among the religious. Just last week, an "atheist church" had *it's* first meeting in New York City.



Side note here -- what sort of genuine journalism doesn't know the difference between _its_ and _it's_?


----------



## Pogo

boedicca said:


> Atheism IS a religion when the true believers substitute a Secular State for an omnipotent source of life.



Strawman.

Uh I mean, strawmermaid.


----------



## boedicca

Pogo said:


> Strawman.
> 
> Uh I mean, strawmermaid.




I'm not straw.

I'm a real live flesh and scales mermaid!


----------



## Pogo

Carla_Danger said:


>



Dat was hilarious 

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position."

"That's the great thing about atheism - it takes so little of your time."

"You don't get to put your unreason up on the same shelf with my reason."



asaratis said:


> ...means nothing.  He says nothing that hasn't already been said.  He depends on jokes and ridicule to gain favor with his audience of willing idiots.



Translation:
"I can't think of anything to refute his points so lemme just poison the well...."


----------



## Uncensored2008

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]



And you'll cut the head off of anyone who says it is on Al Jazeera!

Gaia be praised.


----------



## Pogo

boedicca said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman.
> 
> Uh I mean, strawmermaid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not straw.
> 
> I'm a real live flesh and scales mermaid!
Click to expand...


I think you're a Pisces, probably working for scale.   
I bet you drive a Barracuda with a blown seal.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Saying that atheism is a religion is pretty much like saying that Anarchists conspire to take over and run the government....


----------



## Uncensored2008

Carla_Danger said:


> Can I have your address, so I can bring you by some literature?  LOL!



Can you spare the time away from using the implied violence of the state to keep little girls from praying at school?

You must be vigilant, if you don't crush religious liberty, pretty soon you'll have people singing in public and bringing church bulletins to pizza parlors.

Gaia depends on you to crush religious expression!


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> I think you're a Pisces, probably working for scale.
> I bet you drive a Barracuda.  With a blown seal.



I think you're a feces -  and have blown a, well the rest is obvious, but you hit that report button in the blink of an eye now that you can't neg, so we'll leave it at that.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> "*minority* of atheists, agnostics and the religiously unaffiliated "
> 
> 
> 
> I agreed with you there.  A growing minority of religious atheists have established Atheism as a religion that you are free to join.
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just another comedy show by the pseudo-intellectual Bill Maher.
> 
> ...means nothing.  He says nothing that hasn't already been said.  He depends on jokes and ridicule to gain favor with his audience of willing idiots.
Click to expand...



He happens to be correct on this issue.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Uncensored2008 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you'll cut the head off of anyone who says it is on Al Jazeera!
> 
> Gaia be praised.
Click to expand...



WTF?


----------



## Pogo

Vandalshandle said:


> Saying that atheism is a religion is pretty much like saying that Anarchists conspire to take over and run the government....



It would be like being "blinded by shadows"...


It was an _open secret_ that the company had used a _paid volunteer_ to test the  _plastic glasses_. Although they were made using _liquid gas_ technology and were an _original copy_ that looked _almost exactly_ like a more expensive brand, the volunteer thought that they were _pretty ugly_ and that it would be  _simply impossible_ for the general public to accept them. On hearing this feedback, the company board was _clearly confused_ and there was a  _deafening silence_. This was a _minor crisis_ and the _only choice_ was to drop the product line.
(_Much Ado About English_. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 2006)


----------



## Pogo

Carla_Danger said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you'll cut the head off of anyone who says it is on Al Jazeera!
> 
> Gaia be praised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
Click to expand...


Two things -- Pothead is a  and (I think) an atheist who prolly can't "come out" here.

It's kind of ironic when a poster on one's ignore list (i.e. someone one doesn't believe in) shows up in a thread about atheism.  Irony is ironical.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're a Pisces, probably working for scale.
> I bet you drive a Barracuda.  With a blown seal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're a feces -  and have blown a, well the rest is obvious, but you hit that report button in the blink of an eye now that you can't neg, so we'll leave it at that.
Click to expand...




Would you like some cheese with that whine?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> You mentioned impultuous convanescence.  Until you told me you made it up I was neutral on the subject.  I considered whether it existed or not existed to be equally possible.  That is what an Atheist would hold, if your definition were accurate.  The possibility of the existence or non-existence of God would be equally possible.  Neutral.  I have never met an Atheist who was neutral.  Of course, it is possible I have but I doubt such a person would care enough about the subject to engage in a conversation on it.
> 
> Of course there are negative beliefs.  If you believe something is not, that is a negative belief.  I believe Jesus is not a god.  That's a negative belief.  What there is not is a non-belief.  So if by non-belief you mean something other than a lack of belief, please clarify it for me.
> 
> Your comparisons are meaningless babble.  They have absolutely no weight in the discussion.
> 
> I'm afraid they do.  You considered "impultuous convanescence" and determined that it had no basis for belief.  So you don't believe in it -- which is fine, but it doesn't make that *disbelief*, in itself, a "religion".  It would be silly to do so.  Same thing.  You're not about to found a church for the purpose of knocking on doors to convince people that impultuous convanesence does not exist.  It would be pointless.
> 
> And that in a nutshell is the point of this thread.
> 
> 
> >> I have never met an Atheist who was neutral. Of course, it is possible I have but I doubt such a person would care enough about the subject to engage in a conversation on it. <<
> 
> -- which perfectly illustrates the nonexistence of a religion called "Atheism" and explains why they walk among us unnoticed.  And puts the lie to the mythology of "proselytizing atheists".  Because, again, it's by definition a _personal _conclusion, not a communal one.



You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Believe it or not, atheism a belief, atheists believe there are no gods. That is not a lack of belief, a lack of belief would be saying "I don't know if there are any gods or not." Intelligent people recognize a difference between not knowing and saying something does not exist, which is why we have words for people who fit into both categories. I realize things like this confuse idiots, but I keep hoping you will rise above your limitations and learn something new.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

_asaratis said: ↑

...means nothing. He says nothing that hasn't already been said. He depends on jokes and ridicule to gain favor with his audience of willing idiots._

This post means Maher was on target.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

HUGGY said:


> I actively try to convince people to tell the truth and only share knowledge they can prove to be true.
> 
> I don't mind people using their imagination as long as they lable it so.
> 
> Many people are gulible or or living in fear and willing to grasp at straws.  It is immoral to offer them false hope.  They tend to give up on improving their situations and just resign themselves to having a better life after they are dead.  That is called fraud.
> 
> Do you promote truth or fraud?



By defining belief as imagination you promote fraud.


----------



## HUGGY

Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?

We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.

We don't have anything like a bible.

We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.

We have no myths to defend.

we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing  to some made up tenents.

If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.

You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life.  I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.


----------



## HUGGY

Quantum Windbag said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actively try to convince people to tell the truth and only share knowledge they can prove to be true.
> 
> I don't mind people using their imagination as long as they lable it so.
> 
> Many people are gulible or or living in fear and willing to grasp at straws.  It is immoral to offer them false hope.  They tend to give up on improving their situations and just resign themselves to having a better life after they are dead.  That is called fraud.
> 
> Do you promote truth or fraud?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By defining belief as imagination you promote fraud.
Click to expand...

 
In what crazy alternate reality is that anything like a valid comparison?

Has religion eaten a big hole in your ability to think clearly and rationally?

That is a sad situation.  Maybe if you reject all that religious nonsense your brain will heal.

Good luck!


----------



## Carla_Danger

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mentioned impultuous convanescence.  Until you told me you made it up I was neutral on the subject.  I considered whether it existed or not existed to be equally possible.  That is what an Atheist would hold, if your definition were accurate.  The possibility of the existence or non-existence of God would be equally possible.  Neutral.  I have never met an Atheist who was neutral.  Of course, it is possible I have but I doubt such a person would care enough about the subject to engage in a conversation on it.
> 
> Of course there are negative beliefs.  If you believe something is not, that is a negative belief.  I believe Jesus is not a god.  That's a negative belief.  What there is not is a non-belief.  So if by non-belief you mean something other than a lack of belief, please clarify it for me.
> 
> Your comparisons are meaningless babble.  They have absolutely no weight in the discussion.
> 
> I'm afraid they do.  You considered "impultuous convanescence" and determined that it had no basis for belief.  So you don't believe in it -- which is fine, but it doesn't make that *disbelief*, in itself, a "religion".  It would be silly to do so.  Same thing.  You're not about to found a church for the purpose of knocking on doors to convince people that impultuous convanesence does not exist.  It would be pointless.
> 
> And that in a nutshell is the point of this thread.
> 
> 
> >> I have never met an Atheist who was neutral. Of course, it is possible I have but I doubt such a person would care enough about the subject to engage in a conversation on it. <<
> 
> -- which perfectly illustrates the nonexistence of a religion called "Atheism" and explains why they walk among us unnoticed.  And puts the lie to the mythology of "proselytizing atheists".  Because, again, it's by definition a _personal _conclusion, not a communal one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
> 
> Believe it or not, atheism a belief, atheists believe there are no gods. That is not a lack of belief, a lack of believe would be saying "I don't know if there are any gods or not." Intelligent people recognize a difference between not knowing and saying something does not exist, which is why we have words for people who fit into both categories. I realize things like this confuse idiots, but I keep hoping you will rise above your limitations and learn something new.
Click to expand...



As soon as you show me solid evidence that there's a God, I'll believe it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Carla_Danger said:


> WTF?



Well, y'all aren't exactly known for tolerance, so I figured you'd opt for the Sotloff solution. Let's face it, Atheists slaughtered 200 million peace time civilians in the 20th century - it's not like you're nice people.

Ya know?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> *No I do not.*
> I believe I know what the word "atheism" means, and that you do not.  That's what I believe.



What, exactly, do you believe atheism means?

FYI, Merriam Webster defines it this way.

: a person who *believes* that God does not exist​
In other words, atheism is a belief, not a lack of belief. That makes you belief that you know it means a lack of belief wrong.

Sucks to be you, doesn't it?



Pogo said:


> Couple of y'all seem to have a strange predilection for telling other people what they believe.



I actually have a strange predilection for not letting other people redefine words at whim.



Pogo said:


> Why is that exactly?



Because I understand that the only way people can communicate is if words have meanings.

Sucks to be you yet again.



Pogo said:


> No it has not.  Come up with something that is not a Composition Fallacy.  Which is what the rest of this post is.



Because the idiot who doesn't know what atheism means has decided that every attempt to prove how stupid he is is a fallacy, none of which changes the fact that, legally, atheism is a religion. If that bothers you I suggest you convert to assholism.

Wait, you already have.



Pogo said:


> And/or please to answer the several-daze-old question, "what would be the point"?



Why does there have to be a point?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> Windbag, you are a legend in your own mind.



I wish I was.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> Two things -- Pothead is a  and (I think) an atheist who prolly can't "come out" here.
> 
> It's kind of ironic when a poster on one's ignore list (i.e. someone one doesn't believe in) shows up in a thread about atheism.  Irony is ironical.



Actually Huffer, I am one of the more sane characters around here. That case of oven cleaner each week keeps you well out of "sane territory."

I have stated on every occasion that I am agnostic. Unlike you, I have no faith. 

But do continue with your proselytizing....


----------



## Pogo

HUGGY said:


> Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?
> 
> We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.
> 
> We don't have anything like a bible.
> 
> We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.
> 
> We have no myths to defend.
> 
> we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing  to some made up tenents.
> 
> If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.
> 
> You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life.  I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.



For a bunch of wags who claim "atheists are preaching", some of 'em sure put a lot of time and effort into starting atheist-bashing threads last night, which kinda begs the question of who's preaching who....

How would you "preach atheism" anyway?  Knock on the door and then just stand there and say nothing?
Sounds like an easy gig.


----------



## Uncensored2008

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> _asaratis said: ↑
> 
> ...means nothing. He says nothing that hasn't already been said. He depends on jokes and ridicule to gain favor with his audience of willing idiots._
> 
> This post means Maher was on target.



Maher is a pile of shit.

I can see where he would appeal to you, Saul.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> You can't have a religion that doesn't stand for anything.
> That's been the challenge here since post number one.



Simple question for you then, why the fuck not? Should I list all the religions in the world that don't stand for anything, or will you explain to me, in detail, why you are suddenly the only person in the universe who gets to say what is, and is not, a religion?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Perhaps for the purpose of a legal definition within this challenge (haven't had a chance to read it yet) but in terms of English language definitions --- no it is not.
> 
> Cherrypicking court summaries is like taking a preordained conclusion to the Googles to "prove" that Barack O'bama was born in Kenya as Hitler's love child.   I bet I could find a court or legal artifact somewhere to say that a corporation is a person, or that another person is three-fifths of a person.  Try me.
> 
> We speak not of legal definitions here, but actual real life ones.



Funny, I provided the dictionary definition of religion and atheism to show that, even without cherry picking legal decisions, atheism fits the definition of religion. So far all you have done is assert that unless atheism does things the way you insist defines religion it is not a religion.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Carla_Danger said:


> As soon as you show me solid evidence that there's a God, I'll believe it.



I've never seen any evidence supporting the idea of the goat herder god.

On the other hand, I've seen no evidence precluding the possibility of a god.

Ergo I find you and other Atheists just as wacky and absurd as I do the Mormons or Scientologists. Your position is no less dependent on blind faith than theirs is..


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> That's incorrect.  I don't have faith that their is no God.  I have no evidence that there is a God. Atheism is not faith based. It is the opposite of faith based.  Religion is faith based, and cannot stand on its own merit.



Atheism is a belief. If you do not believe there is no god you are not an atheist, you just want people to think you are because you think it makes you look more intelligent.


----------



## HUGGY

Uncensored2008 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, y'all aren't exactly known for tolerance, so I figured you'd opt for the Sotloff solution. Let's face it, Atheists slaughtered 200 million peace time civilians in the 20th century - it's not like you're nice people.
> 
> Ya know?
Click to expand...

 
That's nonsense just like your ficticious bible.

Show us some piece of literature that these so-called atheists assembled together under as an atheistic call to murder 200 million citizens.

You are SOOOoooooooo....full of shit.

There may well have been evil people that wanted power in some ancient  countries that killed a lot of people that included religists but to blame those incidents puely on the non belief of god and extend that blame to me is rediculous and slanderous.

It is only the religists that claim some god gives them the right to murder people that will not say they believe in the religists superiority and right to dominate.  THAT is a fact and not the wack ramblings and accusation of you religists.

Why is it that you people lie straight out of your asses with no shame?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Carla_Danger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> An atheist believes (he cannot empirically or philosophically) that God does not exist.
> 
> Atheism is a faith belief then.
> 
> Tis what it is, yo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect.  I don't have faith that their is no God.  I have no evidence that there is a God. Atheism is not faith based. It is the opposite of faith based.  Religion is faith based, and cannot stand on its own merit.
Click to expand...


You cannot empirically prove God does not exist, nor philosophically, so, yes, you believe on faith that God is not.

Tis what is.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This post means Maher was on target.



According to Maher, he is always on target. The fact that no one else sees him hitting said target just proves they are looking the wrong way.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> As soon as you show me solid evidence that there's a God, I'll believe it.



Define solid evidence.


----------



## Uncensored2008

HUGGY said:


> That's nonsense just like your ficticious bible.
> 
> Show us some piece of literature that these so-called atheists assembled together under as an atheistic call to murder 200 million citizens.
> 
> You are SOOOoooooooo....full of shit.
> 
> There may well have been evil people that wanted power in some ancient  countries that killed a lot of people that included religists but to blame those incidents puely on the non belief of god and extend that blame to me is rediculous and slanderous.
> 
> It is only the religists that claim some god gives them the right to murder people that will not say they believe in the religists superiority and right to dominate.  THAT is a fact and not the wack ramblings and accusation of you religists.
> 
> Why is it that you people lie straight out of your asses with no shame?



You know Rev. Jim, I'm betting the piece of literature you are referencing sits on your shelf, right next to Mao's Little Red Book...

Manifesto of the Communist Party


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect.  I don't have faith that their is no God.  I have no evidence that there is a God. Atheism is not faith based. It is the opposite of faith based.  Religion is faith based, and cannot stand on its own merit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is a belief. If you do not believe there is no god you are not an atheist, you just want people to think you are because you think it makes you look more intelligent.
Click to expand...


I see some latecomers are, uh, pleasuring themselves on their own inability to read post 33 and were hoping to score meaningless ego points based on semantics.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Perhaps they'll catch up one day. 
Perhaps not.


----------



## Pogo

HUGGY said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, y'all aren't exactly known for tolerance, so I figured you'd opt for the Sotloff solution. Let's face it, Atheists slaughtered 200 million peace time civilians in the 20th century - it's not like you're nice people.
> 
> Ya know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's nonsense just like your ficticious bible.
> 
> Show us some piece of literature that these so-called atheists assembled together under as an atheistic call to murder 200 million citizens.
> 
> You are SOOOoooooooo....full of shit.
> 
> There may well have been evil people that wanted power in some ancient  countries that killed a lot of people that included religists but to blame those incidents puely on the non belief of god and extend that blame to me is rediculous and slanderous.
> 
> It is only the religists that claim some god gives them the right to murder people that will not say they believe in the religists superiority and right to dominate.  THAT is a fact and not the wack ramblings and accusation of you religists.
> 
> Why is it that you people lie straight out of your asses with no shame?
Click to expand...



There was a wag here last night who proposed that atheist religions lead to genocide -- some of his examples were "communism" and I believe Kawai Pianos. 

Ya gotta have faith I guess...


----------



## HUGGY

Uncensored2008 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's nonsense just like your ficticious bible.
> 
> Show us some piece of literature that these so-called atheists assembled together under as an atheistic call to murder 200 million citizens.
> 
> You are SOOOoooooooo....full of shit.
> 
> There may well have been evil people that wanted power in some ancient  countries that killed a lot of people that included religists but to blame those incidents puely on the non belief of god and extend that blame to me is rediculous and slanderous.
> 
> It is only the religists that claim some god gives them the right to murder people that will not say they believe in the religists superiority and right to dominate.  THAT is a fact and not the wack ramblings and accusation of you religists.
> 
> Why is it that you people lie straight out of your asses with no shame?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know Rev. Jim, I'm betting the piece of literature you are referencing sits on your shelf, right next to Mao's Little Red Book...
> 
> Manifesto of the Communist Party
Click to expand...

 
What on earth makes you think I have anything to do with the communist party?

You REALLY are crazy as a bedbug.

I hate communists maybe more than I hate religists.

Communism is one of the dumbest and most dangerous ideas ever produced and followed by human beings.

As far as I am concerned we could nuke every communist country to glass beads and I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep.

I am a communist?

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on you piece of stinking dog shit.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Carla_Danger said:


> Good point! I called myself agnostic for a long time. And boy, let me tell you, my life was a lot easier when I referred to myself as agnostic. People certainly don't have harsh feelings towards people who claim they are agnostic, I've noticed. Being an atheist is a very different ball game.



That's because Atheists are fucking assholes. Jehovah's Witnesses will less forcibly shove their religion down the throats of others.




> I just feel that since I don't live my life as though there is a God, I'm pretty much an atheist.  See below.
> 
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6.




Rational people fall around 4 - given that no evidence exists to support any other position on your self-serving list....


----------



## Uncensored2008

HUGGY said:


> What on earth makes you think I have anything to do with the communist party?



I've read your posts...



> You REALLY are crazy as a bedbug.



Honestly, I really do envision you as Rev. Jim - a child of the 60's who's excesses have caught up with a vengence.



> I hate communists maybe more than I hate religists.
> 
> Communism is one of the dumbest and most dangerous ideas ever produced and followed by human beings.



Well hell Rev. Jim, we agree on somethign,



> As far as I am concerned we could nuke every communist country to glass beads and I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep.



But not this, this is plain crazy - the product of drug addled thinking.



> I am a communist?
> 
> Fuck you and the horse you rode in on you piece of stinking dog shit.



Do you advocate for a control economy where Barack Obama ensures that everyone gets a fair share?


----------



## HUGGY

Uncensored2008 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good point! I called myself agnostic for a long time. And boy, let me tell you, my life was a lot easier when I referred to myself as agnostic. People certainly don't have harsh feelings towards people who claim they are agnostic, I've noticed. Being an atheist is a very different ball game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because Atheists are fucking assholes. Jehovah's Witnesses will less forcibly shove their religion down the throats of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just feel that since I don't live my life as though there is a God, I'm pretty much an atheist.  See below.
> 
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Rational people fall around 4 - given that no evidence exists to support any other position on your self-serving list....
Click to expand...

 
Fuck this worthless piece of shit Carla.

He has crossed way over the line.
He has dug a hole with his vile words he will never get out of.

If he was drowning I would piss on him.


----------



## Pogo

Well that din't take long.


----------



## HUGGY

Uncensored2008 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> What on earth makes you think I have anything to do with the communist party?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read your posts...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You REALLY are crazy as a bedbug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honestly, I really do envision you as Rev. Jim - a child of the 60's who's excesses have caught up with a vengence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate communists maybe more than I hate religists.
> 
> Communism is one of the dumbest and most dangerous ideas ever produced and followed by human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well hell Rev. Jim, we agree on somethign,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I am concerned we could nuke every communist country to glass beads and I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But not this, this is plain crazy - the product of drug addled thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a communist?
> 
> Fuck you and the horse you rode in on you piece of stinking dog shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you advocate for a control economy where Barack Obama ensures that everyone gets a fair share?
Click to expand...

I don't give a fuck about Obama.

You have stupidly advanced yourself to the front burner.

Nice work fuckwad.


----------



## Uncensored2008

HUGGY said:


> Fuck this worthless piece of shit Carla.
> 
> He has crossed way over the line.
> He has dug a hole with his vile words he will never get out of.
> 
> If he was drowning I would piss on him.


----------



## HUGGY

Uncensored2008 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck this worthless piece of shit Carla.
> 
> He has crossed way over the line.
> He has dug a hole with his vile words he will never get out of.
> 
> If he was drowning I would piss on him.
Click to expand...

 
I deal with worthless scum every day and night.  You are nothing special.

You are just looking for attention...I get it.

Sometimes ignorant assholes attempt to get attention and find they have opened a door they wish they hadn't.

Mad?  Your stupid uneducated insults only serve to underline why you are dumb enough to be a Christian.  Mad?  Just more aware of what you are.  Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## Hollie

JakeStarkey said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> An atheist believes (he cannot empirically or philosophically) that God does not exist.
> 
> Atheism is a faith belief then.
> 
> Tis what it is, yo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect.  I don't have faith that their is no God.  I have no evidence that there is a God. Atheism is not faith based. It is the opposite of faith based.  Religion is faith based, and cannot stand on its own merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot empirically prove God does not exist, nor philosophically, so, yes, you believe on faith that God is not.
> 
> Tis what is.
Click to expand...

No one is under any obligation to "prove it isn't". It's meaningless.

For example, I actually can empirically prove the gods don't exist. Prove I can't. See? Disprove my disproof of your gods.

I don't conceive of my lack of belief in your gods as a belief as much as I conceive it as a conclusion based on the asserted models out there and the lack of evidence to support those assertions. As an example, one can't really consider oneself as having the "belief that Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist". It's just a fact that there is no evidence that such entities exist or have ever existed, and only those who would assert they do are required to support the positive claim with evidence.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> An atheist believes (he cannot empirically or philosophically) that God does not exist.
> 
> Atheism is a faith belief then.
> 
> Tis what it is, yo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect.  I don't have faith that their is no God.  I have no evidence that there is a God. Atheism is not faith based. It is the opposite of faith based.  Religion is faith based, and cannot stand on its own merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot empirically prove God does not exist, nor philosophically, so, yes, you believe on faith that God is not.
> 
> Tis what is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is under any obligation to "prove it isn't". It's meaningless.
> 
> For example, I actually can empirically prove the gods don't exist. Prove I can't. See? Disprove my disproof of your gods.
> 
> I don't conceive of my lack of belief in your gods as a belief as much as I conceive it as a conclusion based on the asserted models out there and the lack of evidence to support those assertions. As an example, one can't really consider oneself as having the "belief that Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist". It's just a fact that there is no evidence that such entities exist or have ever existed, and only those who would assert they do are required to support the positive claim with evidence.
Click to expand...


What if I could show you a book written about pink unicorns only it was written 90 years after pink unicorns went extinct?  Would you doubt the authors?


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> An atheist believes (he cannot empirically or philosophically) that God does not exist.
> 
> Atheism is a faith belief then.
> 
> Tis what it is, yo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect.  I don't have faith that their is no God.  I have no evidence that there is a God. Atheism is not faith based. It is the opposite of faith based.  Religion is faith based, and cannot stand on its own merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot empirically prove God does not exist, nor philosophically, so, yes, you believe on faith that God is not.
> 
> Tis what is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is under any obligation to "prove it isn't". It's meaningless.
> 
> For example, I actually can empirically prove the gods don't exist. Prove I can't. See? Disprove my disproof of your gods.
> 
> I don't conceive of my lack of belief in your gods as a belief as much as I conceive it as a conclusion based on the asserted models out there and the lack of evidence to support those assertions. As an example, one can't really consider oneself as having the "belief that Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist". It's just a fact that there is no evidence that such entities exist or have ever existed, and only those who would assert they do are required to support the positive claim with evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if I could show you a book written about pink unicorns only it was written 90 years after pink unicorns went extinct?  *Would you doubt the authors?*
Click to expand...

 
No.  But only if the Pink Unicorns threatened to condem me to an eternity in Pink Unicorn Hell if I did not comply with their demands.

LOL


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> An atheist believes (he cannot empirically or philosophically) that God does not exist.
> 
> Atheism is a faith belief then.
> 
> Tis what it is, yo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect.  I don't have faith that their is no God.  I have no evidence that there is a God. Atheism is not faith based. It is the opposite of faith based.  Religion is faith based, and cannot stand on its own merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot empirically prove God does not exist, nor philosophically, so, yes, you believe on faith that God is not.
> 
> Tis what is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is under any obligation to "prove it isn't". It's meaningless.
> 
> For example, I actually can empirically prove the gods don't exist. Prove I can't. See? Disprove my disproof of your gods.
> 
> I don't conceive of my lack of belief in your gods as a belief as much as I conceive it as a conclusion based on the asserted models out there and the lack of evidence to support those assertions. As an example, one can't really consider oneself as having the "belief that Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist". It's just a fact that there is no evidence that such entities exist or have ever existed, and only those who would assert they do are required to support the positive claim with evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if I could show you a book written about pink unicorns only it was written 90 years after pink unicorns went extinct?  *Would you doubt the authors?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  But only if the Pink Unicorns threatened to condem me to an eternity in Pink Unicorn Hell if I did not comply with their demands.
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...


So without the scare tactics, this book wouldn't be enough to convince you?  Interesting.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Pogo said:


> Well that din't take long.




It sure didn't.  This thread turned to crap with a couple of recent visitors.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Atheists, neither pink unicorns or Christians or God are out to get you.

The religionists have every right to tell you the truth: you cannot prove that God does not exist.  Ergo, hmmmm.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Uncensored2008 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> What on earth makes you think I have anything to do with the communist party?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read your posts...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You REALLY are crazy as a bedbug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honestly, I really do envision you as Rev. Jim - a child of the 60's who's excesses have caught up with a vengence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate communists maybe more than I hate religists.
> 
> Communism is one of the dumbest and most dangerous ideas ever produced and followed by human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well hell Rev. Jim, we agree on somethign,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I am concerned we could nuke every communist country to glass beads and I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But not this, this is plain crazy - the product of drug addled thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a communist?
> 
> Fuck you and the horse you rode in on you piece of stinking dog shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you advocate for a control economy where Barack Obama ensures that everyone gets a fair share?
Click to expand...




You're on the wrong thread, with your communist and Obama BS.


----------



## Carla_Danger

JakeStarkey said:


> Atheists, neither pink unicorns or Christians or God are to get you.
> 
> The religionists have every right to tell you the truth: you cannot prove that God does not exist.  Ergo, hmmmm.




That makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Far more sense than atheists saying the don't have a faith belief if they don't believe in God though they can't prove it.

Logic and philosophy completely unground any such empirical statement by you, CarlaDanger.

You are no better than any religionist when it comes to faith or lack of it.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Pogo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stating the obvious.  But has anyone but Astartled actually suggested it is?  Is this some kind of movement in Revisionistastan?
> 
> I don't know, god doesn't tell me shit.
Click to expand...



I guess you know now, why I started this thread.  LOL!


----------



## Pogo

Carla_Danger said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stating the obvious.  But has anyone but Astartled actually suggested it is?  Is this some kind of movement in Revisionistastan?
> 
> I don't know, god doesn't tell me shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you know now, why I started this thread.  LOL!
Click to expand...


Yeah I was in the mother thread where Astartle never answered me about the Divine Penis.
It sure is an easy topic.  I gotta do this kind of low hanging fruit more often.  

Until that thread I wasn't aware there was this absurdist revisionism going on.  From your Bill Maher video apparently it's been out there a while.  Weeeird.  Funny, nobody ever did come up with an answer for why they need it to be a "religion".  Or how it could qualify as one.


----------



## Carla_Danger

JakeStarkey said:


> Far more sense than atheists saying the don't have a faith belief if they don't believe in God though they can't prove it.
> 
> Logic and philosophy completely unground any such empirical statement by you, CarlaDanger.
> 
> You are no better than any religionist when it comes to faith or lack of it.





Nonsense.  Thinking God is improbable, is not the same as having faith that he/she exists. I'm not going to fly a plane into a building due to faith of a non God. Don't you dare try to put me on that level.

Respectfully, I'm going to agree to disagree with your false analogy.


----------



## Pogo

Carla_Danger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Far more sense than atheists saying the don't have a faith belief if they don't believe in God though they can't prove it.
> 
> Logic and philosophy completely unground any such empirical statement by you, CarlaDanger.
> 
> You are no better than any religionist when it comes to faith or lack of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  Thinking God is improbable, is not the same as having faith that he/she exists. I'm not going to fly a plane into a building due to faith of a non God. Don't you dare try to put me on that level.
> 
> Respectfully, I'm going to agree to disagree with your false analogy.
Click to expand...


Jake is apparently -- hard to navigate what he's saying -- working on the assumption of an "absolute" atheism (#7 on your spectrum).  I'm still not sure there is such a thing, certainly none here we know of.  I think it's just listed there to set the extreme boundary so that there's a full scale.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Carla is certainly entitled to her faith that God does not exist.

But she can't prove it, and she knows it.  Pogo, the verbal navigation is simple: since she can't empirically support her claim, it rests on faith.


----------



## Pogo

JakeStarkey said:


> Carla is certainly entitled to her faith that God does not exist.
> 
> But she can't prove it, and she knows it.  Pogo, the verbal navigation is simple: since she can't empirically support her claim, it rests on faith.



Carla doesn't _know _if God exists.  Nobody does.  We established that at the beginning.  You don't need "faith" to assess a theory that has no evidence (I know that's redundant) and decide to reject it.  On the contrary, you need faith to _accept _it.

Again, game check, this thread is not about who's an atheist of what degree; it's about atheism being indescribable as a "religion".  Since atheism is simply the absence/rejection of theism, it has no doctrine of its own, and cannot be described as a "religion".


----------



## Hollie

JakeStarkey said:


> Carla is certainly entitled to her faith that God does not exist.
> 
> But she can't prove it, and she knows it.  Pogo, the verbal navigation is simple: since she can't empirically support her claim, it rests on faith.


False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions. No one needs faith to conclude that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. Similarly, I have no need for faith to conclude that your gods are no more a Human invention than the Greek gods.

But what is important in the context of this discussion is that there is no reasonable justification for people to insist that the only option for existence is a historically (maybe "hysterically"), recent invention of the currently configured gods.

And more importantly, there is no rational way of connecting any god so conceived as being connected to any of the sectarian beliefs now running rampant within our species.

Proffering god(s) is simply the tired old "Argument of the uncaused cause" restated using elementary cosmology. But that doesn't make it any more valid, useful or interesting.

Because even if we were to accept your faith pronouncement that something "greater than" the universe had to be responsible for its inception (an iffy conclusion at best) it tells us nothing about the nature of that cause.

It doesn't tell us whether or not it is intelligent, planned, personal, conscious, arbitrary, loving, cruel, or even whether or not it has a "creator" of its own.

It could be the serial mass murderer of the Judeo-Christian mythology or it could be a completely natural phenomenon.

Bottom line is that an argument that arbitrarily picks a point on some presumed chain of causality and calls it "Gods" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's sectarian position, and in the armory of theistic apologetics it doesn’t qualify as a pop gun.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> I see some latecomers are, uh, pleasuring themselves on their own inability to read post 33 and were hoping to score meaningless ego points based on semantics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps they'll catch up one day.
> Perhaps not.



I see that idiots think their opinions trump the dictionary.

Sucks to be you, doesn't it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Carla doesn't _know _if God exists.  Nobody does.  We established that at the beginning.  You don't need "faith" to assess a theory that has no evidence (I know that's redundant) and decide to reject it.  On the contrary, you need faith to _accept _it.
> 
> Again, game check, this thread is not about who's an atheist of what degree; it's about atheism being indescribable as a "religion".  Since atheism is simply the absence/rejection of theism, it has no doctrine of its own, and cannot be described as a "religion".



I suggest you read my post explaining the difference between agnosticism and atheism, you might learn something. I doubt it, but more improbable things have happened.


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> Perhaps for the purpose of a legal definition within this challenge (*haven't had a chance to read it yet*) but in terms of English language definitions --- no it is not.
> 
> Cherrypicking court summaries is like taking a preordained conclusion to the Googles to "prove" that Barack O'bama was born in Kenya as Hitler's love child.   I bet I could find a court or legal artifact somewhere to say that a corporation is a person, or that another person is three-fifths of a person.  Try me.
> 
> We speak not of legal definitions here, but actual real life ones.


Your astounding lack of comprehension is beyond comprehension.  You have baffled me!  That you haven't read the court summary is not surprising.  You tend to ignore all but your own misguided opinion...and that of the failed [OP] of this failed thread. 



Pogo said:


> --- Then where is your basis to conclude it's a religion?
> A religion needs a raison d'être.  Where is it?
> I keep asking you that, you admit you don't have one.  So you have no basis.
> 
> 
> 'scuse me one sec...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biased Sample fallacy.
> This "atheist prayer" (to who?  to what?) would have to apply to *all *atheists in order to serve your definition.  It does not.  You're projecting them.
> 
> Thus I run rings around you logically.


What a silly conclusion.  You have displayed a miniscule command of logic thus far.  You continually try to re-inject questions that have been asked and answered...likely due to your reluctance to actually read and understand the material in the cited links.

I said earlier that I am not aware of WHY some atheists have created their own religion complete with the expected trappings of other religions...such as ministers, Sunday school, solicitation of donations...AS I HAVE PROVED HAS HAPPENED.  I suggested (and was backed up by a cited source...a source that you evidently did not read) that the driving force _may_ be a need for the fellowship of like-minded believers (that God does not exist).



Pogo said:


> (quick snip)
> 
> 
> 
> Side note here -- what sort of genuine journalism doesn't know the difference between _its_ and _it's_?


This common mistake (or typographical error) does not detract from the message.  You're grasping at straws to appear logical.



Carla_Danger said:


> He happens to be correct on this issue.


Horse shit!  That is your opinion only.  The video was nothing more than a diatribe created by paid writers of humor for presentation by a pseudo-intellectual, comical pimp for Atheism.  He is the Church Jester!   Cute but not intellectually challenging.

I can tell by your current signature that goofy Bill is your idol.  Could he be an object of your worship?

To wit:  "The next liberal to tell a Republican "You're entitled to an opinion but not your own facts" should really just admit they've never seen Fox News. --Bill Maher"




Pogo said:


> Yeah I was in the mother thread where Astartle never answered me about the Divine Penis.
> It sure is an easy topic.  I gotta do this kind of low hanging fruit more often.
> 
> Until that thread I wasn't aware there was this absurdist revisionism going on.  From your Bill Maher video apparently it's been out there a while.  Weeeird.  Funny, nobody ever did come up with an answer for why they need it to be a "religion".  Or how it could qualify as one.


Again, you revisit issues that have been asked and answered.  I would suggest that you re-read this entire thread to see how silly you look in this most recent post.  I have great difficulty conjuring up a realization of a more well defined idiot than you appear to be.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hollie said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carla is certainly entitled to her faith that God does not exist.
> 
> But she can't prove it, and she knows it.  Pogo, the verbal navigation is simple: since she can't empirically support her claim, it rests on faith.
> 
> 
> 
> False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions. No one needs faith to conclude that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. Similarly, I have no need for faith to conclude that your gods are no more a Human invention than the Greek gods.
> 
> But what is important in the context of this discussion is that there is no reasonable justification for people to insist that the only option for existence is a historically (maybe "hysterically"), recent invention of the currently configured gods.
> 
> And more importantly, there is no rational way of connecting any god so conceived as being connected to any of the sectarian beliefs now running rampant within our species.
> 
> Proffering god(s) is simply the tired old "Argument of the uncaused cause" restated using elementary cosmology. But that doesn't make it any more valid, useful or interesting.
> 
> Because even if we were to accept your faith pronouncement that something "greater than" the universe had to be responsible for its inception (an iffy conclusion at best) it tells us nothing about the nature of that cause.
> 
> It doesn't tell us whether or not it is intelligent, planned, personal, conscious, arbitrary, loving, cruel, or even whether or not it has a "creator" of its own.
> 
> It could be the serial mass murderer of the Judeo-Christian mythology or it could be a completely natural phenomenon.
> 
> Bottom line is that an argument that arbitrarily picks a point on some presumed chain of causality and calls it "Gods" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's sectarian position, and in the armory of theistic apologetics it doesn’t qualify as a pop gun.
Click to expand...


Bottom line, you know or don't know, and since you can't prove God does not exist, 
so it is faith.  Step along, yo.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps for the purpose of a legal definition within this challenge (*haven't had a chance to read it yet*) but in terms of English language definitions --- no it is not.
> 
> Cherrypicking court summaries is like taking a preordained conclusion to the Googles to "prove" that Barack O'bama was born in Kenya as Hitler's love child.   I bet I could find a court or legal artifact somewhere to say that a corporation is a person, or that another person is three-fifths of a person.  Try me.
> 
> We speak not of legal definitions here, but actual real life ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Your astounding lack of comprehension is beyond comprehension.  You have baffled me!  That you haven't read the court summary is not surprising.  You tend to ignore all but your own misguided opinion...and that of the failed [OP] of this failed thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> --- Then where is your basis to conclude it's a religion?
> A religion needs a raison d'être.  Where is it?
> I keep asking you that, you admit you don't have one.  So you have no basis.
> 
> 
> 'scuse me one sec...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biased Sample fallacy.
> This "atheist prayer" (to who?  to what?) would have to apply to *all *atheists in order to serve your definition.  It does not.  You're projecting them.
> 
> Thus I run rings around you logically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What a silly conclusion.  You have displayed a miniscule command of logic thus far.  You continually try to re-inject questions that have been asked and answered...likely due to your reluctance to actually read and understand the material in the cited links.
Click to expand...


It's min*u*scule actually  -- yet I just showed you your biased sample/composition fallacy.  I refer you yet again to the example of why that's a fallacy, Eric Rudolph --  a comparison, like the basis questions, that you have failed to address at all.



asaratis said:


> I said earlier that I am not aware of WHY some atheists have created their own religion complete with the expected trappings of other religions...such as ministers, Sunday school, solicitation of donations...AS I HAVE PROVED HAS HAPPENED.  I suggested (and was backed up by a cited source...a source that you evidently did not read) that the driving force _may_ be a need for the fellowship of like-minded believers (that God does not exist).



Doesn't matter; it's a Biased Sample fallacy.  You can bring the pope of this church to my door for dinner -- it's not going to chase the fallacy away.  Anyone can found their own Church of the Subgenius or Flying Spaghetti Monster -- that doesn't mean they have a "religion".

I refer you again to the Easter Bunny.
Do you "believe" in the Easter Bunny?
Assuming no --- is that non-belief a "religion"?
Of course not.  Exactly the same thing.




asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> (quick snip)
> 
> Side note here -- what sort of genuine journalism doesn't know the difference between _its_ and _it's_?
> 
> 
> 
> This common mistake (or typographical error) does not detract from the message.  You're grasping at straws to appear logical.
Click to expand...


No need to "grasp" -- it jumps off the page.  It's not the kind of gaffe one sees in real journalism.
I didn't even read your link there; I'm suggesting maybe _you_ should.



asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> He happens to be correct on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Horse shit!  That is your opinion only.  The video was nothing more than a diatribe created by paid writers of humor for presentation by a pseudo-intellectual, comical pimp for Atheism.  He is the Church Jester!   Cute but not intellectually challenging.
> 
> I can tell by your current signature that goofy Bill is your idol.  Could he be an object of your worship?
> 
> To wit:  "The next liberal to tell a Republican "You're entitled to an opinion but not your own facts" should really just admit they've never seen Fox News. --Bill Maher"
Click to expand...


We notice that once again you shy away from touching any of his points, and instead go straight to poisoning the well.  Which is another fallacy btw, you're welcome.




asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I was in the mother thread where Astartle never answered me about the Divine Penis.
> It sure is an easy topic.  I gotta do this kind of low hanging fruit more often.
> 
> Until that thread I wasn't aware there was this absurdist revisionism going on.  From your Bill Maher video apparently it's been out there a while.  Weeeird.  Funny, nobody ever did come up with an answer for why they need it to be a "religion".  Or how it could qualify as one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you revisit issues that have been asked and answered.  I would suggest that you re-read this entire thread to see how silly you look in this most recent post.  I have great difficulty conjuring up a realization of a more well defined idiot than you appear to be.
Click to expand...


Ad hom is yet another fallacy.

They have never been answered.  Right above in this very post you've admitted you have no idea of the "why".  Which is perfectly legitimate because false premises _have no_ such answer.  See, the idea is you're supposed to mull over the question, realize there's no possible answer, and then conclude that that's because you were starting from a place that doesn't exist.  Then you come back here and admit you were wrong, we were right, and start paying us those royalty checks.

They told you about those checks, right?


----------



## THE LIGHT

Carla_Danger said:


> That's because you didn't look at the source. You might try reading some actual documents.  Just saying...



I did. Have you? Just sayin...


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:
			
		

> ............  Right above in this very post you've admitted you have no idea of the "why".  Which is perfectly legitimate because false premises _have no_ such answer.  See, the idea is you're supposed to mull over the question, realize there's no possible answer, and then conclude that that's because you were starting from a place that doesn't exist.  Then you come back here and admit you were wrong, we were right, and start paying us those royalty checks.
> 
> They told you about those checks, right?


You misquote me in order to appear correct. I did not say that I have no idea why some atheists have formed a religion.

I said that I am not aware of why....(you might want to look up the meaning of "aware" before you post more foolishness)

That simply means that I do not know for certain why....

Then I went on to say what MAY be the reason.....atheists seek the comfort of like-minded believers.  That's my "idea"....my opinion....subject to be incorrect.  However, whatever the reason, it is true that some atheists have turned Atheism into a religion.

Read back and see what a fool you have been.


This will be my final post in this failed thread. You may claim victory until hell freezes over, pigs fly or Jesus returns....I care not what you say.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ............  Right above in this very post you've admitted you have no idea of the "why".  Which is perfectly legitimate because false premises _have no_ such answer.  See, the idea is you're supposed to mull over the question, realize there's no possible answer, and then conclude that that's because you were starting from a place that doesn't exist.  Then you come back here and admit you were wrong, we were right, and start paying us those royalty checks.
> 
> They told you about those checks, right?
> 
> 
> 
> You misquote me in order to appear correct. I did not say that I have no idea why some atheists have formed a religion.
> 
> I said that I am not aware of why....(you might want to look up the meaning of "aware" before you post more foolishness)
> 
> That simply means that I do not know for certain why....
> 
> Then I went on to say what MAY be the reason.....atheists seek the comfort of like-minded believers.  That's my "idea"....my opinion....subject to be incorrect.  However, whatever the reason, it is true that some atheists have turned Atheism into a religion.
> 
> Read back and see what a fool you have been.
> 
> 
> This will be my final post in this failed thread. You may claim victory until hell freezes over, pigs fly or Jesus returns....I care not what you say.
Click to expand...


I'm hip.
But without knowing the "what's in it for them" question -- you have no _bridge _to your conclusion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Most folks seek comfort from similar folks: that's natural.

Atheists seek atheists, religionists seek religionists, because faith believers in both groups do not know the fact, they only believe in their hopes.


----------



## Hollie

JakeStarkey said:


> Most folks seek comfort from similar folks: that's natural.
> 
> Atheists seek atheists, religionists seek religionists, because faith believers in both groups do not know the fact, they only believe in their hopes.


You continue to further the falsehood that rejecting belief in supernatural entities is a faith. You appear desperate to equate rationality and reason with religious belief (belief in the supernatural), for the purpose of somehow bolstering your partisan gods.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hollie, your denial is the falsehood.

You believe that God does not exist, and thus hoisted on your own petard.

But since you can't prove it, your denial means nothing.


----------



## Hollie

JakeStarkey said:


> Hollie, your denial is the falsehood.
> 
> You believe that God does not exist, and thus hoisted on your own petard.
> 
> But since you can't prove it, your denial means nothing.


False. Gods are easily disproved. But since you can't disprove my disproof, your denials mean nothing.


----------



## amrchaos

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]




That would be the EASIEST religion to run!!

A one page "Statement of Faith", thus no need to read large ponderous and boring tomes of literature incorporating opinions of individuals that could be wrong based but useful for the church.

No restrictions besides upholding the "Statement of Faith", which could be shorter than the Preamble to the  US constitution.

Also, no reason for Donations, Which brings us to the question:


*How could an Atheist church file for tax exemption if it has no means of generating income?*

Think about it.  Where is this "Golden Egg-laying" Goose of the atheist that the other cults have?  Charity for Christians.  The "Tech" for Scientologist.  Hell, even Buddhists and Hindi's run meditation/yoga retreats for their members.

Where is the Atheist Cash Cow?  What "Profit" does the Atheistic clergy makes in spreading it?

Actual Truth is profitless and time consuming and doesn't require special "intuitive" literature t acquire, if it can be.  Where's the BS in Atheism that gets the Money Ball rolling?

No Money--No Tax exemption.  The IRS should fine you for wasting their time!!


----------



## Carla_Danger




----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> I'm hip.
> But without knowing the "what's in it for them" question -- you have no _bridge _to your conclusion.



WTF?

Why do you think he needs a bridge, whatever the fuck you think that means, when you are trying to walk on air, and he clearly explained why he thinks they are doing it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> False. Gods are easily disproved. But since you can't disprove my disproof, your denials mean nothing.



If you could prove that god does not exist you would be famous as the first person in history to prove something that is impossible to prove. Since you arent, you can't really prove anything, despite your faith that you can.


----------



## Uncensored2008

HUGGY said:


> I deal with worthless scum every day and night.  You are nothing special.
> 
> You are just looking for attention...I get it.
> 
> Sometimes ignorant assholes attempt to get attention and find they have opened a door they wish they hadn't.
> 
> Mad?  Your stupid uneducated insults only serve to underline why you are dumb enough to be a Christian.  Mad?  Just more aware of what you are.  Thanks for the heads up.



I do love a good meltdown in the morning...


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Alcoholics Anonymous is a religion as well. A cult actually. Yoga too, it's a part of Hinduism hence Christian Yoga, Jewish Yoga as you may have seen. 

Atheism is a religion as well. Defined collection of beliefs is about all it takes. Don't need theism to be a religion. Scientology is technically a pyramid scam yet is considered in law to be a religion.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Delta4Embassy said:


> Alcoholics Anonymous is a religion as well. A cult actually. Yoga too, it's a part of Hinduism hence Christian Yoga, Jewish Yoga as you may have seen.
> 
> Atheism is a religion as well. Defined collection of beliefs is about all it takes. Don't need theism to be a religion. Scientology is technically a pyramid scam yet is considered in law to be a religion.





I wouldn't consider AA a religion, since your higher power can be a rock.  The majority of people who attend AA might be Christian, but that doesn't mean AA IS a religion. It's a support group for recovering alcoholics. You are not required to believe in God to attend.

And yoga by itself is not a religion, therefore, people who are simply going for fitness/health, are not a involved in the religious aspect. Furthermore, I believe in yoga class.  I've done yoga.  I've had friends in yoga.

Everyone has a collection of beliefs.  Again, we're back to the "do you believe in Bigfoot?"






See, someone took the time to write a book about all the sightings since 1818. I haven't seen Bigfoot and neither have you.  No one I personally know has ever seen Bigfoot, therefore I do no believe Bigfoot exists.

IS THAT A FREAKING RELIGION?


----------



## Carla_Danger

Why Atheism is not a Religion - YouTube


----------



## HUGGY

JakeStarkey said:


> Most folks seek comfort from similar folks: that's natural.
> 
> Atheists seek atheists, religionists seek religionists, because faith believers in both groups do not know the fact, they only believe in their hopes.


 
I can't speak for any other atheists but I don't seek or desire to seek other atheists for any comfort.  That goes to the heart of the reason why atheism isn't a religion in my book.  I don't need verification of the obvious stupidity in believing in magical answers to the reasons we have evolved to this point in the human existance and the presence of our physical environment.  I see no need for anyone to co-sign the obvious.

ALL other so-called human enlightenment such as religion needs peer preasure to sustain these philosophies.  Nobody would be born in the wilderness and raised by wolves and come to the rediculous conclusions that groups of human beings come up with.  Free from the power seekers and those susceptable to the fears planted in their heads by lunatics a man truly left to his own devices would never out of the blue believe in a sky fairy. 

Societal living has many advantages but there are many pifalls too.  There is ALWAYS a power structure to enforce the status of those that came before and to ensure they remain in power.  Part of that power structure is the passing on and enforcement of belief systems and how the young must accept the structure's dogma or face the threat of rejection or even in extreme religions death.

This has been the history of religion.  Religion does not tolorate question of it's authority to dictate truth or factuality.  It cannot.  It MUST defend it's myths. 

Atheists do not have such need to defend one's own observations to a fault.  An atheist is free to weigh and accept facts or reject facts found wanting as they come and learn as time goes on and find that something once held is found to be replaced by a better understanding.  It isn't that the atheist is/was wrong  neccesarily but not everything is easily understood at first glance.  These are all personal reflections and require no group authority to process.  That is partially or even mainly why I cannot accept atheism as a religion.  It is also mainly why religists cannot understand that viewpoint as they are trained from birth to pass all thought through the group for verification that it does not offend the power structure.

Atheism is not a religion simply because there is no need for it to be one.

Theism HAS to be a religion because it wouldn't exist without humans convincing each other in the existance of the unbelievable.


----------



## emilynghiem

Touhanks Pogo. How I think the comparison with Constitutionalism can help
is to show WHEN it gets religious and WHEN it stay secular and universal.

both are based on natural laws.

So we can ask how so secular philosophies or systems of thoughts,
based on secular/natural laws, either act or are PERCEIVED as religions,
and what makes them count as NOT so?

I find the same things make a distinction between if someone (like me, included)
makes a RELIGION out of their Constitutional beliefs or keeps them secular and not
collectively expressed or imposed as a body of members that can be labeled.

I am personally studying this phenomenon myself.

What makes something a religion?

Some factors I find:
1. the act of EMBODYING that law by conscience, where you enforce it with
your thoughts, words and actions CONSCIOUSLY as your beliefs.

One friend of mine had a secular humanist philosophy of
* Respect for Truth
* Respect for Freedom
* Respect for People and the Environment
I told him this was like his own personal secular equivalent of the Trinity.
If he adopts this as his faith, his belief that he lives by,
and enforces and defends it religiously, then it can become like his religion.

2. How it is perceived in relation with "other people's beliefs or religions"
Regardless if we do not think we have a religion (just like Hindus or Buddhists
may say they are not following a religion, but just following natural laws that
already exist; or Christians will say they are following universal laws and not
a religion made up by man) as long as OTHER people label and perceive
it as a religion (as is done with Hinduism) then by THEIR context,
(not necessarily ours) it DOES constitute a religion. That is their way not ours.

Just like I have a Wicca friend who understands me as a White Witch.
That is clearly her system, not mine. but I am not going to argue I am not
that thing. If that is what I am in her system, I accept that.

To some people I am an Angel or a Buddha, to others a Demon or even
a Bugs Bunny character from another planet sent here for entertainment.
I am labeled a Conservative and Not a Democrat, and all kinds of things.

Some of this is for the convenience and concepts of OTHER people.

3. If people identify as a group among likeminded people who believe the same,
and connect on a SPIRITUAL level that has an identity of its own.

I don't mean collecting around golf or science and that automatically becomes a religion.

I mean like really bonding and finding direction and development
within a community that serves as the equivalent of a "church" for "fellowship"
and spiritual growth. 

So whatever grouping or tribal identity that links you on this level with others
of that same "tribe" that is the equivalent of how religions serve to organize people by 
identity for managing representation and resources among that common grouping.

Does any of that apply to what will answer the questions brought up?

There is both a literal definition and traditional sense of religion,
so of course, atheism does not fit that any more than Constitutionalism does
or liberalism, conservatism, and other beliefs not considered an "organized religion"

But there is a functional sense of religion, where there is
internal relations going on spiritually between members who relate to the same approach to natural laws and science
to understand and develop paths in life; and externally between how groups label and perceive each other.

To prevent fights, I would suggest address the three levels separately:
1. traditional meanings and organized religions that we recognize
2. internal functions of religions that atheism substitutes for and still serves
3. external labels and perceptions from outside groups that define what is perceived or called a religion



Pogo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear POGO : i tried to cite your post about if Atheism is a religion, then who FOUNDED it?
> (but this website is posting ads and downloading cookies triggering my firewall program to block the page)
> 
> Can I answer this way by giving an example of how Hinduism is also considered
> not a religion but an expression of spiritual teachings that were already in existence and just passed
> down until they were written down and given a name:
> 
> "*Hinduism is a collective term applied to the many philosophical and religious traditions native to India. Hinduism has neither a specific moment of origin nor a specific founder. Rather, the tradition understands itself to be timeless, having always existed.*" Hinduism Origins Hinduism History Hinduism Beliefs
> 
> Thus the view of "Hinduism as a religion" is mostly imposed from the outside.
> Same with views of Atheism and Constitutionalism.
> 
> Who founded Constitutionalism? These came from natural laws, that no man invented.
> They were debated and written down in books from Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, etc etc.
> and ended up as the influence that went into the Constitution and Amendments that WERE written down
> by specific leaders. But still many will say these laws were Given by God and not made by man.
> 
> NOTE: As for not believing in God
> Do you believe in Life or Love? Wisdom or Truth?
> if you substitute that for God then you believe in THAT.
> So what we are arguing about is the meaning or definition of God we do or do not believe in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Emily -- nice to see you here in the new playground.  Forgive me if the post material I edited out below was relevant - it didn't look like it.
> 
> The question about "who founded it" was just a little test to see how the poster would handle it.  I know a religion doesn't need a founder.  I pointed out earlier that religion is not the same as theism, lest we conflate the two, indeed everybody in history has some sort of religion but not everybody has theism.  Taoism is another example.
> 
> On Constitutionalism, it's probably going to be counterproductive to muddy these waters with political philosophies.  We've already wandered more than once into the question of whether God(s) exist, which is not the topic.  The thread is simply about the definition of "atheism", as a result of another thread where one poster here kept trying to make the case that it is a "religion".
> 
> And that's where we are.
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

Blackrook said:


> Why do atheists get so upset if you call their set of beliefs about God and the supernatural "religion."
> 
> I mean, what do they lose if atheism is considered a "religion"?
> 
> Why are they manning these ramparts so furiously?



Dear Blackrook: It depends if you represent this in public in some derogatory way.
if you are saying this to try to argue Atheists are hypocrites for pushing their own beliefs, 
of course that is going to get a negative reaction because of the motive for saying that.

There is a growing movement of Atheists forming their own church congregations
and doing all the same sharing and fellowship, but without referring to God and deities etc.

My friend told me he looked this up, and one of the founding Atheists who was establishing
such congregations got a letter complaining from some other Atheist group that this was
wrong; he wasn't practicing Atheism the right way, but making the same thing out of it they were trying to avoid, I guess!

So not all Atheists are like you say.
Some acknowledge they have their own beliefs, and yes they do get criticized by other Atheists opposed to religion.


----------



## emilynghiem

HUGGY said:


> Atheism is not a religion simply because there is no need for it to be one.
> 
> Theism HAS to be a religion because it wouldn't exist without humans convincing each other in the existance of the unbelievable.



then Buddhism and Hinduism don't need to be religions either.
1. There is no need for them to be religions, because they are still practiced and taught the same way.
Where many practictioners don't consider these to be religions, but just spiritual laws that naturally exist.
2. Buddhism and Hinduism do not require people to convince each other of this
in order to exist. In Buddhism the emphasis is on "independent investigation"
and has been compared with the "scientific method" of 
a. seeking to understand what is the hypothesis or possible truth in a situation to be understood
b. testing and studying the theory or process
c. finding and confirming an answer or solution
d. applying that solution to resolve an issue or conflict for learning and growth

With Greek ethics, Constitutional laws, Buddhist teachings, Atheist or secular humanity philosophy
about natural laws on peace and justice for all humanity, we don't need to make religions out of these.

I agree with you. But that doesn't mean people DON'T make religions out of them.

My mother preaches about Buddhism and doesn't think she is being religious
but just speaking the truth. And how does the Christian feel who is just sharing God's truth
and told "no thanks, that's your religion not mine" My mother can see when Christians do this
but can't see when she does it.

I can get VERY preachy and fundie when it comes to Constitutionalism so I figured out that must be my religion.
I just happen to be very Universalist/Inclusive about it, and  try to include both the liberal prochoice extremes
and the conservative prolife and progun sides equally; and now learning what is going on with libertarians
that practice both prochoice and progun beliefs as part of their Constitutionalism.

I understand my beliefs about natural laws can come across as religious.

And likewise when I work with people in a neutral context, it can be completely secular, too.


----------



## Pogo

emilynghiem said:


> Touhanks Pogo. How I think the comparison with Constitutionalism can help
> is to show WHEN it gets religious and WHEN it stay secular and universal.
> 
> both are based on natural laws.
> 
> So we can ask how so secular philosophies or systems of thoughts,
> based on secular/natural laws, either act or are PERCEIVED as religions,
> and what makes them count as NOT so?
> 
> I find the same things make a distinction between if someone (like me, included)
> makes a RELIGION out of their Constitutional beliefs or keeps them secular and not
> collectively expressed or imposed as a body of members that can be labeled.
> 
> I am personally studying this phenomenon myself.
> 
> What makes something a religion?
> 
> Some factors I find:
> 1. the act of EMBODYING that law by conscience, where you enforce it with
> your thoughts, words and actions CONSCIOUSLY as your beliefs.
> 
> One friend of mine had a secular humanist philosophy of
> * Respect for Truth
> * Respect for Freedom
> * Respect for People and the Environment
> I told him this was like his own personal secular equivalent of the Trinity.
> If he adopts this as his faith, his belief that he lives by,
> and enforces and defends it religiously, then it can become like his religion.
> 
> 2. How it is perceived in relation with "other people's beliefs or religions"
> Regardless if we do not think we have a religion (just like Hindus or Buddhists
> may say they are not following a religion, but just following natural laws that
> already exist; or Christians will say they are following universal laws and not
> a religion made up by man) as long as OTHER people label and perceive
> it as a religion (as is done with Hinduism) then by THEIR context,
> (not necessarily ours) it DOES constitute a religion. That is their way not ours.
> 
> Just like I have a Wicca friend who understands me as a White Witch.
> That is clearly her system, not mine. but I am not going to argue I am not
> that thing. If that is what I am in her system, I accept that.
> 
> To some people I am an Angel or a Buddha, to others a Demon or even
> a Bugs Bunny character from another planet sent here for entertainment.
> I am labeled a Conservative and Not a Democrat, and all kinds of things.
> 
> Some of this is for the convenience and concepts of OTHER people.
> 
> 3. If people identify as a group among likeminded people who believe the same,
> and connect on a SPIRITUAL level that has an identity of its own.
> 
> I don't mean collecting around golf or science and that automatically becomes a religion.
> 
> I mean like really bonding and finding direction and development
> within a community that serves as the equivalent of a "church" for "fellowship"
> and spiritual growth.
> 
> So whatever grouping or tribal identity that links you on this level with others
> of that same "tribe" that is the equivalent of how religions serve to organize people by
> identity for managing representation and resources among that common grouping.
> 
> Does any of that apply to what will answer the questions brought up?
> 
> There is both a literal definition and traditional sense of religion,
> so of course, atheism does not fit that any more than Constitutionalism does
> or liberalism, conservatism, and other beliefs not considered an "organized religion"
> 
> But there is a functional sense of religion, where there is
> internal relations going on spiritually between members who relate to the same approach to natural laws and science
> to understand and develop paths in life; and externally between how groups label and perceive each other.
> 
> To prevent fights, I would suggest address the three levels separately:
> 1. traditional meanings and organized religions that we recognize
> 2. internal functions of religions that atheism substitutes for and still serves
> 3. external labels and perceptions from outside groups that define what is perceived or called a religion
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear POGO : i tried to cite your post about if Atheism is a religion, then who FOUNDED it?
> (but this website is posting ads and downloading cookies triggering my firewall program to block the page)
> 
> Can I answer this way by giving an example of how Hinduism is also considered
> not a religion but an expression of spiritual teachings that were already in existence and just passed
> down until they were written down and given a name:
> 
> "*Hinduism is a collective term applied to the many philosophical and religious traditions native to India. Hinduism has neither a specific moment of origin nor a specific founder. Rather, the tradition understands itself to be timeless, having always existed.*" Hinduism Origins Hinduism History Hinduism Beliefs
> 
> Thus the view of "Hinduism as a religion" is mostly imposed from the outside.
> Same with views of Atheism and Constitutionalism.
> 
> Who founded Constitutionalism? These came from natural laws, that no man invented.
> They were debated and written down in books from Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, etc etc.
> and ended up as the influence that went into the Constitution and Amendments that WERE written down
> by specific leaders. But still many will say these laws were Given by God and not made by man.
> 
> NOTE: As for not believing in God
> Do you believe in Life or Love? Wisdom or Truth?
> if you substitute that for God then you believe in THAT.
> So what we are arguing about is the meaning or definition of God we do or do not believe in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Emily -- nice to see you here in the new playground.  Forgive me if the post material I edited out below was relevant - it didn't look like it.
> 
> The question about "who founded it" was just a little test to see how the poster would handle it.  I know a religion doesn't need a founder.  I pointed out earlier that religion is not the same as theism, lest we conflate the two, indeed everybody in history has some sort of religion but not everybody has theism.  Taoism is another example.
> 
> On Constitutionalism, it's probably going to be counterproductive to muddy these waters with political philosophies.  We've already wandered more than once into the question of whether God(s) exist, which is not the topic.  The thread is simply about the definition of "atheism", as a result of another thread where one poster here kept trying to make the case that it is a "religion".
> 
> And that's where we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Hi Emily -- quick post, not much time to burn for the moment but I think you're taking an overly broad definition of "religion" here, seeming to include simple general philosophies and/or moral guidelines on how to live one's life.

When I was a child I read some kid's book that related (whether it was true or not is unimportant) an Indian teaching that said, when you die and are called to account, the question asked of you is, "how many people were made happier because you were born?"  While I thought that was profound and took it to heart as a life guideline, I don't consider it a "religion" -- it's more along the lines of what I think you're describing above.

I believe religion is meant to address (since it cannot definitively "answer") the greater deeper mystery questions of the natural and particularly the supernatural worlds that are our environment.  The nature of the universe, the meaning, the forces that make them tick.  The nature of creation, the antiquity of creation, the nature of the spirit, where that spirit comes from, what it's made of and what happens to it when we die.  I don't believe Constitutionalism or general life-attitude philosophies of the worldly and the immediate present address those deeper mysteries.

Nor does atheism, which is another reason it's not a religion.  Any given religion, whether one accepts it or not personally, has to offer some sort of response to these questions (and not just say, "no, that approach over there doesn't work", which is what atheism is).


----------



## emilynghiem

Where do YOU get that religion has to ask or answer questions about these particular things?

* Buddhism does not claim to teach where the world or life came from.
Just to explain the natural spiritual laws that already exist.
* Science seeks to put natural laws into formulas, patterns and words to establish understanding and share with others.
* Constitutionalism put principles into statutory laws so these could be use for governance and democratic process and development.

Buddhism becomes a religion when people divide into groups and perceive their beliefs are different.
Constitutionalism becomes a religion when people try to enforce laws by natural authority and find disagreements
they attribute to differences in beliefs.

Secular humanism and liberalism become religions for similar reasons.

I don't get why you keep saying Atheism doesn't meet the same terms of religion,
when Buddhism doesn't either. And Buddhism is perceived as a religion even though its members will say it isn't either.

Is it because you can blame Buddhism as being focused on "worshipping" Buddha that you can label it religion?
Or say Hinduism is "worshipping" god figures that you can label it religion?

Not all people who call themselves Buddhist or Hindu worship anything outside themselves.
How are they any different from Atheists who do or who do not come across as religious to others?

In general, I would classify groups in the population as "Secular Gentiles" who follow natural laws.
And say this group INCLUDES Atheists, nontheists, Buddhists, secular humanists, Constitutionalists,
peace and justice activists, etc. who may believe in Truth, Justice and Peace but just not use symbols to express it.
They worship these principles in different ways that according to you should not count as religions.

That's fine but remember to treat other people the same way, like Buddhists Hindus and Christians who
also say they are following Spiritual Laws that naturally exist and are not worshipping any THING as a Religion.



Pogo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Touhanks Pogo. How I think the comparison with Constitutionalism can help
> is to show WHEN it gets religious and WHEN it stay secular and universal.
> 
> both are based on natural laws.
> 
> So we can ask how so secular philosophies or systems of thoughts,
> based on secular/natural laws, either act or are PERCEIVED as religions,
> and what makes them count as NOT so?
> 
> I find the same things make a distinction between if someone (like me, included)
> makes a RELIGION out of their Constitutional beliefs or keeps them secular and not
> collectively expressed or imposed as a body of members that can be labeled.
> 
> I am personally studying this phenomenon myself.
> 
> What makes something a religion?
> 
> Some factors I find:
> 1. the act of EMBODYING that law by conscience, where you enforce it with
> your thoughts, words and actions CONSCIOUSLY as your beliefs.
> 
> One friend of mine had a secular humanist philosophy of
> * Respect for Truth
> * Respect for Freedom
> * Respect for People and the Environment
> I told him this was like his own personal secular equivalent of the Trinity.
> If he adopts this as his faith, his belief that he lives by,
> and enforces and defends it religiously, then it can become like his religion.
> 
> 2. How it is perceived in relation with "other people's beliefs or religions"
> Regardless if we do not think we have a religion (just like Hindus or Buddhists
> may say they are not following a religion, but just following natural laws that
> already exist; or Christians will say they are following universal laws and not
> a religion made up by man) as long as OTHER people label and perceive
> it as a religion (as is done with Hinduism) then by THEIR context,
> (not necessarily ours) it DOES constitute a religion. That is their way not ours.
> 
> Just like I have a Wicca friend who understands me as a White Witch.
> That is clearly her system, not mine. but I am not going to argue I am not
> that thing. If that is what I am in her system, I accept that.
> 
> To some people I am an Angel or a Buddha, to others a Demon or even
> a Bugs Bunny character from another planet sent here for entertainment.
> I am labeled a Conservative and Not a Democrat, and all kinds of things.
> 
> Some of this is for the convenience and concepts of OTHER people.
> 
> 3. If people identify as a group among likeminded people who believe the same,
> and connect on a SPIRITUAL level that has an identity of its own.
> 
> I don't mean collecting around golf or science and that automatically becomes a religion.
> 
> I mean like really bonding and finding direction and development
> within a community that serves as the equivalent of a "church" for "fellowship"
> and spiritual growth.
> 
> So whatever grouping or tribal identity that links you on this level with others
> of that same "tribe" that is the equivalent of how religions serve to organize people by
> identity for managing representation and resources among that common grouping.
> 
> Does any of that apply to what will answer the questions brought up?
> 
> There is both a literal definition and traditional sense of religion,
> so of course, atheism does not fit that any more than Constitutionalism does
> or liberalism, conservatism, and other beliefs not considered an "organized religion"
> 
> But there is a functional sense of religion, where there is
> internal relations going on spiritually between members who relate to the same approach to natural laws and science
> to understand and develop paths in life; and externally between how groups label and perceive each other.
> 
> To prevent fights, I would suggest address the three levels separately:
> 1. traditional meanings and organized religions that we recognize
> 2. internal functions of religions that atheism substitutes for and still serves
> 3. external labels and perceptions from outside groups that define what is perceived or called a religion
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear POGO : i tried to cite your post about if Atheism is a religion, then who FOUNDED it?
> (but this website is posting ads and downloading cookies triggering my firewall program to block the page)
> 
> Can I answer this way by giving an example of how Hinduism is also considered
> not a religion but an expression of spiritual teachings that were already in existence and just passed
> down until they were written down and given a name:
> 
> "*Hinduism is a collective term applied to the many philosophical and religious traditions native to India. Hinduism has neither a specific moment of origin nor a specific founder. Rather, the tradition understands itself to be timeless, having always existed.*" Hinduism Origins Hinduism History Hinduism Beliefs
> 
> Thus the view of "Hinduism as a religion" is mostly imposed from the outside.
> Same with views of Atheism and Constitutionalism.
> 
> Who founded Constitutionalism? These came from natural laws, that no man invented.
> They were debated and written down in books from Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, etc etc.
> and ended up as the influence that went into the Constitution and Amendments that WERE written down
> by specific leaders. But still many will say these laws were Given by God and not made by man.
> 
> NOTE: As for not believing in God
> Do you believe in Life or Love? Wisdom or Truth?
> if you substitute that for God then you believe in THAT.
> So what we are arguing about is the meaning or definition of God we do or do not believe in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Emily -- nice to see you here in the new playground.  Forgive me if the post material I edited out below was relevant - it didn't look like it.
> 
> The question about "who founded it" was just a little test to see how the poster would handle it.  I know a religion doesn't need a founder.  I pointed out earlier that religion is not the same as theism, lest we conflate the two, indeed everybody in history has some sort of religion but not everybody has theism.  Taoism is another example.
> 
> On Constitutionalism, it's probably going to be counterproductive to muddy these waters with political philosophies.  We've already wandered more than once into the question of whether God(s) exist, which is not the topic.  The thread is simply about the definition of "atheism", as a result of another thread where one poster here kept trying to make the case that it is a "religion".
> 
> And that's where we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Emily -- quick post, not much time to burn for the moment but I think you're taking an overly broad definition of "religion" here, seeming to include simple general philosophies and/or moral guidelines on how to live one's life.
> 
> When I was a child I read some kid's book that related (whether it was true or not is unimportant) an Indian teaching that said, when you die and are called to account, the question asked of you is, "how many people were made happier because you were born?"  While I thought that was profound and took it to heart as a life guideline, I don't consider it a "religion" -- it's more along the lines of what I think you're describing above.
> 
> I believe religion is meant to address (since it cannot definitively "answer") the greater deeper mystery questions of the natural and particularly the supernatural worlds that are our environment.  The nature of the universe, the meaning, the forces that make them tick.  The nature of creation, the antiquity of creation, the nature of the spirit, where that spirit comes from, what it's made of and what happens to it when we die.  I don't believe Constitutionalism or general life-attitude philosophies of the worldly and the immediate present address those deeper mysteries.
> 
> Nor does atheism, which is another reason it's not a religion.  Any given religion, whether one accepts it or not personally, has to offer some sort of response to these questions (and not just say, "no, that approach over there doesn't work", which is what atheism is).
Click to expand...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> I wouldn't consider AA a religion, since your higher power can be a rock.  The majority of people who attend AA might be Christian, but that doesn't mean AA IS a religion. It's a support group for recovering alcoholics. You are not required to believe in God to attend.
> 
> And yoga by itself is not a religion, therefore, people who are simply going for fitness/health, are not a involved in the religious aspect. Furthermore, I believe in yoga class.  I've done yoga.  I've had friends in yoga.
> 
> Everyone has a collection of beliefs.  Again, we're back to the "do you believe in Bigfoot?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, someone took the time to write a book about all the sightings since 1818. I haven't seen Bigfoot and neither have you.  No one I personally know has ever seen Bigfoot, therefore I do no believe Bigfoot exists.
> 
> IS THAT A FREAKING RELIGION?



Probably not, but it could be, if people wanted to make it one. I think your problem is that you want to define religion in a way that excludes your beliefs. Life doesn't work that way.

By the way, what do you think of spiritual atheists?


----------



## emilynghiem

Carla_Danger said:


> *Isn’t atheism a religion?*
> Sure. And not smoking is a habit.
> 
> The Thinking Atheist - FAQ



Am I the ONLY one here who recognizes you CAN make a religion out of it but it is NOT NECESSARILY
true or false for all people; it depends on the circumstances?

Some people make Buddhism and Christianity their religion;
I use these as languages, the same way I would use science to interact with scientists
or music to interact with musicians.  This does not make any of these my religion.
But to some, YES, they make religions out of them!
It is not either/or but "it depends on the person and how they are using that thing"

Same with Atheism, Constitutionalism, making religion out of science
or out of your work ethic.

As for smoking or nonsmoking.
Some people DO smoke as a habit and some people do not.
Some people DO make it some ritual or condition NOT to smoke
and some people don't treat it like that.

Can someone PLEASE explain to me what is the NAME for this
RITUAL of dividing everything into A. it has to be  this way or
B. it has to be this other way, and arguing the other way is wrong.

Is this called polarizing the issue? Politicizing it?

Is this some practice or belief I should know about?
Does it have a formal name? Is this a religious practice?

If it is so common that people from all religious or a-religious
views practice it, then is it human psychology to divide issues in conflict?

If my beliefs are different, does it mean I am the one with
a different religion than all the other people who believe in
dividing questions into sides and insisting only one has to be right for all cases?

If that isn't a religion then why are so many people practicing it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Hi Emily -- nice to see you here in the new playground.  Forgive me if the post material I edited out below was relevant - it didn't look like it.
> 
> The question about "who founded it" was just a little test to see how the poster would handle it.  I know a religion doesn't need a founder.  I pointed out earlier that religion is not the same as theism, lest we conflate the two, indeed everybody in history has some sort of religion but not everybody has theism.  Taoism is another example.
> 
> On Constitutionalism, it's probably going to be counterproductive to muddy these waters with political philosophies.  We've already wandered more than once into the question of whether God(s) exist, which is not the topic.  The thread is simply about the definition of "atheism", as a result of another thread where one poster here kept trying to make the case that it is a "religion".
> 
> And that's where we are.
> 
> Hi Emily -- quick post, not much time to burn for the moment but I think you're taking an overly broad definition of "religion" here, seeming to include simple general philosophies and/or moral guidelines on how to live one's life.
> 
> When I was a child I read some kid's book that related (whether it was true or not is unimportant) an Indian teaching that said, when you die and are called to account, the question asked of you is, "how many people were made happier because you were born?"  While I thought that was profound and took it to heart as a life guideline, I don't consider it a "religion" -- it's more along the lines of what I think you're describing above.
> 
> I believe religion is meant to address (since it cannot definitively "answer") the greater deeper mystery questions of the natural and particularly the supernatural worlds that are our environment.  The nature of the universe, the meaning, the forces that make them tick.  The nature of creation, the antiquity of creation, the nature of the spirit, where that spirit comes from, what it's made of and what happens to it when we die.  I don't believe Constitutionalism or general life-attitude philosophies of the worldly and the immediate present address those deeper mysteries.
> 
> Nor does atheism, which is another reason it's not a religion.  Any given religion, whether one accepts it or not personally, has to offer some sort of response to these questions (and not just say, "no, that approach over there doesn't work", which is what atheism is).



Why does religion have to address those issue? What makes you the worlds authority on religion? Why do none of your arguments for what makes a religion appear anywhere outside your posts?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Don't like 'atheism' or 'religion', folks?

Talk about belief systems without a foundation of empirical data, yo.


----------



## PratchettFan

HUGGY said:


> Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?
> 
> We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.
> 
> We don't have anything like a bible.
> 
> We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.
> 
> We have no myths to defend.
> 
> we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing  to some made up tenents.
> 
> If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.
> 
> You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life.  I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.



The myth which is being so vehemently defended is that Atheists have no beliefs.  I have no need to label Atheists, but they have this desperate desire to pretend their position is not based upon belief.  Once belief overshadow reality, where reality is being denied in favor of the belief, then you are in the arena of religion.  It isn't about labels, it is about actions.

You said you actively try to convince people about the truth.  Your "truth" is based solely upon belief.  So now we have an example of proselytizing as well as faith overshadowing reality.  Faith, dogma and proselytizing.  I ask again, how is that not religion?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Carla_Danger said:


> You're on the wrong thread, with your communist and Obama BS.



The sign above the door CLEARLY states "Poking Huggy with a sharp stick welcome!"


----------



## Uncensored2008

Hollie said:


> False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.



Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.

What about this fact do you not grasp?


----------



## asaratis

HUGGY said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most folks seek comfort from similar folks: that's natural.
> 
> Atheists seek atheists, religionists seek religionists, because faith believers in both groups do not know the fact, they only believe in their hopes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for any other atheists but I don't seek or desire to seek other atheists for any comfort.  That goes to the heart of the reason why atheism isn't a religion in my book.
> 
> .....
Click to expand...

 That you do not seek comfort from other atheists does not mean that other atheists have not formed a religious group for that or any other purpose.  You are simply choosing to not be religious....just as many Jews choose not to practice, many Baptists choose not to go to church...they (and you) are simply choosing not to be religious.  That does not mean that their religion is non-existent.  I suspect there are many other atheists that do not practice the religion of Atheism that is now available too them.

The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions.



			
				huggy said:
			
		

> ........
> 
> Atheism is not a religion simply because there is no need for it to be one.
> 
> 
> ......


Perhaps not for you and many other atheists.  However, for many others there was a need...and they fulfilled their need by forming churches...Atheist churches.  Should you ever choose to join them, I'm sure they would welcome you with open arms.  They seek the comfort of like-minded individuals such as you.

BTW, there are many Christians that believe in God but hold that the Bible should not be taken literally.  Many believe in evolution instead of the Garden of Eden and the 6 day creation of all things.  I contend that as early humankind became curious about where they and all things around them came from, stories that could be understood came about....as the concepts of geological time and evolution were hundreds of generations away from being discovered.  

Here's a partial list of advertizements for atheist participation.  I've already posted the websites of several Atheist churches. 

http://www.search.ask.com/web?l=dis...13350:src=ffb:o=APN10645&p2=^AG6^BND406^YY^US


Richard Dawkins calls it Pantheism...rather than Atheism.  Either way, it has all of the trappings other religions except for a supernatural deity.
Pantheism as Sexed-up Atheism World Pantheism



> Richard Dawkins, in his book _The God Delusion_, has described Pantheism as "sexed-up atheism." That may seem flippant, but it is accurate. Of all religious or spiritual traditions, Pantheism - the approach of Einstein, Hawking and many other scientists - is the only one that passes the muster of the world's most militant atheist.
> 
> So what's the difference between Atheism and Pantheism? As far as disbelief in supernatural beings, forces or realms, there is no difference. World Pantheism also shares the respect for evidence, science, and logic that's typical of atheism.
> 
> However, Pantheism goes further, and adds to atheism an embracing, positive and reverential feeling about our lives on planet Earth, our place in Nature and the wider Universe, and uses nature as our basis for dealing with stress, grief and bereavement. It's a form of spirituality that is totally compatible with science. Indeed, since science is our best way of exploring the Universe, respect for the scientific method and fascination with the discoveries of science are an integral part of World Pantheism.
> 
> *If you are looking for atheist groups or freethought groups or brights groups and email lists, and if you would like ones that do a lot more than just attack religion, then you may well find World Pantheism the place you were looking for.*
> 
> *Why go beyond straight atheism?*
> Does atheism need sexing up? As such, atheism answers only a single question: is there a creator God, or not? That's an important question, but if your answer is "no" it is only a starting point. You may have reached that viewpoint based on your respect for logic, evidence and science, and those too are vital values. Yet after you've reached that initial "no God" answer, all the other important questions in life, all the options for mental and emotional wholeness and social and environmental harmony, remain open.
> 
> *If atheism, humanism and naturalism are to advance, then they need approaches that don't simply leave the individual alone in the face of an increasingly threatening physical, social and international environment. They need ways of life that offer as rich a range of benefits as traditional religious ones.*
> 
> Atheism is advancing. Growing numbers of people, across almost all nations, declare themselves to be non-religious or atheistic. Atheistic books on religion, like those of Dawkins, Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens, are best-sellers.
> 
> *But so far atheism and atheist groups have focused on attacking conventional religions, especially the Western theistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.* It's true that these religions often come with high costs: submission to written or priestly authority, belief in terrifying concepts such as demons, Apocalypse, Last Judgment and Hell, or the drive to impose one's beliefs or religious values on other people. In many cases they give cachet and endurance to backward, repressive or destructive social values, developed in agrarian societies many centuries ago. And it's valuable to highlight these costs.
> 
> *The attractions of religion*
> But negative critiques will not suffice. There are many motives beyond fear or habit why people hold fast to old religions or convert to new ones. There are many reasons besides ignorance and folly why they make religion the center of their personal and social lives.
> 
> Religions are not just a confidence trick on the part of prophets and preachers, or a self-destructive aberration on the part of believers. They have had social survival value in the past, and they continue to provide individual and personal benefits today, and these benefits are the source of their continuing numerical strength.
> 
> *Religions provide communities of mutual support.
> 
> 
> They overcome existential isolation and alienation, giving people a meaning for their lives and a sense of their place in the universe and nature.
> 
> 
> They provide remedies for grief at the death of loved ones, and for the fear of one's own death.
> 
> 
> They combat the feeling of helplessness in a threatening world full of crime, conflict and disaster.
> 
> 
> These benefits show up in the form of better health and longer life.*
> 
> Of course, if you're buying these benefits at the price of abandoning logic, ignoring evidence, believing in contradictions and impossibilities, teaching your children to fear a God who is getting ready to destroy the planet, signing on for social values that repress the rights of others, let alone sacrificing your life to slaughter those who disagree with you, then maybe the price is too high.
> 
> *A naturalistic spirituality*
> Are these negatives an inevitable part of the bargain? They may well be an inevitable part of belief in the unbelievable or of uncritical adherence to ancient scriptures.
> 
> But is it impossible to get the benefits that conventional religions offer, without giving up one penny of the value offered by reason, science, and progressive respect for the human rights of everyone? Don't we need approaches that offer the same range of advantages as supernatural religions â€“ but without the costs?
> 
> *Can there be such a thing as a religion without god, an atheistic religion or a religious atheism? The Buddhism of the Pali scriptures does not have a God or gods. Nor does the Taoism of Lao Tzu or ChuangTzu.*
> 
> *Can there be such a thing as a completely naturalistic form of "spirituality" with no supernatural elements?*
> 
> 
> *Increasingly, leading atheists and humanists are saying yes. This compilation from Dawkins, De Grasse Tyson and Sam Harris neatly embodies some of the trends.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you pursue this approach of celebration and spirituality further, you are no longer in the real of basic atheism - which does no more than deny the existence of gods.
> 
> You have in fact arrived at Naturalistic Pantheism. At World Pantheism we have been exploring this possibility since the beginning of 2000 CE. We do so through our global and local mailing lists, through our magazine _Pan_, and through a growing number of local groups. We have lists about scientific and philosophical ideas, as well as about practical ways of developing our naturalistic spirituality. You can find links to these on our main page.
> 
> Our completely naturalistic Pantheism does not believe in any supernatural beings, forces or realms and is fully compatible with atheism and skepticism. As Richard Dawkins writes:
> 
> Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a nonsupernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings.
> 
> In practice, while a significant minority of our members like and use the word God to express the depth of their feelings for Nature and the wider Universe, the majority do not use the word about their own beliefs.
> 
> There are other names for similar approaches, such as religious naturalism or naturalistic paganism. We have gone with Pantheism simply because it's the best known, and has a long pedigree.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Far more sense than atheists saying the don't have a faith belief if they don't believe in God though they can't prove it.
> 
> Logic and philosophy completely unground any such empirical statement by you, CarlaDanger.
> 
> You are no better than any religionist when it comes to faith or lack of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  Thinking God is improbable, is not the same as having faith that he/she exists. I'm not going to fly a plane into a building due to faith of a non God. Don't you dare try to put me on that level.
> 
> Respectfully, I'm going to agree to disagree with your false analogy.
Click to expand...


Actually, it is exactly the same thing.  Unless you have some evidence for thinking God is improbable.  If not, then what you just said is called belief.  Welcome to that level.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, your denial is the falsehood.
> 
> You believe that God does not exist, and thus hoisted on your own petard.
> 
> But since you can't prove it, your denial means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> False. Gods are easily disproved. But since you can't disprove my disproof, your denials mean nothing.
Click to expand...


I'm open.  What's your disproof?


----------



## Hollie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.
> 
> What about this fact do you not grasp?
Click to expand...

The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.

What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, your denial is the falsehood.
> 
> You believe that God does not exist, and thus hoisted on your own petard.
> 
> But since you can't prove it, your denial means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> False. Gods are easily disproved. But since you can't disprove my disproof, your denials mean nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm open.  What's your disproof?
Click to expand...

Wait. What? You want evidence?

What an audacious statement.

I'll ask that of those making the positive claim for their partisan gods.


----------



## PratchettFan

emilynghiem said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Isn’t atheism a religion?*
> Sure. And not smoking is a habit.
> 
> The Thinking Atheist - FAQ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I the ONLY one here who recognizes you CAN make a religion out of it but it is NOT NECESSARILY
> true or false for all people; it depends on the circumstances?
> 
> Some people make Buddhism and Christianity their religion;
> I use these as languages, the same way I would use science to interact with scientists
> or music to interact with musicians.  This does not make any of these my religion.
> But to some, YES, they make religions out of them!
> It is not either/or but "it depends on the person and how they are using that thing"
> 
> Same with Atheism, Constitutionalism, making religion out of science
> or out of your work ethic.
> 
> As for smoking or nonsmoking.
> Some people DO smoke as a habit and some people do not.
> Some people DO make it some ritual or condition NOT to smoke
> and some people don't treat it like that.
> 
> Can someone PLEASE explain to me what is the NAME for this
> RITUAL of dividing everything into A. it has to be  this way or
> B. it has to be this other way, and arguing the other way is wrong.
> 
> Is this called polarizing the issue? Politicizing it?
> 
> Is this some practice or belief I should know about?
> Does it have a formal name? Is this a religious practice?
> 
> If it is so common that people from all religious or a-religious
> views practice it, then is it human psychology to divide issues in conflict?
> 
> If my beliefs are different, does it mean I am the one with
> a different religion than all the other people who believe in
> dividing questions into sides and insisting only one has to be right for all cases?
> 
> If that isn't a religion then why are so many people practicing it?
Click to expand...


No, you're not the only one.  Religion is an action.  I have known ex-smokers who were almost impossible to be around because they could not stop trying to convert others.  Handing out pamphlets, talking about the evils of smoking, offering to help others.  Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.
> 
> What about this fact do you not grasp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.
> 
> What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
Click to expand...


The part where you present your evidence.  Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.

You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence.  Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, your denial is the falsehood.
> 
> You believe that God does not exist, and thus hoisted on your own petard.
> 
> But since you can't prove it, your denial means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> False. Gods are easily disproved. But since you can't disprove my disproof, your denials mean nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm open.  What's your disproof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait. What? You want evidence?
> 
> What an audacious statement.
> 
> I'll ask that of those making the positive claim for their partisan gods.
Click to expand...


I have and they consistently fail to provide it.  Their position is one of belief.  You said you can easily disprove gods.  That is your claim.  So we are dealing with it.  I presume that is being handled in your other post, so I'll wait for your evidence there.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.
> 
> What about this fact do you not grasp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.
> 
> What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where you present your evidence.  Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.
> 
> You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence.  Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.

You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, your denial is the falsehood.
> 
> You believe that God does not exist, and thus hoisted on your own petard.
> 
> But since you can't prove it, your denial means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> False. Gods are easily disproved. But since you can't disprove my disproof, your denials mean nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm open.  What's your disproof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait. What? You want evidence?
> 
> What an audacious statement.
> 
> I'll ask that of those making the positive claim for their partisan gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have and they consistently fail to provide it.  Their position is one of belief.  You said you can easily disprove gods.  That is your claim.  So we are dealing with it.  I presume that is being handled in your other post, so I'll wait for your evidence there.
Click to expand...

We're not dealing with anything.

Where is your disproof?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hollie, you can't disprove anything is the point, yet you believe.

That is your issue to own, no one else.

Just pointing out to you that you are as hypocritical as JimBowie or Androw insisting god lives though they can't prove it.

Being an atheist does not mean you get a pass from anyone who can think logically.

So you are victim of your own confirmation bias, which is fine, but don't deny it.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.
> 
> What about this fact do you not grasp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.
> 
> What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where you present your evidence.  Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.
> 
> You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence.  Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.
> 
> You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.
Click to expand...


You are the one who said you could easily do it.  I am simply asking you to back up your claim.  I assume you can't, so your position is faith based.  There really is no other option.  Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief. 

I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone.  Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, your denial is the falsehood.
> 
> You believe that God does not exist, and thus hoisted on your own petard.
> 
> But since you can't prove it, your denial means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> False. Gods are easily disproved. But since you can't disprove my disproof, your denials mean nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm open.  What's your disproof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait. What? You want evidence?
> 
> What an audacious statement.
> 
> I'll ask that of those making the positive claim for their partisan gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have and they consistently fail to provide it.  Their position is one of belief.  You said you can easily disprove gods.  That is your claim.  So we are dealing with it.  I presume that is being handled in your other post, so I'll wait for your evidence there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're not dealing with anything.
> 
> Where is your disproof?
Click to expand...


I have not made a claim, you have.  The person making the claim has to support it.  You stated above "Gods are easily disproved."  So go ahead and do it.  To be honest, I would love it if you could.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Fact: gods can neither be proved or disproved.

Thus: if one believes one way or another, one has a faith.

Look the terms up.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.
> 
> What about this fact do you not grasp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.
> 
> What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where you present your evidence.  Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.
> 
> You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence.  Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.
> 
> You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who said you could easily do it.  I am simply asking you to back up your claim.  I assume you can't, so your position is faith based.  There really is no other option.  Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.
> 
> I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone.  Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?
Click to expand...

I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.

Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?
> 
> We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.
> 
> We don't have anything like a bible.
> 
> We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.
> 
> We have no myths to defend.
> 
> we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing  to some made up tenents.
> 
> If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.
> 
> You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life.  I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The myth which is being so vehemently defended is that Atheists have no beliefs.  I have no need to label Atheists, but they have this desperate desire to pretend their position is not based upon belief.  Once belief overshadow reality, where reality is being denied in favor of the belief, then you are in the arena of religion.  It isn't about labels, it is about actions.
> 
> You said you actively try to convince people about the truth.  Your "truth" is based solely upon belief.  So now we have an example of proselytizing as well as faith overshadowing reality.  Faith, dogma and proselytizing.  I ask again, how is that not religion?
Click to expand...

It's not religion because it's not a belief system.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.
> 
> What about this fact do you not grasp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.
> 
> What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where you present your evidence.  Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.
> 
> You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence.  Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.
> 
> You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who said you could easily do it.  I am simply asking you to back up your claim.  I assume you can't, so your position is faith based.  There really is no other option.  Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.
> 
> I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone.  Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.
> 
> Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.
Click to expand...


I think I have proven my argument.  My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief.  As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable.  That is the only argument I have made here. 

Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part.  It would help if you just said "oops".


----------



## Gary Anderson

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]


Since the atheistic Zionists founded Israel it is not a religious nation. It is a fraud.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?
> 
> We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.
> 
> We don't have anything like a bible.
> 
> We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.
> 
> We have no myths to defend.
> 
> we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing  to some made up tenents.
> 
> If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.
> 
> You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life.  I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The myth which is being so vehemently defended is that Atheists have no beliefs.  I have no need to label Atheists, but they have this desperate desire to pretend their position is not based upon belief.  Once belief overshadow reality, where reality is being denied in favor of the belief, then you are in the arena of religion.  It isn't about labels, it is about actions.
> 
> You said you actively try to convince people about the truth.  Your "truth" is based solely upon belief.  So now we have an example of proselytizing as well as faith overshadowing reality.  Faith, dogma and proselytizing.  I ask again, how is that not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not religion because it's not a belief system.
Click to expand...


Yes.  That is the dogma.


----------



## HUGGY

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?
> 
> We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.
> 
> We don't have anything like a bible.
> 
> We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.
> 
> We have no myths to defend.
> 
> we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing  to some made up tenents.
> 
> If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.
> 
> You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life.  I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The myth which is being so vehemently defended is that Atheists have no beliefs.  I have no need to label Atheists, but they have this desperate desire to pretend their position is not based upon belief.  Once belief overshadow reality, where reality is being denied in favor of the belief, then you are in the arena of religion.  It isn't about labels, it is about actions.
> 
> You said you actively try to convince people about the truth.  Your "truth" is based solely upon belief.  So now we have an example of proselytizing as well as faith overshadowing reality.  Faith, dogma and proselytizing.  I ask again, how is that not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not religion because it's not a belief system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is the dogma.
Click to expand...

 
Dogma is the absence of dogma?

Nigga PUUULLEEEZZZZ !!!!


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.
> 
> What about this fact do you not grasp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.
> 
> What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where you present your evidence.  Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.
> 
> You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence.  Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.
> 
> You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who said you could easily do it.  I am simply asking you to back up your claim.  I assume you can't, so your position is faith based.  There really is no other option.  Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.
> 
> I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone.  Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.
> 
> Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I have proven my argument.  My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief.  As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable.  That is the only argument I have made here.
> 
> Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part.  It would help if you just said "oops".
Click to expand...

You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.

You still haven't disproven by disproof of your gods and other gods. It's actually comical that you demand others disprove claims that you offer no support for and claim that you are under no obligation to do so.

It would help if you just append _"... because I say so"_, to your claims.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?
> 
> We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.
> 
> We don't have anything like a bible.
> 
> We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.
> 
> We have no myths to defend.
> 
> we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing  to some made up tenents.
> 
> If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.
> 
> You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life.  I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The myth which is being so vehemently defended is that Atheists have no beliefs.  I have no need to label Atheists, but they have this desperate desire to pretend their position is not based upon belief.  Once belief overshadow reality, where reality is being denied in favor of the belief, then you are in the arena of religion.  It isn't about labels, it is about actions.
> 
> You said you actively try to convince people about the truth.  Your "truth" is based solely upon belief.  So now we have an example of proselytizing as well as faith overshadowing reality.  Faith, dogma and proselytizing.  I ask again, how is that not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not religion because it's not a belief system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is the dogma.
Click to expand...

Yet, you can't identify a single connection between religious dogma and conclusions regarding the non-existence of various gods.


----------



## HUGGY

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.
> 
> What about this fact do you not grasp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.
> 
> What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where you present your evidence.  Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.
> 
> You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence.  Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.
> 
> You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who said you could easily do it.  I am simply asking you to back up your claim.  I assume you can't, so your position is faith based.  There really is no other option.  Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.
> 
> I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone.  Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.
> 
> Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I have proven my argument.  My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief.  As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable.  That is the only argument I have made here.
> 
> Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part.  It would help if you just said "oops".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.
> 
> You still haven't disproven by disproof of your gods and other gods. It's actually comical that you demand others disprove claims that you offer no support for and claim that you are under no obligation to do so.
> 
> It would help if you just append _"... because I say so"_, to your claims.
Click to expand...

 
At least THAT would be an honest statement everyone could agree with.


----------



## HUGGY

emilynghiem said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a religion simply because there is no need for it to be one.
> 
> Theism HAS to be a religion because it wouldn't exist without humans convincing each other in the existance of the unbelievable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then Buddhism and Hinduism don't need to be religions either.
> 1. There is no need for them to be religions, because they are still practiced and taught the same way.
> Where many practictioners don't consider these to be religions, but just spiritual laws that naturally exist.
> 2. Buddhism and Hinduism do not require people to convince each other of this
> in order to exist. In Buddhism the emphasis is on "independent investigation"
> and has been compared with the "scientific method" of
> a. seeking to understand what is the hypothesis or possible truth in a situation to be understood
> b. testing and studying the theory or process
> c. finding and confirming an answer or solution
> d. applying that solution to resolve an issue or conflict for learning and growth
> 
> With Greek ethics, Constitutional laws, Buddhist teachings, Atheist or secular humanity philosophy
> about natural laws on peace and justice for all humanity, we don't need to make religions out of these.
> 
> I agree with you. But that doesn't mean people DON'T make religions out of them.
> 
> My mother preaches about Buddhism and doesn't think she is being religious
> but just speaking the truth. And how does the Christian feel who is just sharing God's truth
> and told "no thanks, that's your religion not mine" My mother can see when Christians do this
> but can't see when she does it.
> 
> I can get VERY preachy and fundie when it comes to Constitutionalism so I figured out that must be my religion.
> I just happen to be very Universalist/Inclusive about it, and  try to include both the liberal prochoice extremes
> and the conservative prolife and progun sides equally; and now learning what is going on with libertarians
> that practice both prochoice and progun beliefs as part of their Constitutionalism.
> 
> I understand my beliefs about natural laws can come across as religious.
> 
> And likewise when I work with people in a neutral context, it can be completely secular, too.
Click to expand...

 
Emily... You take my post and totally missrepresent it.

Your response entirely ignores the tenents of what I said.

You should have just left me out of what you had to say in the above post which REALLY had something or more to do with Buhdists and absolutely NOTHING to do with what I SAID. I would LIKE to think you read my post but I really believe you didn't.

I would be happy to have a dialogue with you about my comments.  Believe me it had NOTHING to do with the Buhdist RELIGION.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Hollie said:


> The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.



Even if that were true, which it certainly is not, it would not be evidence that there is not or cannot be some sort of supernatural power.



> What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?



What I grasp is that your position is irrational, based on your desire rather than the facts.

What makes the particle charmed appear and disappear? String theory postulates it is shifting into higher dimension that we cannot perceive. If this is true, then we have supernatural reality right there - beyond the natural realm. Your insistence that nothing beyond your senses can exist is just as absurd as the belief in a goat herder god sacrificing his son.

I admit that I have no clue as to whether there is a greater intelligence guiding reality - but it is just as likely that there is, as that there is not. 8th dimension beings manipulating us like a video game? Probably not, but certainly plausible within the confines of brane worlds. 

Atheists are arrogant in their ignorance, so sure that their lack of knowledge is the final word.


----------



## Hollie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that were true, which it certainly is not, it would not be evidence that there is not or cannot be some sort of supernatural power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I grasp is that your position is irrational, based on your desire rather than the facts.
> 
> What makes the particle charmed appear and disappear? String theory postulates it is shifting into higher dimension that we cannot perceive. If this is true, then we have supernatural reality right there - beyond the natural realm. Your insistence that nothing beyond your senses can exist is just as absurd as the belief in a goat herder god sacrificing his son.
> 
> I admit that I have no clue as to whether there is a greater intelligence guiding reality - but it is just as likely that there is, as that there is not. 8th dimension beings manipulating us like a video game? Probably not, but certainly plausible within the confines of brane worlds.
> 
> Atheists are arrogant in their ignorance, so sure that their lack of knowledge is the final word.
Click to expand...

The answer to your questions is satisfied by "The gawds did it"


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi Huggy
What I am saying is that your conditions or explanations you applied to why
Atheism is not a religion also apply to why
Buddhism is not a religion.

People outside those groups will swear these are religions.
People inside will say it is NOT.

So the same thing is happening with Atheism as with Buddhism.

The main difference I see is that Buddhism is recognized in texts and history as a religion.
ie it is a traditionally recognized world religion.

If we were to declare Constitutionalism a protected religion, it could go there, too!
with or without a faith in God or whatever behind.

the set of laws and the practices of due process, consent of the governed,
no taxation without representation, equal justice/protection of the laws from discrimination,
govt staying out of religion and religion staying out of govt, can be recognized as a religion.

The issue is whether we have established this or not,
similar to establishing the law of gravity in science as an accepted tenet.

What makes a discovery in science real or not? Accepted as common knowledge or not?
Spiritual healing has been proven to many and can be explained how it works under natural laws of science.

But it is not recognized as common knowledge, but even rejected as  hocus pocus.

So what do you call that? Science or religion if it is proven to some but not to everyone yet?
What determines this? probably the same thing that determines if Buddhism is a world
religion but Atheism is not, if Hinduism is a religion but Constitutionalism is not, etc.



HUGGY said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a religion simply because there is no need for it to be one.
> 
> Theism HAS to be a religion because it wouldn't exist without humans convincing each other in the existance of the unbelievable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then Buddhism and Hinduism don't need to be religions either.
> 1. There is no need for them to be religions, because they are still practiced and taught the same way.
> Where many practictioners don't consider these to be religions, but just spiritual laws that naturally exist.
> 2. Buddhism and Hinduism do not require people to convince each other of this
> in order to exist. In Buddhism the emphasis is on "independent investigation"
> and has been compared with the "scientific method" of
> a. seeking to understand what is the hypothesis or possible truth in a situation to be understood
> b. testing and studying the theory or process
> c. finding and confirming an answer or solution
> d. applying that solution to resolve an issue or conflict for learning and growth
> 
> With Greek ethics, Constitutional laws, Buddhist teachings, Atheist or secular humanity philosophy
> about natural laws on peace and justice for all humanity, we don't need to make religions out of these.
> 
> I agree with you. But that doesn't mean people DON'T make religions out of them.
> 
> My mother preaches about Buddhism and doesn't think she is being religious
> but just speaking the truth. And how does the Christian feel who is just sharing God's truth
> and told "no thanks, that's your religion not mine" My mother can see when Christians do this
> but can't see when she does it.
> 
> I can get VERY preachy and fundie when it comes to Constitutionalism so I figured out that must be my religion.
> I just happen to be very Universalist/Inclusive about it, and  try to include both the liberal prochoice extremes
> and the conservative prolife and progun sides equally; and now learning what is going on with libertarians
> that practice both prochoice and progun beliefs as part of their Constitutionalism.
> 
> I understand my beliefs about natural laws can come across as religious.
> 
> And likewise when I work with people in a neutral context, it can be completely secular, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily... You take my post and totally missrepresent it.
> 
> Your response entirely ignores the tenents of what I said.
> 
> You should have just left me out of what you had to say in the above post which REALLY had something or more to do with Buhdists and absolutely NOTHING to do with what I SAID. I would LIKE to think you read my post but I really believe you didn't.
> 
> I would be happy to have a dialogue with you about my comments.  Believe me it had NOTHING to do with the Buhdist RELIGION.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hollie, you can't prove there is a god, yet you say there is not a god.

It's over.  You have a belief system.  In no way, shape, or form can you get around it.

Use your argument in a logic class, you will get a fail.

End of story.


----------



## Pogo

Buddhism is not a religion??

Is that what you're saying Emily?  It's very hard to navigate your train of thought.


----------



## PratchettFan

HUGGY said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?
> 
> We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.
> 
> We don't have anything like a bible.
> 
> We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.
> 
> We have no myths to defend.
> 
> we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing  to some made up tenents.
> 
> If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.
> 
> You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life.  I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The myth which is being so vehemently defended is that Atheists have no beliefs.  I have no need to label Atheists, but they have this desperate desire to pretend their position is not based upon belief.  Once belief overshadow reality, where reality is being denied in favor of the belief, then you are in the arena of religion.  It isn't about labels, it is about actions.
> 
> You said you actively try to convince people about the truth.  Your "truth" is based solely upon belief.  So now we have an example of proselytizing as well as faith overshadowing reality.  Faith, dogma and proselytizing.  I ask again, how is that not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not religion because it's not a belief system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is the dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dogma is the absence of dogma?
> 
> Nigga PUUULLEEEZZZZ !!!!
Click to expand...


Dogma:  a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted.  You certainly aren't questioning or doubting despite your claims being demonstrably untrue.


----------



## JakeStarkey

huggy and hollie sitting in a tree,
d e n y i n g!!!


----------



## Pogo

JakeStarkey said:


> Fact: gods can neither be proved or disproved.
> 
> Thus: if one believes one way or another, one has a faith.
> 
> Look the terms up.



Agreed.
And that's why atheism, as a simple rejection of a theory, is not a "belief" system.  And therefore not a "religion".
Atheism is no more a religion than silence is a "sound".


----------



## JakeStarkey

Pogo said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact: gods can neither be proved or disproved.
> 
> Thus: if one believes one way or another, one has a faith.
> 
> Look the terms up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> And that's why atheism, as a simple rejection of a theory, is not a "belief" system.  And therefore not a "religion".
> Atheism is no more a religion than silence is a "sound".
Click to expand...


False.  If you say "I reject," you also say, "I have faith I am right."

Can't get away from it, guys.


----------



## JakeStarkey

My minor was Philosophy, and watching the religionists and atheists go crazy in class over the issue amused me then as well as now.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?
> 
> We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.
> 
> We don't have anything like a bible.
> 
> We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.
> 
> We have no myths to defend.
> 
> we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing  to some made up tenents.
> 
> If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.
> 
> You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life.  I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The myth which is being so vehemently defended is that Atheists have no beliefs.  I have no need to label Atheists, but they have this desperate desire to pretend their position is not based upon belief.  Once belief overshadow reality, where reality is being denied in favor of the belief, then you are in the arena of religion.  It isn't about labels, it is about actions.
> 
> You said you actively try to convince people about the truth.  Your "truth" is based solely upon belief.  So now we have an example of proselytizing as well as faith overshadowing reality.  Faith, dogma and proselytizing.  I ask again, how is that not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not religion because it's not a belief system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is the dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dogma is the absence of dogma?
> 
> Nigga PUUULLEEEZZZZ !!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dogma:  a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted.  You certainly aren't questioning or doubting despite your claims being demonstrably untrue.
Click to expand...

My claim is that gods are of Human invention. If you can prove otherwise present such proof. You know, and I know you cannot. So who really, is pressing their dogma?


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Isn’t atheism a religion?*
> Sure. And not smoking is a habit.
> 
> The Thinking Atheist - FAQ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I the ONLY one here who recognizes you CAN make a religion out of it but it is NOT NECESSARILY
> true or false for all people; it depends on the circumstances?
> 
> Some people make Buddhism and Christianity their religion;
> I use these as languages, the same way I would use science to interact with scientists
> or music to interact with musicians.  This does not make any of these my religion.
> But to some, YES, they make religions out of them!
> It is not either/or but "it depends on the person and how they are using that thing"
> 
> Same with Atheism, Constitutionalism, making religion out of science
> or out of your work ethic.
> 
> As for smoking or nonsmoking.
> Some people DO smoke as a habit and some people do not.
> Some people DO make it some ritual or condition NOT to smoke
> and some people don't treat it like that.
> 
> Can someone PLEASE explain to me what is the NAME for this
> RITUAL of dividing everything into A. it has to be  this way or
> B. it has to be this other way, and arguing the other way is wrong.
> 
> Is this called polarizing the issue? Politicizing it?
> 
> Is this some practice or belief I should know about?
> Does it have a formal name? Is this a religious practice?
> 
> If it is so common that people from all religious or a-religious
> views practice it, then is it human psychology to divide issues in conflict?
> 
> If my beliefs are different, does it mean I am the one with
> a different religion than all the other people who believe in
> dividing questions into sides and insisting only one has to be right for all cases?
> 
> If that isn't a religion then why are so many people practicing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're not the only one.  Religion is an action.  I have known ex-smokers who were almost impossible to be around because they could not stop trying to convert others.  Handing out pamphlets, talking about the evils of smoking, offering to help others.  Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
Click to expand...



THANK you.  Thread premise confirmed.  Everything else is noise.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.
> 
> What about this fact do you not grasp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.
> 
> What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where you present your evidence.  Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.
> 
> You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence.  Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.
> 
> You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who said you could easily do it.  I am simply asking you to back up your claim.  I assume you can't, so your position is faith based.  There really is no other option.  Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.
> 
> I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone.  Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.
> 
> Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I have proven my argument.  My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief.  As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable.  That is the only argument I have made here.
> 
> Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part.  It would help if you just said "oops".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.
> 
> You still haven't disproven by disproof of your gods and other gods. It's actually comical that you demand others disprove claims that you offer no support for and claim that you are under no obligation to do so.
> 
> It would help if you just append _"... because I say so"_, to your claims.
Click to expand...


I have made no claims about gods, you have.  I would not even attempt to prove gods as there is no evidence.  It is a matter of pure belief.  I fully admit it is a matter of pure belief.  In the absence of evidence, one belief is no superior to any other belief.  You, on the other hand, insist your belief is not belief.  You have no evidence, you make claims you cannot support, and then you blame me because you can't support your unsupportable claims.   

Atheism is not of itself a religion.  But you have clearly shown it can be turned into one.  What you are currently doing is accusing me of blasphemy, of questioning the holy writ.  But while I may be a believer, I am not confused into thinking my beliefs are anything more than beliefs and I am certainly not confused that yours are either.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?
> 
> We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.
> 
> We don't have anything like a bible.
> 
> We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.
> 
> We have no myths to defend.
> 
> we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing  to some made up tenents.
> 
> If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.
> 
> You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life.  I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The myth which is being so vehemently defended is that Atheists have no beliefs.  I have no need to label Atheists, but they have this desperate desire to pretend their position is not based upon belief.  Once belief overshadow reality, where reality is being denied in favor of the belief, then you are in the arena of religion.  It isn't about labels, it is about actions.
> 
> You said you actively try to convince people about the truth.  Your "truth" is based solely upon belief.  So now we have an example of proselytizing as well as faith overshadowing reality.  Faith, dogma and proselytizing.  I ask again, how is that not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not religion because it's not a belief system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is the dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dogma is the absence of dogma?
> 
> Nigga PUUULLEEEZZZZ !!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dogma:  a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted.  You certainly aren't questioning or doubting despite your claims being demonstrably untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My claim is that gods are of Human invention. If you can prove otherwise present such proof. You know, and I know you cannot. So who really, is pressing their dogma?
Click to expand...


You are, as passionate as any holy believer.


----------



## Hollie

JakeStarkey said:


> huggy and hollie sitting in a tree,
> d e n y i n g!!!


Denying what? 

Unsubstantiated claims made about supernatural entities? You have presented no argument in favor of gods that can be supported. I'm only denying that you can make a valid argument. Appeals to supernaturalism is not an argument.


----------



## Hollie

JakeStarkey said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?
> 
> We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.
> 
> We don't have anything like a bible.
> 
> We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.
> 
> We have no myths to defend.
> 
> we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing  to some made up tenents.
> 
> If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.
> 
> You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life.  I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The myth which is being so vehemently defended is that Atheists have no beliefs.  I have no need to label Atheists, but they have this desperate desire to pretend their position is not based upon belief.  Once belief overshadow reality, where reality is being denied in favor of the belief, then you are in the arena of religion.  It isn't about labels, it is about actions.
> 
> You said you actively try to convince people about the truth.  Your "truth" is based solely upon belief.  So now we have an example of proselytizing as well as faith overshadowing reality.  Faith, dogma and proselytizing.  I ask again, how is that not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not religion because it's not a belief system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is the dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dogma is the absence of dogma?
> 
> Nigga PUUULLEEEZZZZ !!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dogma:  a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted.  You certainly aren't questioning or doubting despite your claims being demonstrably untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My claim is that gods are of Human invention. If you can prove otherwise present such proof. You know, and I know you cannot. So who really, is pressing their dogma?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are, as passionate as any holy believer.
Click to expand...

You are, wrong. 

Your goofy "... because I say so" nonsense is hardly an argument. 

It's actually comical how befuddled you fundies get when anyone questions your claims to magical gods.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?
> 
> We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.
> 
> We don't have anything like a bible.
> 
> We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.
> 
> We have no myths to defend.
> 
> we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing  to some made up tenents.
> 
> If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.
> 
> You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life.  I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The myth which is being so vehemently defended is that Atheists have no beliefs.  I have no need to label Atheists, but they have this desperate desire to pretend their position is not based upon belief.  Once belief overshadow reality, where reality is being denied in favor of the belief, then you are in the arena of religion.  It isn't about labels, it is about actions.
> 
> You said you actively try to convince people about the truth.  Your "truth" is based solely upon belief.  So now we have an example of proselytizing as well as faith overshadowing reality.  Faith, dogma and proselytizing.  I ask again, how is that not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not religion because it's not a belief system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is the dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, you can't identify a single connection between religious dogma and conclusions regarding the non-existence of various gods.
Click to expand...


The dogma is that your beliefs are not beliefs. 

It is amazing that people who claim they have no beliefs in gods seem incapable of separating gods from their thoughts.  If there are no gods, then religion is entirely about people and you are people.  It is not about whether or not there are gods.  I could not care less whether there or not there are gods.  God is an complete irrelevancy.  God either exists or does not and I could not care less which.  This is about how people think and act.  And, regardless of what you would like to think of yourself, you are no less people than anyone else. 

An unsupported belief is an unsupported belief.  If you can support your position, do so.  If you can't, then your continued insistence that it is not belief can only be called dogmatic.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Isn’t atheism a religion?*
> Sure. And not smoking is a habit.
> 
> The Thinking Atheist - FAQ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I the ONLY one here who recognizes you CAN make a religion out of it but it is NOT NECESSARILY
> true or false for all people; it depends on the circumstances?
> 
> Some people make Buddhism and Christianity their religion;
> I use these as languages, the same way I would use science to interact with scientists
> or music to interact with musicians.  This does not make any of these my religion.
> But to some, YES, they make religions out of them!
> It is not either/or but "it depends on the person and how they are using that thing"
> 
> Same with Atheism, Constitutionalism, making religion out of science
> or out of your work ethic.
> 
> As for smoking or nonsmoking.
> Some people DO smoke as a habit and some people do not.
> Some people DO make it some ritual or condition NOT to smoke
> and some people don't treat it like that.
> 
> Can someone PLEASE explain to me what is the NAME for this
> RITUAL of dividing everything into A. it has to be  this way or
> B. it has to be this other way, and arguing the other way is wrong.
> 
> Is this called polarizing the issue? Politicizing it?
> 
> Is this some practice or belief I should know about?
> Does it have a formal name? Is this a religious practice?
> 
> If it is so common that people from all religious or a-religious
> views practice it, then is it human psychology to divide issues in conflict?
> 
> If my beliefs are different, does it mean I am the one with
> a different religion than all the other people who believe in
> dividing questions into sides and insisting only one has to be right for all cases?
> 
> If that isn't a religion then why are so many people practicing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're not the only one.  Religion is an action.  I have known ex-smokers who were almost impossible to be around because they could not stop trying to convert others.  Handing out pamphlets, talking about the evils of smoking, offering to help others.  Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THANK you.  Thread premise confirmed.  Everything else is noise.
Click to expand...


The premise of thread was you taking statements out of context and pretending the rest of the post did not exist?


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?
> 
> We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.
> 
> We don't have anything like a bible.
> 
> We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.
> 
> We have no myths to defend.
> 
> we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing  to some made up tenents.
> 
> If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.
> 
> You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life.  I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The myth which is being so vehemently defended is that Atheists have no beliefs.  I have no need to label Atheists, but they have this desperate desire to pretend their position is not based upon belief.  Once belief overshadow reality, where reality is being denied in favor of the belief, then you are in the arena of religion.  It isn't about labels, it is about actions.
> 
> You said you actively try to convince people about the truth.  Your "truth" is based solely upon belief.  So now we have an example of proselytizing as well as faith overshadowing reality.  Faith, dogma and proselytizing.  I ask again, how is that not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not religion because it's not a belief system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is the dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dogma is the absence of dogma?
> 
> Nigga PUUULLEEEZZZZ !!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dogma:  a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted.  You certainly aren't questioning or doubting despite your claims being demonstrably untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My claim is that gods are of Human invention. If you can prove otherwise present such proof. You know, and I know you cannot. So who really, is pressing their dogma?
Click to expand...


Ok.  You just made a claim.  Support it.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.
> 
> What about this fact do you not grasp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.
> 
> What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where you present your evidence.  Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.
> 
> You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence.  Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.
> 
> You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who said you could easily do it.  I am simply asking you to back up your claim.  I assume you can't, so your position is faith based.  There really is no other option.  Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.
> 
> I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone.  Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.
> 
> Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I have proven my argument.  My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief.  As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable.  That is the only argument I have made here.
> 
> Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part.  It would help if you just said "oops".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.
> 
> You still haven't disproven by disproof of your gods and other gods. It's actually comical that you demand others disprove claims that you offer no support for and claim that you are under no obligation to do so.
> 
> It would help if you just append _"... because I say so"_, to your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have made no claims about gods, you have.  I would not even attempt to prove gods as there is no evidence.  It is a matter of pure belief.  I fully admit it is a matter of pure belief.  In the absence of evidence, one belief is no superior to any other belief.  You, on the other hand, insist your belief is not belief.  You have no evidence, you make claims you cannot support, and then you blame me because you can't support your unsupportable claims.
> 
> Atheism is not of itself a religion.  But you have clearly shown it can be turned into one.  What you are currently doing is accusing me of blasphemy, of questioning the holy writ.  But while I may be a believer, I am not confused into thinking my beliefs are anything more than beliefs and I am certainly not confused that yours are either.
Click to expand...

You're a bit reality challenged. I have made no positive claims about gods. I've simply required people like you to support your claims to the supernatural. 

I have no more beliefs about your gods than I have beliefs about Bigfoot. And by the way, I suppose that your inability to disprove Bigfoot makes him/ her just as likely as your gods, of which you require belief until disproved.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?
> 
> We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.
> 
> We don't have anything like a bible.
> 
> We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.
> 
> We have no myths to defend.
> 
> we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing  to some made up tenents.
> 
> If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.
> 
> You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life.  I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The myth which is being so vehemently defended is that Atheists have no beliefs.  I have no need to label Atheists, but they have this desperate desire to pretend their position is not based upon belief.  Once belief overshadow reality, where reality is being denied in favor of the belief, then you are in the arena of religion.  It isn't about labels, it is about actions.
> 
> You said you actively try to convince people about the truth.  Your "truth" is based solely upon belief.  So now we have an example of proselytizing as well as faith overshadowing reality.  Faith, dogma and proselytizing.  I ask again, how is that not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not religion because it's not a belief system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is the dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dogma is the absence of dogma?
> 
> Nigga PUUULLEEEZZZZ !!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dogma:  a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted.  You certainly aren't questioning or doubting despite your claims being demonstrably untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My claim is that gods are of Human invention. If you can prove otherwise present such proof. You know, and I know you cannot. So who really, is pressing their dogma?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  You just made a claim.  Support it.
Click to expand...

All claims to gods are of human origin. 

Here's your chance to prove otherwise. Prove your gods have magically written a book.


----------



## Pogo

emilynghiem said:


> Where do YOU get that religion has to ask or answer questions about these particular things?
> 
> * Buddhism does not claim to teach where the world or life came from.
> Just to explain the natural spiritual laws that already exist.
> * Science seeks to put natural laws into formulas, patterns and words to establish understanding and share with others.
> * Constitutionalism put principles into statutory laws so these could be use for governance and democratic process and development.
> 
> Buddhism becomes a religion when people divide into groups and perceive their beliefs are different.
> Constitutionalism becomes a religion when people try to enforce laws by natural authority and find disagreements
> they attribute to differences in beliefs.
> 
> Secular humanism and liberalism become religions for similar reasons.
> 
> I don't get why you keep saying Atheism doesn't meet the same terms of religion,
> when Buddhism doesn't either. And Buddhism is perceived as a religion even though its members will say it isn't either.
> 
> Is it because you can blame Buddhism as being focused on "worshipping" Buddha that you can label it religion?
> Or say Hinduism is "worshipping" god figures that you can label it religion?
> 
> Not all people who call themselves Buddhist or Hindu worship anything outside themselves.
> How are they any different from Atheists who do or who do not come across as religious to others?
> 
> In general, I would classify groups in the population as "Secular Gentiles" who follow natural laws.
> And say this group INCLUDES Atheists, nontheists, Buddhists, secular humanists, Constitutionalists,
> peace and justice activists, etc. who may believe in Truth, Justice and Peace but just not use symbols to express it.
> They worship these principles in different ways that according to you should not count as religions.
> 
> That's fine but remember to treat other people the same way, like Buddhists Hindus and Christians who
> also say they are following Spiritual Laws that naturally exist and are not worshipping any THING as a Religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Touhanks Pogo. How I think the comparison with Constitutionalism can help
> is to show WHEN it gets religious and WHEN it stay secular and universal.
> 
> both are based on natural laws.
> 
> So we can ask how so secular philosophies or systems of thoughts,
> based on secular/natural laws, either act or are PERCEIVED as religions,
> and what makes them count as NOT so?
> 
> I find the same things make a distinction between if someone (like me, included)
> makes a RELIGION out of their Constitutional beliefs or keeps them secular and not
> collectively expressed or imposed as a body of members that can be labeled.
> 
> I am personally studying this phenomenon myself.
> 
> What makes something a religion?
> 
> Some factors I find:
> 1. the act of EMBODYING that law by conscience, where you enforce it with
> your thoughts, words and actions CONSCIOUSLY as your beliefs.
> 
> One friend of mine had a secular humanist philosophy of
> * Respect for Truth
> * Respect for Freedom
> * Respect for People and the Environment
> I told him this was like his own personal secular equivalent of the Trinity.
> If he adopts this as his faith, his belief that he lives by,
> and enforces and defends it religiously, then it can become like his religion.
> 
> 2. How it is perceived in relation with "other people's beliefs or religions"
> Regardless if we do not think we have a religion (just like Hindus or Buddhists
> may say they are not following a religion, but just following natural laws that
> already exist; or Christians will say they are following universal laws and not
> a religion made up by man) as long as OTHER people label and perceive
> it as a religion (as is done with Hinduism) then by THEIR context,
> (not necessarily ours) it DOES constitute a religion. That is their way not ours.
> 
> Just like I have a Wicca friend who understands me as a White Witch.
> That is clearly her system, not mine. but I am not going to argue I am not
> that thing. If that is what I am in her system, I accept that.
> 
> To some people I am an Angel or a Buddha, to others a Demon or even
> a Bugs Bunny character from another planet sent here for entertainment.
> I am labeled a Conservative and Not a Democrat, and all kinds of things.
> 
> Some of this is for the convenience and concepts of OTHER people.
> 
> 3. If people identify as a group among likeminded people who believe the same,
> and connect on a SPIRITUAL level that has an identity of its own.
> 
> I don't mean collecting around golf or science and that automatically becomes a religion.
> 
> I mean like really bonding and finding direction and development
> within a community that serves as the equivalent of a "church" for "fellowship"
> and spiritual growth.
> 
> So whatever grouping or tribal identity that links you on this level with others
> of that same "tribe" that is the equivalent of how religions serve to organize people by
> identity for managing representation and resources among that common grouping.
> 
> Does any of that apply to what will answer the questions brought up?
> 
> There is both a literal definition and traditional sense of religion,
> so of course, atheism does not fit that any more than Constitutionalism does
> or liberalism, conservatism, and other beliefs not considered an "organized religion"
> 
> But there is a functional sense of religion, where there is
> internal relations going on spiritually between members who relate to the same approach to natural laws and science
> to understand and develop paths in life; and externally between how groups label and perceive each other.
> 
> To prevent fights, I would suggest address the three levels separately:
> 1. traditional meanings and organized religions that we recognize
> 2. internal functions of religions that atheism substitutes for and still serves
> 3. external labels and perceptions from outside groups that define what is perceived or called a religion
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear POGO : i tried to cite your post about if Atheism is a religion, then who FOUNDED it?
> (but this website is posting ads and downloading cookies triggering my firewall program to block the page)
> 
> Can I answer this way by giving an example of how Hinduism is also considered
> not a religion but an expression of spiritual teachings that were already in existence and just passed
> down until they were written down and given a name:
> 
> "*Hinduism is a collective term applied to the many philosophical and religious traditions native to India. Hinduism has neither a specific moment of origin nor a specific founder. Rather, the tradition understands itself to be timeless, having always existed.*" Hinduism Origins Hinduism History Hinduism Beliefs
> 
> Thus the view of "Hinduism as a religion" is mostly imposed from the outside.
> Same with views of Atheism and Constitutionalism.
> 
> Who founded Constitutionalism? These came from natural laws, that no man invented.
> They were debated and written down in books from Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, etc etc.
> and ended up as the influence that went into the Constitution and Amendments that WERE written down
> by specific leaders. But still many will say these laws were Given by God and not made by man.
> 
> NOTE: As for not believing in God
> Do you believe in Life or Love? Wisdom or Truth?
> if you substitute that for God then you believe in THAT.
> So what we are arguing about is the meaning or definition of God we do or do not believe in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Emily -- nice to see you here in the new playground.  Forgive me if the post material I edited out below was relevant - it didn't look like it.
> 
> The question about "who founded it" was just a little test to see how the poster would handle it.  I know a religion doesn't need a founder.  I pointed out earlier that religion is not the same as theism, lest we conflate the two, indeed everybody in history has some sort of religion but not everybody has theism.  Taoism is another example.
> 
> On Constitutionalism, it's probably going to be counterproductive to muddy these waters with political philosophies.  We've already wandered more than once into the question of whether God(s) exist, which is not the topic.  The thread is simply about the definition of "atheism", as a result of another thread where one poster here kept trying to make the case that it is a "religion".
> 
> And that's where we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Emily -- quick post, not much time to burn for the moment but I think you're taking an overly broad definition of "religion" here, seeming to include simple general philosophies and/or moral guidelines on how to live one's life.
> 
> When I was a child I read some kid's book that related (whether it was true or not is unimportant) an Indian teaching that said, when you die and are called to account, the question asked of you is, "how many people were made happier because you were born?"  While I thought that was profound and took it to heart as a life guideline, I don't consider it a "religion" -- it's more along the lines of what I think you're describing above.
> 
> I believe religion is meant to address (since it cannot definitively "answer") the greater deeper mystery questions of the natural and particularly the supernatural worlds that are our environment.  The nature of the universe, the meaning, the forces that make them tick.  The nature of creation, the antiquity of creation, the nature of the spirit, where that spirit comes from, what it's made of and what happens to it when we die.  I don't believe Constitutionalism or general life-attitude philosophies of the worldly and the immediate present address those deeper mysteries.
> 
> Nor does atheism, which is another reason it's not a religion.  Any given religion, whether one accepts it or not personally, has to offer some sort of response to these questions (and not just say, "no, that approach over there doesn't work", which is what atheism is).
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


(Moved down): "Where do YOU get that religion has to ask or answer questions about these particular things?"


It's the definition, Emily.  Have a look:

religion [ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1.
a set of beliefs *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*, *especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.  (Dictionary.com)

-- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit.  That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either.  All that is is having an opinion.

I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu.  That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teach*ings*, not the teach*er.*  That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism.  However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.

(As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).

So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge.  Buddhism does that, so it's a religion.  Taoism does that so it too is a religion.  Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, Zoroastrianism, they all do that and are therefore "religions".

Not smoking does not do that; Constitutionalism does not do that; atheism does not do that.  None of them therefore are "religions".  I get the impression some here believe that proselytizing for any cause whatsoever constitutes a "religion" but it doesn't.  It constitutes advocacy.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.
> 
> What about this fact do you not grasp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.
> 
> What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where you present your evidence.  Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.
> 
> You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence.  Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.
> 
> You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who said you could easily do it.  I am simply asking you to back up your claim.  I assume you can't, so your position is faith based.  There really is no other option.  Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.
> 
> I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone.  Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.
> 
> Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I have proven my argument.  My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief.  As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable.  That is the only argument I have made here.
> 
> Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part.  It would help if you just said "oops".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.
> 
> You still haven't disproven by disproof of your gods and other gods. It's actually comical that you demand others disprove claims that you offer no support for and claim that you are under no obligation to do so.
> 
> It would help if you just append _"... because I say so"_, to your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have made no claims about gods, you have.  I would not even attempt to prove gods as there is no evidence.  It is a matter of pure belief.  I fully admit it is a matter of pure belief.  In the absence of evidence, one belief is no superior to any other belief.  You, on the other hand, insist your belief is not belief.  You have no evidence, you make claims you cannot support, and then you blame me because you can't support your unsupportable claims.
> 
> Atheism is not of itself a religion.  But you have clearly shown it can be turned into one.  What you are currently doing is accusing me of blasphemy, of questioning the holy writ.  But while I may be a believer, I am not confused into thinking my beliefs are anything more than beliefs and I am certainly not confused that yours are either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a bit reality challenged. I have made no positive claims about gods. I've simply required people like you to support your claims to the supernatural.
> 
> I have no more beliefs about your gods than I have beliefs about Bigfoot. And by the way, I suppose that your inability to disprove Bigfoot makes him/ her just as likely as your gods, of which you require belief until disproved.
Click to expand...


You think because your beliefs are negative you get off scot free?  It doesn't work that way.  I do not require belief from you.  I require you support your claims. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right.  Or admit your just operating on faith. 

You have said you can disprove gods.  Do it.
You have said you think gods are improbable.  Produce the objective evidence you used to arrive at that conclusion.

These are claims you have made.  The onus is on you, not me.


----------



## Hollie

JakeStarkey said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact: gods can neither be proved or disproved.
> 
> Thus: if one believes one way or another, one has a faith.
> 
> Look the terms up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> And that's why atheism, as a simple rejection of a theory, is not a "belief" system.  And therefore not a "religion".
> Atheism is no more a religion than silence is a "sound".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False.  If you say "I reject," you also say, "I have faith I am right."
> 
> Can't get away from it, guys.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. None of the above supports your gods. 

Faith is not a requirement to conclude that supernatural entities don't exist. 

Your inability to force your religious beliefs on others is the weakness of your belief system, not a flaw in reason and rationality.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.
> 
> What about this fact do you not grasp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.
> 
> What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where you present your evidence.  Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.
> 
> You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence.  Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.
> 
> You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who said you could easily do it.  I am simply asking you to back up your claim.  I assume you can't, so your position is faith based.  There really is no other option.  Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.
> 
> I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone.  Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.
> 
> Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I have proven my argument.  My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief.  As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable.  That is the only argument I have made here.
> 
> Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part.  It would help if you just said "oops".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.
> 
> You still haven't disproven by disproof of your gods and other gods. It's actually comical that you demand others disprove claims that you offer no support for and claim that you are under no obligation to do so.
> 
> It would help if you just append _"... because I say so"_, to your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have made no claims about gods, you have.  I would not even attempt to prove gods as there is no evidence.  It is a matter of pure belief.  I fully admit it is a matter of pure belief.  In the absence of evidence, one belief is no superior to any other belief.  You, on the other hand, insist your belief is not belief.  You have no evidence, you make claims you cannot support, and then you blame me because you can't support your unsupportable claims.
> 
> Atheism is not of itself a religion.  But you have clearly shown it can be turned into one.  What you are currently doing is accusing me of blasphemy, of questioning the holy writ.  But while I may be a believer, I am not confused into thinking my beliefs are anything more than beliefs and I am certainly not confused that yours are either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a bit reality challenged. I have made no positive claims about gods. I've simply required people like you to support your claims to the supernatural.
> 
> I have no more beliefs about your gods than I have beliefs about Bigfoot. And by the way, I suppose that your inability to disprove Bigfoot makes him/ her just as likely as your gods, of which you require belief until disproved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think because your beliefs are negative you get off scot free?  It doesn't work that way.  I do not require belief from you.  I require you support your claims. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right.  Or admit your just operating on faith.
> 
> You have said you can disprove gods.  Do it.
> You have said you think gods are improbable.  Produce the objective evidence you used to arrive at that conclusion.
> 
> These are claims you have made.  The onus is on you, not me.
Click to expand...

I have already disproven your gods. Prove I haven't.

Have you still not seen the futility of your nonsensical "prove it isn't" fallacy you use to prop-up your gods?


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact: gods can neither be proved or disproved.
> 
> Thus: if one believes one way or another, one has a faith.
> 
> Look the terms up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> And that's why atheism, as a simple rejection of a theory, is not a "belief" system.  And therefore not a "religion".
> Atheism is no more a religion than silence is a "sound".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False.  If you say "I reject," you also say, "I have faith I am right."
> 
> Can't get away from it, guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. None of the above supports your gods.
> 
> Faith is not a requirement to conclude that supernatural entities don't exist.
> 
> Your inability to force your religious beliefs on others is the weakness of your belief system, not a flaw in reason and rationality.
Click to expand...


I have yet to see any reason or rationality.  Only an unshakeable faith.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.
> 
> What about this fact do you not grasp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.
> 
> What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where you present your evidence.  Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.
> 
> You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence.  Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.
> 
> You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who said you could easily do it.  I am simply asking you to back up your claim.  I assume you can't, so your position is faith based.  There really is no other option.  Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.
> 
> I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone.  Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.
> 
> Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I have proven my argument.  My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief.  As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable.  That is the only argument I have made here.
> 
> Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part.  It would help if you just said "oops".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.
> 
> You still haven't disproven by disproof of your gods and other gods. It's actually comical that you demand others disprove claims that you offer no support for and claim that you are under no obligation to do so.
> 
> It would help if you just append _"... because I say so"_, to your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have made no claims about gods, you have.  I would not even attempt to prove gods as there is no evidence.  It is a matter of pure belief.  I fully admit it is a matter of pure belief.  In the absence of evidence, one belief is no superior to any other belief.  You, on the other hand, insist your belief is not belief.  You have no evidence, you make claims you cannot support, and then you blame me because you can't support your unsupportable claims.
> 
> Atheism is not of itself a religion.  But you have clearly shown it can be turned into one.  What you are currently doing is accusing me of blasphemy, of questioning the holy writ.  But while I may be a believer, I am not confused into thinking my beliefs are anything more than beliefs and I am certainly not confused that yours are either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a bit reality challenged. I have made no positive claims about gods. I've simply required people like you to support your claims to the supernatural.
> 
> I have no more beliefs about your gods than I have beliefs about Bigfoot. And by the way, I suppose that your inability to disprove Bigfoot makes him/ her just as likely as your gods, of which you require belief until disproved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think because your beliefs are negative you get off scot free?  It doesn't work that way.  I do not require belief from you.  I require you support your claims. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right.  Or admit your just operating on faith.
> 
> You have said you can disprove gods.  Do it.
> You have said you think gods are improbable.  Produce the objective evidence you used to arrive at that conclusion.
> 
> These are claims you have made.  The onus is on you, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already disproven your gods. Prove I haven't.
> 
> Have you still not seen the futility of your nonsensical "prove it isn't" fallacy you use to prop-up your gods?
Click to expand...


I haven't seen your proof yet, so I can't respond to it.  And the only reason I have asked that you "prove it isn't" is because you made the claim you could.  Is this an example of the "reason and rationality" you spoke of?


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact: gods can neither be proved or disproved.
> 
> Thus: if one believes one way or another, one has a faith.
> 
> Look the terms up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> And that's why atheism, as a simple rejection of a theory, is not a "belief" system.  And therefore not a "religion".
> Atheism is no more a religion than silence is a "sound".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False.  If you say "I reject," you also say, "I have faith I am right."
> 
> Can't get away from it, guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. None of the above supports your gods.
> 
> Faith is not a requirement to conclude that supernatural entities don't exist.
> 
> Your inability to force your religious beliefs on others is the weakness of your belief system, not a flaw in reason and rationality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have yet to see any reason or rationality.  Only an unshakeable faith.
Click to expand...

It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods. 

I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't. 

I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.
> 
> What about this fact do you not grasp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.
> 
> What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where you present your evidence.  Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.
> 
> You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence.  Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.
> 
> You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who said you could easily do it.  I am simply asking you to back up your claim.  I assume you can't, so your position is faith based.  There really is no other option.  Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.
> 
> I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone.  Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.
> 
> Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I have proven my argument.  My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief.  As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable.  That is the only argument I have made here.
> 
> Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part.  It would help if you just said "oops".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.
> 
> You still haven't disproven by disproof of your gods and other gods. It's actually comical that you demand others disprove claims that you offer no support for and claim that you are under no obligation to do so.
> 
> It would help if you just append _"... because I say so"_, to your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have made no claims about gods, you have.  I would not even attempt to prove gods as there is no evidence.  It is a matter of pure belief.  I fully admit it is a matter of pure belief.  In the absence of evidence, one belief is no superior to any other belief.  You, on the other hand, insist your belief is not belief.  You have no evidence, you make claims you cannot support, and then you blame me because you can't support your unsupportable claims.
> 
> Atheism is not of itself a religion.  But you have clearly shown it can be turned into one.  What you are currently doing is accusing me of blasphemy, of questioning the holy writ.  But while I may be a believer, I am not confused into thinking my beliefs are anything more than beliefs and I am certainly not confused that yours are either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a bit reality challenged. I have made no positive claims about gods. I've simply required people like you to support your claims to the supernatural.
> 
> I have no more beliefs about your gods than I have beliefs about Bigfoot. And by the way, I suppose that your inability to disprove Bigfoot makes him/ her just as likely as your gods, of which you require belief until disproved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think because your beliefs are negative you get off scot free?  It doesn't work that way.  I do not require belief from you.  I require you support your claims. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right.  Or admit your just operating on faith.
> 
> You have said you can disprove gods.  Do it.
> You have said you think gods are improbable.  Produce the objective evidence you used to arrive at that conclusion.
> 
> These are claims you have made.  The onus is on you, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already disproven your gods. Prove I haven't.
> 
> Have you still not seen the futility of your nonsensical "prove it isn't" fallacy you use to prop-up your gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't seen your proof yet, so I can't respond to it.  And the only reason I have asked that you "prove it isn't" is because you made the claim you could.  Is this an example of the "reason and rationality" you spoke of?
Click to expand...

I have no proof of your gods or anyone else's gods. Neither do you.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact: gods can neither be proved or disproved.
> 
> Thus: if one believes one way or another, one has a faith.
> 
> Look the terms up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> And that's why atheism, as a simple rejection of a theory, is not a "belief" system.  And therefore not a "religion".
> Atheism is no more a religion than silence is a "sound".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False.  If you say "I reject," you also say, "I have faith I am right."
> 
> Can't get away from it, guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. None of the above supports your gods.
> 
> Faith is not a requirement to conclude that supernatural entities don't exist.
> 
> Your inability to force your religious beliefs on others is the weakness of your belief system, not a flaw in reason and rationality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have yet to see any reason or rationality.  Only an unshakeable faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
Click to expand...


No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.

My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.  Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is belief and nothing but belief.  I think there is something I call God, but that is a belief.  It is supported by nothing except the fact that I think it.  There is no evidence to support it.  I not only could be wrong, I fully concede I probably am wrong.  But since there is no evidence one way or the other, I'll go with what feels right to me.  You can believe whatever feels right to you.  But don't even try and tell me that you are operating on reason and rationality rather than belief, because that is flat untrue.  You have no more evidence to support your conclusion than I have to support mine, so your conclusion is just as much belief as mine.  The only difference between us is that I can recognize when I am operating on belief alone.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.
> 
> What about this fact do you not grasp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.
> 
> What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where you present your evidence.  Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.
> 
> You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence.  Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.
> 
> You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who said you could easily do it.  I am simply asking you to back up your claim.  I assume you can't, so your position is faith based.  There really is no other option.  Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.
> 
> I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone.  Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.
> 
> Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I have proven my argument.  My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief.  As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable.  That is the only argument I have made here.
> 
> Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part.  It would help if you just said "oops".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.
> 
> You still haven't disproven by disproof of your gods and other gods. It's actually comical that you demand others disprove claims that you offer no support for and claim that you are under no obligation to do so.
> 
> It would help if you just append _"... because I say so"_, to your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have made no claims about gods, you have.  I would not even attempt to prove gods as there is no evidence.  It is a matter of pure belief.  I fully admit it is a matter of pure belief.  In the absence of evidence, one belief is no superior to any other belief.  You, on the other hand, insist your belief is not belief.  You have no evidence, you make claims you cannot support, and then you blame me because you can't support your unsupportable claims.
> 
> Atheism is not of itself a religion.  But you have clearly shown it can be turned into one.  What you are currently doing is accusing me of blasphemy, of questioning the holy writ.  But while I may be a believer, I am not confused into thinking my beliefs are anything more than beliefs and I am certainly not confused that yours are either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a bit reality challenged. I have made no positive claims about gods. I've simply required people like you to support your claims to the supernatural.
> 
> I have no more beliefs about your gods than I have beliefs about Bigfoot. And by the way, I suppose that your inability to disprove Bigfoot makes him/ her just as likely as your gods, of which you require belief until disproved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think because your beliefs are negative you get off scot free?  It doesn't work that way.  I do not require belief from you.  I require you support your claims. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right.  Or admit your just operating on faith.
> 
> You have said you can disprove gods.  Do it.
> You have said you think gods are improbable.  Produce the objective evidence you used to arrive at that conclusion.
> 
> These are claims you have made.  The onus is on you, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already disproven your gods. Prove I haven't.
> 
> Have you still not seen the futility of your nonsensical "prove it isn't" fallacy you use to prop-up your gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't seen your proof yet, so I can't respond to it.  And the only reason I have asked that you "prove it isn't" is because you made the claim you could.  Is this an example of the "reason and rationality" you spoke of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no proof of your gods or anyone else's gods. Neither do you.
Click to expand...


I never claimed I did.  You, however, made exactly that claim.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.
> 
> What about this fact do you not grasp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.
> 
> What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where you present your evidence.  Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.
> 
> You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence.  Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.
> 
> You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who said you could easily do it.  I am simply asking you to back up your claim.  I assume you can't, so your position is faith based.  There really is no other option.  Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.
> 
> I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone.  Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.
> 
> Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I have proven my argument.  My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief.  As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable.  That is the only argument I have made here.
> 
> Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part.  It would help if you just said "oops".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.
> 
> You still haven't disproven by disproof of your gods and other gods. It's actually comical that you demand others disprove claims that you offer no support for and claim that you are under no obligation to do so.
> 
> It would help if you just append _"... because I say so"_, to your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have made no claims about gods, you have.  I would not even attempt to prove gods as there is no evidence.  It is a matter of pure belief.  I fully admit it is a matter of pure belief.  In the absence of evidence, one belief is no superior to any other belief.  You, on the other hand, insist your belief is not belief.  You have no evidence, you make claims you cannot support, and then you blame me because you can't support your unsupportable claims.
> 
> Atheism is not of itself a religion.  But you have clearly shown it can be turned into one.  What you are currently doing is accusing me of blasphemy, of questioning the holy writ.  But while I may be a believer, I am not confused into thinking my beliefs are anything more than beliefs and I am certainly not confused that yours are either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a bit reality challenged. I have made no positive claims about gods. I've simply required people like you to support your claims to the supernatural.
> 
> I have no more beliefs about your gods than I have beliefs about Bigfoot. And by the way, I suppose that your inability to disprove Bigfoot makes him/ her just as likely as your gods, of which you require belief until disproved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think because your beliefs are negative you get off scot free?  It doesn't work that way.  I do not require belief from you.  I require you support your claims. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right.  Or admit your just operating on faith.
> 
> You have said you can disprove gods.  Do it.
> You have said you think gods are improbable.  Produce the objective evidence you used to arrive at that conclusion.
> 
> These are claims you have made.  The onus is on you, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already disproven your gods. Prove I haven't.
> 
> Have you still not seen the futility of your nonsensical "prove it isn't" fallacy you use to prop-up your gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't seen your proof yet, so I can't respond to it.  And the only reason I have asked that you "prove it isn't" is because you made the claim you could.  Is this an example of the "reason and rationality" you spoke of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no proof of your gods or anyone else's gods. Neither do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never claimed I did.  You, however, made exactly that claim.
Click to expand...

False. Nowhere did I claim to have proof of anyone's gods.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.
> 
> What about this fact do you not grasp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.
> 
> What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where you present your evidence.  Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.
> 
> You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence.  Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.
> 
> You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who said you could easily do it.  I am simply asking you to back up your claim.  I assume you can't, so your position is faith based.  There really is no other option.  Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.
> 
> I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone.  Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.
> 
> Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I have proven my argument.  My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief.  As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable.  That is the only argument I have made here.
> 
> Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part.  It would help if you just said "oops".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.
> 
> You still haven't disproven by disproof of your gods and other gods. It's actually comical that you demand others disprove claims that you offer no support for and claim that you are under no obligation to do so.
> 
> It would help if you just append _"... because I say so"_, to your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have made no claims about gods, you have.  I would not even attempt to prove gods as there is no evidence.  It is a matter of pure belief.  I fully admit it is a matter of pure belief.  In the absence of evidence, one belief is no superior to any other belief.  You, on the other hand, insist your belief is not belief.  You have no evidence, you make claims you cannot support, and then you blame me because you can't support your unsupportable claims.
> 
> Atheism is not of itself a religion.  But you have clearly shown it can be turned into one.  What you are currently doing is accusing me of blasphemy, of questioning the holy writ.  But while I may be a believer, I am not confused into thinking my beliefs are anything more than beliefs and I am certainly not confused that yours are either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a bit reality challenged. I have made no positive claims about gods. I've simply required people like you to support your claims to the supernatural.
> 
> I have no more beliefs about your gods than I have beliefs about Bigfoot. And by the way, I suppose that your inability to disprove Bigfoot makes him/ her just as likely as your gods, of which you require belief until disproved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think because your beliefs are negative you get off scot free?  It doesn't work that way.  I do not require belief from you.  I require you support your claims. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right.  Or admit your just operating on faith.
> 
> You have said you can disprove gods.  Do it.
> You have said you think gods are improbable.  Produce the objective evidence you used to arrive at that conclusion.
> 
> These are claims you have made.  The onus is on you, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already disproven your gods. Prove I haven't.
> 
> Have you still not seen the futility of your nonsensical "prove it isn't" fallacy you use to prop-up your gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't seen your proof yet, so I can't respond to it.  And the only reason I have asked that you "prove it isn't" is because you made the claim you could.  Is this an example of the "reason and rationality" you spoke of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no proof of your gods or anyone else's gods. Neither do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never claimed I did.  You, however, made exactly that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. Nowhere did I claim to have proof of anyone's gods.
Click to expand...


Sigh.....   Do you bother to read what you write?   "I have already disproven your gods."  It's just a few lines up.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.
> 
> What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?



The part where rejection of evidence is the same as absence thereof.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.
> 
> What about this fact do you not grasp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.
> 
> What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where you present your evidence.  Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.
> 
> You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence.  Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.
> 
> You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who said you could easily do it.  I am simply asking you to back up your claim.  I assume you can't, so your position is faith based.  There really is no other option.  Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.
> 
> I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone.  Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.
> 
> Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I have proven my argument.  My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief.  As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable.  That is the only argument I have made here.
> 
> Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part.  It would help if you just said "oops".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.
> 
> You still haven't disproven by disproof of your gods and other gods. It's actually comical that you demand others disprove claims that you offer no support for and claim that you are under no obligation to do so.
> 
> It would help if you just append _"... because I say so"_, to your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have made no claims about gods, you have.  I would not even attempt to prove gods as there is no evidence.  It is a matter of pure belief.  I fully admit it is a matter of pure belief.  In the absence of evidence, one belief is no superior to any other belief.  You, on the other hand, insist your belief is not belief.  You have no evidence, you make claims you cannot support, and then you blame me because you can't support your unsupportable claims.
> 
> Atheism is not of itself a religion.  But you have clearly shown it can be turned into one.  What you are currently doing is accusing me of blasphemy, of questioning the holy writ.  But while I may be a believer, I am not confused into thinking my beliefs are anything more than beliefs and I am certainly not confused that yours are either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a bit reality challenged. I have made no positive claims about gods. I've simply required people like you to support your claims to the supernatural.
> 
> I have no more beliefs about your gods than I have beliefs about Bigfoot. And by the way, I suppose that your inability to disprove Bigfoot makes him/ her just as likely as your gods, of which you require belief until disproved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think because your beliefs are negative you get off scot free?  It doesn't work that way.  I do not require belief from you.  I require you support your claims. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right.  Or admit your just operating on faith.
> 
> You have said you can disprove gods.  Do it.
> You have said you think gods are improbable.  Produce the objective evidence you used to arrive at that conclusion.
> 
> These are claims you have made.  The onus is on you, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already disproven your gods. Prove I haven't.
> 
> Have you still not seen the futility of your nonsensical "prove it isn't" fallacy you use to prop-up your gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't seen your proof yet, so I can't respond to it.  And the only reason I have asked that you "prove it isn't" is because you made the claim you could.  Is this an example of the "reason and rationality" you spoke of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no proof of your gods or anyone else's gods. Neither do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never claimed I did.  You, however, made exactly that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. Nowhere did I claim to have proof of anyone's gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.....   Do you bother to read what you write?   "I have already disproven your gods."  It's just a few lines up.
Click to expand...

Are you really that out of touch?

"I have no proof of your gods" is a different statement than "I have already disproven your gods."

How did you miss that?


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
Click to expand...


Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.

I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".

That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:


PratchettFan said:


> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.



And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hollie has so lost this discussion,

_It is amazing that people who claim they have no beliefs in gods seem incapable of separating gods from their thoughts._

^^^ that

Hollie, you got to support empirically that deity does not exist, you can't, yet you *believe *it.  Faith, yo


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.
> 
> What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The part where rejection of evidence is the same as absence thereof.
Click to expand...




Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.
> 
> What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The part where rejection of evidence is the same as absence thereof.
Click to expand...

The part where you offered no evidence? 

I can't reject evidence you have never offered.


----------



## Hollie

JakeStarkey said:


> Hollie has so lost this discussion,
> 
> _It is amazing that people who claim they have no beliefs in gods seem incapable of separating gods from their thoughts._
> 
> ^^^ that
> 
> Hollie, you got to support empirically that deity does not exist, you can't, yet you *believe *it.  Faith, yo


I can't be held responsible for your hurt feelings. 

I have no responsibility to disprove claims that are utterly absent a meaningful proposal. 

Here's how it works: you are now tasked to support empirically that Zeus does not exist. We'll then assign to you "does not exist" for all manner of fears and superstitions that define claims to the supernatural. 

Report back to us what you find.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hollie, no one is caring what you reject or accept except you.

Since you cannot or will not deal empirically, then you are right there with koshergrl on religion or stephanie on anti-obama or LadyGunSlinger on everybody haters: but none of them have the evidence.  Just like you.

Getting upset will not make you feel better: doesn't work that way.

Go take comfort in your faith that a God that does not exist will not get you. Boo!


----------



## Hollie

JakeStarkey said:


> Hollie, no one is caring what you reject or accept except you.
> 
> Since you cannot or will not deal empirically, then you are right there with koshergrl on religion or stephanie on anti-obama or LadyGunSlinger on everybody haters: but none of them have the evidence.  Just like you.


No one is caring what I reject or accept? That's a remarkable statement as you are continuing to care profoundly about my conclusion to reject claims to magic and supernaturalism, "yo".


----------



## JakeStarkey

Boo!   You left that out.  I don't care what you believe; I do care that you not abuse logic to come up with your silly conclusions.  You may have the last word, because it will mean nothing at all to the discussion.


----------



## Hollie

JakeStarkey said:


> Boo!   You left that out.  I don't care what you believe; I do care that you not abuse logic to come up with your silly conclusions.  You may have the last word, because it will mean nothing at all to the discussion.


"Abusing logic" is defined by concluding unsubstantiated claims to magic and supernaturalism as the foundation for a reality based worldview is... abusive?

Narly, yo.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.



What the fuck is supportable evidence? I have heard of supportable thesis and premises, but never new that I had to support evidence, or that supportable evidence even exist. A Google search didn't turn up any reference to the term in English, which leads me to conclude that it doesn't exist. Given that the term doesn't exist, the fact that no one can provide supportable evidence for anything is completely irrelevant.

That said, evidence for the existence of God does actually exist.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> Are you really that out of touch?
> 
> "I have no proof of your gods" is a different statement than "I have already disproven your gods."
> 
> How did you miss that?



How did you?



Hollie said:


> I have already disproven your gods.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> The part where you offered no evidence?
> 
> I can't reject evidence you have never offered.



I have provided evidence, go read the thread.


----------



## Pogo

In a related story, we do have evidence that trolls exist.  And that they practice when they've lost the argument.

/thread


----------



## Carla_Danger

JakeStarkey said:


> Hollie, no one is caring what you reject or accept except you.
> 
> Since you cannot or will not deal empirically, then you are right there with koshergrl on religion or stephanie on anti-obama or LadyGunSlinger on everybody haters: but none of them have the evidence.  Just like you.
> 
> Getting upset will not make you feel better: doesn't work that way.
> 
> Go take comfort in your faith that a God that does not exist will not get you. Boo!





I'm calling BS, and I think you know you're full of it.

I don't have faith that there is no God, I have no proof one way or the other. I'm just not buying it. I normally spend very little time thinking about my lack of faith. It's not a priority.

You seem hell bent on bringing atheism down to your level of witchcraft and wizardry, for some strange reason, and I'm not going to let you. I'm assuming you're not very secure with your own faith.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Pogo said:


> In a related story, we do have evidence that trolls exist.  And that they practice when they've lost the argument.
> 
> /thread




Now that I believe in.  I even have faith they'll be around tomorrow.  Is that a religion?


----------



## Pogo

Carla_Danger said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a related story, we do have evidence that trolls exist.  And that they practice when they've lost the argument.
> 
> /thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that I believe in.  I even have faith they'll be around tomorrow.  Is that a religion?
Click to expand...


Ah, not unless it addresses the Mysteries, hell no.


----------



## Pogo

Carla_Danger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, no one is caring what you reject or accept except you.
> 
> Since you cannot or will not deal empirically, then you are right there with koshergrl on religion or stephanie on anti-obama or LadyGunSlinger on everybody haters: but none of them have the evidence.  Just like you.
> 
> Getting upset will not make you feel better: doesn't work that way.
> 
> Go take comfort in your faith that a God that does not exist will not get you. Boo!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm calling BS, and I think you know you're full of it.
> 
> I don't have faith that there is no God, I have no proof one way or the other. I'm just not buying it. I normally spend very little time thinking about my lack of faith. It's not a priority.
> 
> You seem hell bent on bringing atheism down to your level of witchcraft and wizardry, for some strange reason, and I'm not going to let you. I'm assuming you're not very secure with your own faith.
Click to expand...


You get that impression too?  I noticed when this thread started and the naysayers kept rambling on and on about atheist proselytizing, at least two of its participants went feverishly starting atheism-bashing threads.  Leaves ya wondering who the proselytizers are.

Well, maybe "wondering" isn't the right word...


----------



## Carla_Danger

Pogo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, no one is caring what you reject or accept except you.
> 
> Since you cannot or will not deal empirically, then you are right there with koshergrl on religion or stephanie on anti-obama or LadyGunSlinger on everybody haters: but none of them have the evidence.  Just like you.
> 
> Getting upset will not make you feel better: doesn't work that way.
> 
> Go take comfort in your faith that a God that does not exist will not get you. Boo!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm calling BS, and I think you know you're full of it.
> 
> I don't have faith that there is no God, I have no proof one way or the other. I'm just not buying it. I normally spend very little time thinking about my lack of faith. It's not a priority.
> 
> You seem hell bent on bringing atheism down to your level of witchcraft and wizardry, for some strange reason, and I'm not going to let you. I'm assuming you're not very secure with your own faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You get that impression too?  I noticed when this thread started and the naysayers kept rambling on and on about atheist proselytizing, at least two of its participants went feverishly starting atheism-bashing threads.  Leaves ya wondering who the proselytizers are.
> 
> Well, maybe "wondering" isn't the right word...
Click to expand...



If they make atheism a religion, they don't have to look at the holes in their own religion.  I just looked at one of the threads you mentioned.  (I'm still shaking my head)





.


----------



## HUGGY

Carla_Danger said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, no one is caring what you reject or accept except you.
> 
> Since you cannot or will not deal empirically, then you are right there with koshergrl on religion or stephanie on anti-obama or LadyGunSlinger on everybody haters: but none of them have the evidence.  Just like you.
> 
> Getting upset will not make you feel better: doesn't work that way.
> 
> Go take comfort in your faith that a God that does not exist will not get you. Boo!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm calling BS, and I think you know you're full of it.
> 
> I don't have faith that there is no God, I have no proof one way or the other. I'm just not buying it. I normally spend very little time thinking about my lack of faith. It's not a priority.
> 
> You seem hell bent on bringing atheism down to your level of witchcraft and wizardry, for some strange reason, and I'm not going to let you. I'm assuming you're not very secure with your own faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You get that impression too?  I noticed when this thread started and the naysayers kept rambling on and on about atheist proselytizing, at least two of its participants went feverishly starting atheism-bashing threads.  Leaves ya wondering who the proselytizers are.
> 
> Well, maybe "wondering" isn't the right word...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they make atheism a religion, they don't have to look at the holes in their own religion.  I just looked at one of the threads you mentioned.  (I'm still shaking my head)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

 
Who are these "they" that would have the authority to proclaim atheism a religion?

Atheism is an individual outcome of rational observation.

That is the WHOLE point.

It is NOT becoming a member of anything. 

Even as dear Emily points out the Buhdists are on an individual path BUT they get the map to and through this path from an organization no matter how loosely arranged.  Nobody just sat down and on their own became a Buhdist.

Atheism requires NO outside guidlines or inspiration.  It is like I have said .... "The results of a personal observation".

Here on this thread many theists have stated to nauseum that there are in existance atheist churches.  I can't imagine why.  I know that I personally don't need anyone to talk to about something so obvious.  There are probably people that sit around together and discuss how fascinating it is that the sky is blue also.  "The Church Of The Blue Sky" no doubt.

I am curious though why an outsider to the obvious conclusion that sky fairies are a myth and not real have such an interest in defining my personal conclusion as a religion.  That is what drew me to this thread.  I'm seeing this and thinking..."WTF are these fools talking about?"  I have no need to "defend" my personal conclusion that religists myths are bunk or that being an atheist automatically makes me a religion of one.  Seeing some of them make these rediculous statements as if they had a clue what they where talking about is humorous.  They do not. it is as simple as that.


----------



## asaratis

*Atheism is not a religion?*  Richard Dawkins might disagree with you.

Pantheism as Sexed-up Atheism World Pantheism
Richard Dawkins, in his book _The God Delusion_, has described Pantheism as "sexed-up atheism." That may seem flippant, but it is accurate. Of all religious or spiritual traditions, Pantheism - the approach of Einstein, Hawking and many other scientists - is the only one that passes the muster of the world's most militant atheist.

....

If you are looking for atheist groups or freethought groups or brights groups and email lists, and if you would like ones that do a lot more than just attack religion, then you may well find World Pantheism the place you were looking for.

....

If atheism, humanism and naturalism are to advance, then they need approaches that don't simply leave the individual alone in the face of an increasingly threatening physical, social and international environment. They need ways of life that offer as rich a range of benefits as traditional religious ones.

....


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Those free from faith do not 'practice' a 'religion' as perceived by theists; indeed, it's a false comparison fallacy.


Moreover, there is nothing to be 'advanced,' just as the Earth orbiting the Sun doesn't need to be 'advanced.' One either accepts the fact that there is no 'god' as perceived by theists or he rejects it; one acknowledges a fact because it is a fact, not because one is enticed to do so by doctrinal incentives or promises made by religious dogma.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JakeStarkey said:


> Hollie has so lost this discussion,
> 
> _It is amazing that people who claim they have no beliefs in gods seem incapable of separating gods from their thoughts._
> 
> ^^^ that
> 
> Hollie, you got to support empirically that deity does not exist, you can't, yet you *believe *it.  Faith



And there it is.  Absolutely nothing posted rebuts this fact.  Logic is fact, not unsupported belief, yo.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.
> 
> What about this fact do you not grasp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.
> 
> What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where you present your evidence.  Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.
> 
> You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence.  Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.
> 
> You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who said you could easily do it.  I am simply asking you to back up your claim.  I assume you can't, so your position is faith based.  There really is no other option.  Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.
> 
> I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone.  Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.
> 
> Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I have proven my argument.  My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief.  As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable.  That is the only argument I have made here.
> 
> Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part.  It would help if you just said "oops".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.
> 
> You still haven't disproven by disproof of your gods and other gods. It's actually comical that you demand others disprove claims that you offer no support for and claim that you are under no obligation to do so.
> 
> It would help if you just append _"... because I say so"_, to your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have made no claims about gods, you have.  I would not even attempt to prove gods as there is no evidence.  It is a matter of pure belief.  I fully admit it is a matter of pure belief.  In the absence of evidence, one belief is no superior to any other belief.  You, on the other hand, insist your belief is not belief.  You have no evidence, you make claims you cannot support, and then you blame me because you can't support your unsupportable claims.
> 
> Atheism is not of itself a religion.  But you have clearly shown it can be turned into one.  What you are currently doing is accusing me of blasphemy, of questioning the holy writ.  But while I may be a believer, I am not confused into thinking my beliefs are anything more than beliefs and I am certainly not confused that yours are either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a bit reality challenged. I have made no positive claims about gods. I've simply required people like you to support your claims to the supernatural.
> 
> I have no more beliefs about your gods than I have beliefs about Bigfoot. And by the way, I suppose that your inability to disprove Bigfoot makes him/ her just as likely as your gods, of which you require belief until disproved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think because your beliefs are negative you get off scot free?  It doesn't work that way.  I do not require belief from you.  I require you support your claims. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right.  Or admit your just operating on faith.
> 
> You have said you can disprove gods.  Do it.
> You have said you think gods are improbable.  Produce the objective evidence you used to arrive at that conclusion.
> 
> These are claims you have made.  The onus is on you, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already disproven your gods. Prove I haven't.
> 
> Have you still not seen the futility of your nonsensical "prove it isn't" fallacy you use to prop-up your gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't seen your proof yet, so I can't respond to it.  And the only reason I have asked that you "prove it isn't" is because you made the claim you could.  Is this an example of the "reason and rationality" you spoke of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no proof of your gods or anyone else's gods. Neither do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never claimed I did.  You, however, made exactly that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. Nowhere did I claim to have proof of anyone's gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.....   Do you bother to read what you write?   "I have already disproven your gods."  It's just a few lines up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you really that out of touch?
> 
> "I have no proof of your gods" is a different statement than "I have already disproven your gods."
> 
> How did you miss that?
Click to expand...

 
I didn't miss it.  I also didn't miss where you said "I have already disproven your gods."  Are you going to pretend you didn't now?


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.
> 
> I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
> 
> That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
Click to expand...

 
You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you?  It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny?  Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?

Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  But it sure as hell is being treated as one.  Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one.  So don't blame others.  You're the ones who did it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Gary Anderson said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the atheistic Zionists founded Israel it is not a religious nation. It is a fraud.
Click to expand...


Thanks for you input, Adolf.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.
> 
> I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
> 
> That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you?  It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny?  Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
> 
> Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  But it sure as hell is being treated as one.  Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one.  So don't blame others.  You're the ones who did it.
Click to expand...



Here you are, talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you know atheism is not a religion, why are YOU treating it as one?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Hollie said:


> The answer to your questions is satisfied by "The gawds did it"



And you demonstrate what it means to be an Atheist, cocksure that your ignorance is the ultimate truth.

Reality is that we don't know shit, we can't even explain why gravity is a weak force.

Lisa Randall says that Brane Worlds are an answer, Stephen Hawking says they are not - which of these superlative minds do we believe? 

Atheists are fools, declaring absolutes with no evidence to support their position - working purely on faith, no different than the Christians they hate so much.

My most honest assessment is that an Atheist is one who hates Christians.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to your questions is satisfied by "The gawds did it"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you demonstrate what it means to be an Atheist, cocksure that your ignorance is the ultimate truth.
> 
> Reality is that we don't know shit, we can't even explain why gravity is a weak force.
> 
> Lisa Randall says that Brane Worlds are an answer, Stephen Hawking says they are not - which of these superlative minds do we believe?
> 
> Atheists are fools, declaring absolutes with no evidence to support their position - working purely on faith, no different than the Christians they hate so much.
> 
> My most honest assessment is that an Atheist is one who hates Christians.
Click to expand...



faith
fāTH/
_noun_

*1*.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"

synonyms:trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More

[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
*2*.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

synonyms:religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
"she gave her life for her faith"
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.
> 
> I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
> 
> That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you?  It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny?  Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
> 
> Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  But it sure as hell is being treated as one.  Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one.  So don't blame others.  You're the ones who did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are, talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you know atheism is not a religion, why are YOU treating it as one?
Click to expand...

 
Please do try to take the time to read what I say.  I'm not treating it as a religion.  The only people who can treat Atheism as a religion are Atheists.  All I am doing is pointing out that that is happening.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> *Atheism is not a religion?*  Richard Dawkins might disagree with you.
> 
> Pantheism as Sexed-up Atheism World Pantheism
> Richard Dawkins, in his book _The God Delusion_, has described Pantheism as "sexed-up atheism." That may seem flippant, but it is accurate. Of all religious or spiritual traditions, Pantheism - the approach of Einstein, Hawking and many other scientists - is the only one that passes the muster of the world's most militant atheist.
> 
> ....
> 
> If you are looking for atheist groups or freethought groups or brights groups and email lists, and if you would like ones that do a lot more than just attack religion, then you may well find World Pantheism the place you were looking for.
> 
> ....
> 
> If atheism, humanism and naturalism are to advance, then they need approaches that don't simply leave the individual alone in the face of an increasingly threatening physical, social and international environment. They need ways of life that offer as rich a range of benefits as traditional religious ones.
> 
> ....





LOL...are there any pantheist around here to dispute the above? I am an atheist, and atheism is not a religion.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.
> 
> I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
> 
> That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you?  It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny?  Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
> 
> Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  But it sure as hell is being treated as one.  Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one.  So don't blame others.  You're the ones who did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are, talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you know atheism is not a religion, why are YOU treating it as one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please do try to take the time to read what I say.  I'm not treating it as a religion.  The only people who can treat Atheism as a religion are Atheists.  All I am doing is pointing out that that is happening.
Click to expand...



I treat atheism as the exact opposite of religion, but I'm glad we both agree that atheism is not a religion.  You are 100 % correct to say that atheism is not a religion.


----------



## HUGGY

This isn't about whether Atheism is a religion.  This thread is about religists who have been caught still with their hands in the philosophical cookie jar after 3000 years and angry at anyone with the audacity to call them on it.  Most religists know full well that what they espouse has holes in it.  The thought that their very expensive and invested house of cards could and should be tumbling down around them at any minute scares the crap out of them.

So...they fight and scream like banshees whenever someone serious calls them on their ponzi scheme.  With cries of "what would the world do without religion?".  We would all go straight to hell in a handbasket.  All law and morality would evaporate without their presence gaurding all humanity from total annialation.  All the while attempting like diseased ticks burrowing deeper into our fabric and legal structure. 

Their greatest fear is that as people become better informed and less afraid of the boogerman that we as humanity will see them for what they are and reclaim what is left of their treasure and leave them penniless and eventually prosecuted simply for their fraud.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism is not a religion?*  Richard Dawkins might disagree with you.
> 
> Pantheism as Sexed-up Atheism World Pantheism
> Richard Dawkins, in his book _The God Delusion_, has described Pantheism as "sexed-up atheism." That may seem flippant, but it is accurate. Of all religious or spiritual traditions, Pantheism - the approach of Einstein, Hawking and many other scientists - is the only one that passes the muster of the world's most militant atheist.
> 
> ....
> 
> If you are looking for atheist groups or freethought groups or brights groups and email lists, and if you would like ones that do a lot more than just attack religion, then you may well find World Pantheism the place you were looking for.
> 
> ....
> 
> If atheism, humanism and naturalism are to advance, then they need approaches that don't simply leave the individual alone in the face of an increasingly threatening physical, social and international environment. They need ways of life that offer as rich a range of benefits as traditional religious ones.
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...are there any pantheist around here to dispute the above? I am an atheist, and atheism is not a religion.
Click to expand...

 
I guess that would be me.  I didn't read the book and I don't want to assume where he was going with it based upon the opinion of someone else.  Pantheism, however, is only akin to Atheism if you begin from the perspective of monotheism.  This is an extremely narrow perspective which I do not accept.


----------



## HUGGY

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.
> 
> I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
> 
> That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you?  It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny?  Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
> 
> Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  But it sure as hell is being treated as one.  Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one.  So don't blame others.  You're the ones who did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are, talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you know atheism is not a religion, why are YOU treating it as one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please do try to take the time to read what I say.  I'm not treating it as a religion.  The only people who can treat Atheism as a religion are Atheists.  All I am doing is pointing out that that is happening.
Click to expand...

 
Nonsense.  You want all philosophy called a religion so YOUR:  "I know you are but what am I"  argument will hold some water.

You NEED Atheists to be "groupthink" as you and your people operate.  You would like nothing more than to be able to point to some selfproclaimed AUTHORITY on Atheism and ask why I don't take it up with MY leaders.  Sadly for YOU there are none.

Solly Chawlee.... wrong species.  I don't roll that way.  I don't have any sign on my front door that reads "Suckers..Welcome"


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.
> 
> I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
> 
> That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you?  It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny?  Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
> 
> Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  But it sure as hell is being treated as one.  Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one.  So don't blame others.  You're the ones who did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are, talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you know atheism is not a religion, why are YOU treating it as one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please do try to take the time to read what I say.  I'm not treating it as a religion.  The only people who can treat Atheism as a religion are Atheists.  All I am doing is pointing out that that is happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I treat atheism as the exact opposite of religion, but I'm glad we both agree that atheism is not a religion.  You are 100 % correct to say that atheism is not a religion.
Click to expand...

 
Then you are treating Atheism as a religion.  In fact, you define your position in purely religious terms.  Speaking as an Agnostic, all you are saying is that your beliefs are the opposite of their beliefs.  Two sides of the same coin.  Your insistence that Atheism is not a religion as if that were evidence that you were not engaged in religious action is just an example of dogma.  It doesn't matter what definitions you use, it only matters what you do.


----------



## HUGGY

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.
> 
> I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
> 
> That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you?  It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny?  Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
> 
> Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  But it sure as hell is being treated as one.  Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one.  So don't blame others.  You're the ones who did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are, talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you know atheism is not a religion, why are YOU treating it as one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please do try to take the time to read what I say.  I'm not treating it as a religion.  The only people who can treat Atheism as a religion are Atheists.  All I am doing is pointing out that that is happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I treat atheism as the exact opposite of religion, but I'm glad we both agree that atheism is not a religion.  You are 100 % correct to say that atheism is not a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are treating Atheism as a religion.  In fact, you define your position in purely religious terms.  Speaking as an Agnostic, all you are saying is that your beliefs are the opposite of their beliefs.  Two sides of the same coin.  Your insistence that Atheism is not a religion as if that were evidence that you were not engaged in religious action is just an example of dogma.  It doesn't matter what definitions you use, it only matters what you do.
Click to expand...

 
Dude... You are a desperate clown.  Give it up.  There is no coin.  There are dishonest suckers like you and there are free and honest people like Carla.  We are not you..get over it.


----------



## PratchettFan

HUGGY said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.
> 
> I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
> 
> That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you?  It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny?  Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
> 
> Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  But it sure as hell is being treated as one.  Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one.  So don't blame others.  You're the ones who did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are, talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you know atheism is not a religion, why are YOU treating it as one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please do try to take the time to read what I say.  I'm not treating it as a religion.  The only people who can treat Atheism as a religion are Atheists.  All I am doing is pointing out that that is happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  You want all philosophy called a religion so YOUR:  "I know you are but what am I"  argument will hold some water.
> 
> You NEED Atheists to be "groupthink" as you and your people operate.  You would like nothing more than to be able to point to some selfproclaimed AUTHORITY on Atheism and ask why I don't take it up with MY leaders.  Sadly for YOU there are none.
> 
> Solly Chawlee.... wrong species.  I don't roll that way.  I don't have any sign on my front door that reads "Suckers..Welcome"
Click to expand...

 
I can impose nothing on you.  Only you can do that.  So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care?  Why apply a name to it?  Why do you need a definition?  Why do you bother talking about it at all? 

To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns.  Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed?  Zero time.  The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away. 

No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief.  You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion.  There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence.  Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.


----------



## PratchettFan

HUGGY said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.
> 
> I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
> 
> That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you?  It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny?  Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
> 
> Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  But it sure as hell is being treated as one.  Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one.  So don't blame others.  You're the ones who did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are, talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you know atheism is not a religion, why are YOU treating it as one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please do try to take the time to read what I say.  I'm not treating it as a religion.  The only people who can treat Atheism as a religion are Atheists.  All I am doing is pointing out that that is happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I treat atheism as the exact opposite of religion, but I'm glad we both agree that atheism is not a religion.  You are 100 % correct to say that atheism is not a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are treating Atheism as a religion.  In fact, you define your position in purely religious terms.  Speaking as an Agnostic, all you are saying is that your beliefs are the opposite of their beliefs.  Two sides of the same coin.  Your insistence that Atheism is not a religion as if that were evidence that you were not engaged in religious action is just an example of dogma.  It doesn't matter what definitions you use, it only matters what you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude... You are a desperate clown.  Give it up.  There is no coin.  There are dishonest suckers like you and there are free and honest people like Carla.  We are not you..get over it.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, I can see you believe that very strongly.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.
> 
> I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
> 
> That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you?  It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny?  Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
> 
> Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  But it sure as hell is being treated as one.  Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one.  So don't blame others.  You're the ones who did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are, talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you know atheism is not a religion, why are YOU treating it as one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please do try to take the time to read what I say.  I'm not treating it as a religion.  The only people who can treat Atheism as a religion are Atheists.  All I am doing is pointing out that that is happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I treat atheism as the exact opposite of religion, but I'm glad we both agree that atheism is not a religion.  You are 100 % correct to say that atheism is not a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are treating Atheism as a religion.  In fact, you define your position in purely religious terms.  Speaking as an Agnostic, all you are saying is that your beliefs are the opposite of their beliefs.  Two sides of the same coin.  Your insistence that Atheism is not a religion as if that were evidence that you were not engaged in religious action is just an example of dogma.  It doesn't matter what definitions you use, it only matters what you do.
Click to expand...



Complete BS. I do not treat atheism as a religion, because it is not one.  I spent the past 8 years referring to myself as an agnostic simply because it's not controversial. Atheism is very unpopular, hence the meaningless weasel-word "Agnostic," which is far less controversial and will seldom be challenged.

Atheism is not two sides of the same coin. We have no doctrine. _Atheism _is often portrayed as an all-nor-nothing position.  In most cases however, it is a statement about probability or _likelihood_.


----------



## HUGGY

OK ... I'm done with Cratchet.

He's gonna have to ride his merry-go-round by his own damned self.

His talking in circles is making my eye balls spin around in their sockets..  

Been real...been fun...but not real fun.


----------



## Carla_Danger

HUGGY said:


> OK ... I'm done with Cratchet.
> 
> He's gonna have to ride his merry-go-round by his own damned self.
> 
> His talking in circles is making my eye balls spin around in their sockets..
> 
> Been real...been fun...but not real fun.





Don't go...


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.
> 
> I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
> 
> That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you?  It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny?  Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
> 
> Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  But it sure as hell is being treated as one.  Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one.  So don't blame others.  You're the ones who did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are, talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you know atheism is not a religion, why are YOU treating it as one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please do try to take the time to read what I say.  I'm not treating it as a religion.  The only people who can treat Atheism as a religion are Atheists.  All I am doing is pointing out that that is happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  You want all philosophy called a religion so YOUR:  "I know you are but what am I"  argument will hold some water.
> 
> You NEED Atheists to be "groupthink" as you and your people operate.  You would like nothing more than to be able to point to some selfproclaimed AUTHORITY on Atheism and ask why I don't take it up with MY leaders.  Sadly for YOU there are none.
> 
> Solly Chawlee.... wrong species.  I don't roll that way.  I don't have any sign on my front door that reads "Suckers..Welcome"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can impose nothing on you.  Only you can do that.  So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care?  Why apply a name to it?  Why do you need a definition?  Why do you bother talking about it at all?
> 
> To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns.  Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed?  Zero time.  The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.
> 
> No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief.  You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion.  There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence.  Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.
Click to expand...


You just contradicted yourself.

Is your non-belief in unicorns describable as "religion"?  Obviously it is not.
Same damn thing.  Exactly .  Period.  Waiter, check please.

Having it both ways: Priceless.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Carla_Danger said:


> faith
> fāTH/
> _noun_
> 
> *1*.
> complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
> "this restores one's faith in politicians"
> 
> synonyms:trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> *2*.
> strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
> 
> synonyms:religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
> "she gave her life for her faith"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]



*faith*
[feyth] IPA Syllables

Examples
Word Origin
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing:
faith in another's ability.
2.
*belief that is not based on proof:*
He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

Faith Define Faith at Dictionary.com


----------



## Uncensored2008

Carla_Danger said:


> [
> 
> 
> I treat atheism as the exact opposite of religion, but I'm glad we both agree that atheism is not a religion.  You are 100 % correct to say that atheism is not a religion.



And you're willing to cut the heads off of infidels who claim it is on Al Jazeera!


----------



## Uncensored2008

Carla_Danger said:


> Don't go...



Rev. Jim got his ass kicked by me, then by Prachett; he needs time to lick his wounds and heal up.....


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.
> 
> I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
> 
> That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you?  It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny?  Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
> 
> Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  But it sure as hell is being treated as one.  Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one.  So don't blame others.  You're the ones who did it.
Click to expand...


Complete strawman, just for starters, since I said no such thing.  Why do you find the need to lie to try to build a bridge to a conclusion you can't get to anyway?

"Being treated" is weasel wording.  Your side (the revisionists who for some reason need atheism to be a "religion") are the ones trying to "treat it" as such.

I'm not married to the Easter Bunny, nor was I even aware of the word Alepidist (which apparently you made up -- Google search directs right back to this thread).  There again you're trying to treat lack of belief in the EB as a "religion".  _With your own made-up word_ no less.

Nobody ever answered the question as to why you Revisionistas need this redefinition to happen.  What's in it for you?

We might remind you yet again that atheism is not the absence of religion; it's the absence of _theism_.  Theism by itself isn't a religion either -- it's one flavor in _some _religions.  As a parallel --- _some _religions as part of their doctrine profess, for an example, reincarnation.  That doesn't make people who don't happen to accept reincarnation a "religion".  It _can't_ do that.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Uncensored2008 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> I treat atheism as the exact opposite of religion, but I'm glad we both agree that atheism is not a religion.  You are 100 % correct to say that atheism is not a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're willing to cut the heads off of infidels who claim it is on Al Jazeera!
Click to expand...




Huh?


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.
> 
> I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
> 
> That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you?  It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny?  Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
> 
> Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  But it sure as hell is being treated as one.  Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one.  So don't blame others.  You're the ones who did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are, talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you know atheism is not a religion, why are YOU treating it as one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please do try to take the time to read what I say.  I'm not treating it as a religion.  The only people who can treat Atheism as a religion are Atheists.  All I am doing is pointing out that that is happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  You want all philosophy called a religion so YOUR:  "I know you are but what am I"  argument will hold some water.
> 
> You NEED Atheists to be "groupthink" as you and your people operate.  You would like nothing more than to be able to point to some selfproclaimed AUTHORITY on Atheism and ask why I don't take it up with MY leaders.  Sadly for YOU there are none.
> 
> Solly Chawlee.... wrong species.  I don't roll that way.  I don't have any sign on my front door that reads "Suckers..Welcome"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can impose nothing on you.  Only you can do that.  So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care?  Why apply a name to it?  Why do you need a definition?  Why do you bother talking about it at all?
> 
> To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns.  Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed?  Zero time.  The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.
> 
> No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief.  You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion.  There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence.  Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just contradicted yourself.
> 
> Is your non-belief in unicorns describable as "religion"?  Obviously it is not.
> Same damn thing.  Exactly .  Period.  Waiter, check please.
> 
> Having it both ways: Priceless.
Click to expand...

 
No, it's not and no it is not the same thing.  I don't care enough to treat it as a religion.  But I get I am questioning the dogma, which is blasphemy.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Uncensored2008 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> faith
> fāTH/
> _noun_
> 
> *1*.
> complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
> "this restores one's faith in politicians"
> 
> synonyms:trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> *2*.
> strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
> 
> synonyms:religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
> "she gave her life for her faith"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *faith*
> [feyth] IPA Syllables
> 
> Examples
> Word Origin
> noun
> 1.
> confidence or trust in a person or thing:
> faith in another's ability.
> 2.
> *belief that is not based on proof:*
> He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
> 
> Faith Define Faith at Dictionary.com
Click to expand...




Yes, Ding Dong, and I would have faith, if I had proof... I have no proof one way or the other, therefore, I have no faith.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Carla_Danger said:


> Yes, Ding Dong, and I would have faith, if I had proof... I have no proof one way or the other, therefore, I have no faith.



So, you think faith is believing in things when you have proof? 

You voted for Barack Obama, dinja?


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.
> 
> I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
> 
> That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you?  It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny?  Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
> 
> Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  But it sure as hell is being treated as one.  Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one.  So don't blame others.  You're the ones who did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete strawman, just for starters, since I said no such thing.  Why do you find the need to lie to try to build a bridge to a conclusion you can't get to anyway?
> 
> "Being treated" is weasel wording.  Your side (the revisionists who for some reason need atheism to be a "religion") are the ones trying to "treat it" as such.
> 
> I'm not married to the Easter Bunny, nor was I even aware of the word Alepidist (which apparently you made up -- Google search directs right back to this thread).  There again you're trying to treat lack of belief in the EB as a "religion".  _With your own made-up word_ no less.
> 
> Nobody ever answered the question as to why you Revisionistas need this redefinition to happen.  What's in it for you?
> 
> We might remind you yet again that atheism is not the absence of religion; it's the absence of _theism_.  Theism by itself isn't a religion either -- it's one flavor in _some _religions.  As a parallel --- _some _religions as part of their doctrine profess, for an example, reincarnation.  That doesn't make people who don't happen to accept reincarnation a "religion".  It _can't_ do that.
Click to expand...

 
Of course I made the word up.  Lepus is latin for rabbit.  Alepidist.  Someone who believes there is no bunny.  And I didn't treat it as a religion.  I used it as an example of why the analogy you keep bringing up is meaningless. 

You want to do this with definitions.  I don't care about your definitions.  I do not feel constrained by them at all.  I base my conclusions not on arbitrary definitions but by actions.  If the definition does not conform to reality, it is the definition which is wrong. 

I have never said Atheism is the absence of religion.  I have said it is being treated as a religion by some Atheists.  The only people who can treat Atheism as religion are Atheists.


----------



## PratchettFan

Uncensored2008 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't go...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Jim got his ass kicked by me, then by Prachett; he needs time to lick his wounds and heal up.....
Click to expand...

 
No one is getting their ass kicked.  This is a discussion, not a fight.  No winners, no losers.  Just an exchange of viewpoints.


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.
> 
> I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
> 
> That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you?  It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny?  Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
> 
> Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  But it sure as hell is being treated as one.  Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one.  So don't blame others.  You're the ones who did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are, talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you know atheism is not a religion, why are YOU treating it as one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please do try to take the time to read what I say.  I'm not treating it as a religion.  The only people who can treat Atheism as a religion are Atheists.  All I am doing is pointing out that that is happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  You want all philosophy called a religion so YOUR:  "I know you are but what am I"  argument will hold some water.
> 
> You NEED Atheists to be "groupthink" as you and your people operate.  You would like nothing more than to be able to point to some selfproclaimed AUTHORITY on Atheism and ask why I don't take it up with MY leaders.  Sadly for YOU there are none.
> 
> Solly Chawlee.... wrong species.  I don't roll that way.  I don't have any sign on my front door that reads "Suckers..Welcome"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can impose nothing on you.  Only you can do that.  So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care?  Why apply a name to it?  Why do you need a definition?  Why do you bother talking about it at all?
> 
> To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns.  Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed?  Zero time.  The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.
> 
> No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief.  You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion.  There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence.  Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just contradicted yourself.
> 
> Is your non-belief in unicorns describable as "religion"?  Obviously it is not.
> Same damn thing.  Exactly .  Period.  Waiter, check please.
> 
> Having it both ways: Priceless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not and no it is not the same thing.  I don't care enough to treat it as a religion.  But I get I am questioning the dogma, which is blasphemy.
Click to expand...


You can't "question" nothingness.  There is no "dogma" since atheism is not a thing or concept; it's simply the dearth of a concept.  In the same way that dark is not a "thing" but the dearth of light and silence is not a "thing" but the dearth of sound.  Second, you can't "blaspheme" something you never accepted in the first place.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PratchettFan said:


> No one is getting their ass kicked.  This is a discussion, not a fight.  No winners, no losers.  Just an exchange of viewpoints.



I think you might have made a wrong turn on your way to the Kumbaya forum...


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.
> 
> I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
> 
> That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you?  It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny?  Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
> 
> Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  But it sure as hell is being treated as one.  Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one.  So don't blame others.  You're the ones who did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete strawman, just for starters, since I said no such thing.  Why do you find the need to lie to try to build a bridge to a conclusion you can't get to anyway?
> 
> "Being treated" is weasel wording.  Your side (the revisionists who for some reason need atheism to be a "religion") are the ones trying to "treat it" as such.
> 
> I'm not married to the Easter Bunny, nor was I even aware of the word Alepidist (which apparently you made up -- Google search directs right back to this thread).  There again you're trying to treat lack of belief in the EB as a "religion".  _With your own made-up word_ no less.
> 
> Nobody ever answered the question as to why you Revisionistas need this redefinition to happen.  What's in it for you?
> 
> We might remind you yet again that atheism is not the absence of religion; it's the absence of _theism_.  Theism by itself isn't a religion either -- it's one flavor in _some _religions.  As a parallel --- _some _religions as part of their doctrine profess, for an example, reincarnation.  That doesn't make people who don't happen to accept reincarnation a "religion".  It _can't_ do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I made the word up.  Lepus is latin for rabbit.  Alepidist.  Someone who believes there is no bunny.  And I didn't treat it as a religion.  I used it as an example of why the analogy you keep bringing up is meaningless.
> 
> You want to do this with definitions.*  I don't care about your definitions.  I do not feel constrained by them at all.*  I base my conclusions not on arbitrary definitions but by actions.  If the definition does not conform to reality, it is the definition which is wrong.
Click to expand...


You don't like the standard definition so you make up your own.  Yeah I'm hip. _ That's what this entire thread is *about*_.  



PratchettFan said:


> I have never said Atheism is the absence of religion.  I have said it is being treated as a religion by some Atheists.  The only people who can treat Atheism as religion are Atheists.



All this opposition to that fallacy puts the lie to that.  And again, done before, it's a biased sample fallacy.  If atheism were a religion it would be a religion to *ALL* atheists, not some cherrypicked attention seeking practical joke group.  Logical fallacy fails yet again.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> Complete BS. I do not treat atheism as a religion, because it is not one.  I spent the past 8 years referring to myself as an agnostic simply because it's not controversial. Atheism is very unpopular, hence the meaningless weasel-word "Agnostic," which is far less controversial and will seldom be challenged.
> 
> Atheism is not two sides of the same coin. We have no doctrine. _Atheism _is often portrayed as an all-nor-nothing position.  In most cases however, it is a statement about probability or _likelihood_.


That you choose not to be religious regarding your atheism does not mean that the religion of atheism is non-existent.  One of your leading atheists, Richard Dawkins calls Pantheism "sexed up Atheism".  There are numerous churches that have been formed for atheists to attend and fellowship with like-minded atheists.  Therefore, the religion of Atheism exists...you just choose not to participate.

They will always be there for you....and the courts agree.  In this case, it doesn't really matter what you believe.  Nothing that you can say or do will change the fact that Atheism is a religion.  It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless.  That you are not a religious person means nothing here.  It's not all about you.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.
> 
> I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
> 
> That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you?  It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny?  Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
> 
> Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  But it sure as hell is being treated as one.  Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one.  So don't blame others.  You're the ones who did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are, talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you know atheism is not a religion, why are YOU treating it as one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please do try to take the time to read what I say.  I'm not treating it as a religion.  The only people who can treat Atheism as a religion are Atheists.  All I am doing is pointing out that that is happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  You want all philosophy called a religion so YOUR:  "I know you are but what am I"  argument will hold some water.
> 
> You NEED Atheists to be "groupthink" as you and your people operate.  You would like nothing more than to be able to point to some selfproclaimed AUTHORITY on Atheism and ask why I don't take it up with MY leaders.  Sadly for YOU there are none.
> 
> Solly Chawlee.... wrong species.  I don't roll that way.  I don't have any sign on my front door that reads "Suckers..Welcome"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can impose nothing on you.  Only you can do that.  So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care?  Why apply a name to it?  Why do you need a definition?  Why do you bother talking about it at all?
> 
> To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns.  Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed?  Zero time.  The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.
> 
> No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief.  You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion.  There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence.  Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just contradicted yourself.
> 
> Is your non-belief in unicorns describable as "religion"?  Obviously it is not.
> Same damn thing.  Exactly .  Period.  Waiter, check please.
> 
> Having it both ways: Priceless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not and no it is not the same thing.  I don't care enough to treat it as a religion.  But I get I am questioning the dogma, which is blasphemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't "question" nothingness.  There is no "dogma" since atheism is not a thing or concept; it's simply the dearth of a concept.  In the same way that dark is not a "thing" but the dearth of light and silence is not a "thing" but the dearth of sound.  Second, you can't "blaspheme" something you never accepted in the first place.
Click to expand...

 
What evidence do you have God equates to nothingness?  If the answer is none, what word would you use to describe a position made in the total absence of evidence?

I'm not a Muslim, do you think I might be considered a blasphemer by Muslims if I drew a cartoon of Muhammad?


----------



## Pogo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Ding Dong, and I would have faith, if I had proof... I have no proof one way or the other, therefore, I have no faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you think faith is believing in things when you have proof?
> 
> You voted for Barack Obama, dinja?
Click to expand...


And speaking of logical fallacies, heeeeeere's Pothead, back from ER after getting ass whupped yesterday... y'all know Pothead?  One of the obsessive trolls who has to attention whore in every thread and try to turn it into something political?

"Pothead" has nothing to do with weed, btw -- it's from his flame of everybody he disagrees with as "Pol Pot", which tells you all you need to know about his logicianism.  Best ignored as this thread is completely over his head  (QED).


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.
> 
> I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
> 
> That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you?  It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny?  Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
> 
> Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  But it sure as hell is being treated as one.  Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one.  So don't blame others.  You're the ones who did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete strawman, just for starters, since I said no such thing.  Why do you find the need to lie to try to build a bridge to a conclusion you can't get to anyway?
> 
> "Being treated" is weasel wording.  Your side (the revisionists who for some reason need atheism to be a "religion") are the ones trying to "treat it" as such.
> 
> I'm not married to the Easter Bunny, nor was I even aware of the word Alepidist (which apparently you made up -- Google search directs right back to this thread).  There again you're trying to treat lack of belief in the EB as a "religion".  _With your own made-up word_ no less.
> 
> Nobody ever answered the question as to why you Revisionistas need this redefinition to happen.  What's in it for you?
> 
> We might remind you yet again that atheism is not the absence of religion; it's the absence of _theism_.  Theism by itself isn't a religion either -- it's one flavor in _some _religions.  As a parallel --- _some _religions as part of their doctrine profess, for an example, reincarnation.  That doesn't make people who don't happen to accept reincarnation a "religion".  It _can't_ do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I made the word up.  Lepus is latin for rabbit.  Alepidist.  Someone who believes there is no bunny.  And I didn't treat it as a religion.  I used it as an example of why the analogy you keep bringing up is meaningless.
> 
> You want to do this with definitions.*  I don't care about your definitions.  I do not feel constrained by them at all.*  I base my conclusions not on arbitrary definitions but by actions.  If the definition does not conform to reality, it is the definition which is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't like the standard definition so you make up your own.  Yeah I'm hip. _ That's what this entire thread is *about*_.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never said Atheism is the absence of religion.  I have said it is being treated as a religion by some Atheists.  The only people who can treat Atheism as religion are Atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All this opposition to that fallacy puts the lie to that.  And again, done before, it's a biased sample fallacy.  If atheism were a religion it would be a religion to *ALL* atheists, not some cherrypicked attention seeking practical joke group.  Logical fallacy fails yet again.
Click to expand...

 
No.  The standard definition is what you want it to be about.  That is the doctrine which must be followed.  I do not care about your doctrine.  What I am talking about is belief, which is an action.  I am pointing out the actions via the words being typed.  I'm not typing the words for people, I am just taking them as they come.  It's not my fault if they don't conform to the doctrine.

I have never accused you of being a member of a cherry picked attention seeking practical joke group.  If I were Huggy and the others I might be a little miffed at you for being so described.  As to your claim about ALL Atheists, I see no reason for that to be the case.  If only one person treats Atheism as a religion, then that person is treating Atheism as a religion.  If all the others don't, it doesn't change what that person is doing.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Complete BS. I do not treat atheism as a religion, because it is not one.  I spent the past 8 years referring to myself as an agnostic simply because it's not controversial. Atheism is very unpopular, hence the meaningless weasel-word "Agnostic," which is far less controversial and will seldom be challenged.
> 
> Atheism is not two sides of the same coin. We have no doctrine. _Atheism _is often portrayed as an all-nor-nothing position.  In most cases however, it is a statement about probability or _likelihood_.
> 
> 
> 
> That you choose not to be religious regarding your atheism does not mean that the religion of atheism is non-existent.  One of your leading atheists, Richard Dawkins calls Pantheism "sexed up Atheism".  There are numerous churches that have been formed for atheists to attend and fellowship with like-minded atheists.  Therefore, the religion of Atheism exists...you just choose not to participate.
> 
> They will always be there for you....and the courts agree.  In this case, it doesn't really matter what you believe.  Nothing that you can say or do will change the fact that Atheism is a religion.  It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless.  That you are not a religious person means nothing here.  It's not all about you.
Click to expand...


"Richard Dawkins" = Strawman.  See "Saul Alinksy".  See also definition of religion posted earlier, which makes obvious atheism dos not qualify.

For the 99th time --- WHY do you need to revise atheism into a "religion"?  What's in it for you?

Do you believe in reincarnation?   If not, is that non-presence of belief a "religion"?

Easter Bunny?  Unicorns?  Loch Ness Monster?  Elvis still alive?


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.
> 
> I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
> 
> That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you?  It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny?  Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
> 
> Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  But it sure as hell is being treated as one.  Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one.  So don't blame others.  You're the ones who did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete strawman, just for starters, since I said no such thing.  Why do you find the need to lie to try to build a bridge to a conclusion you can't get to anyway?
> 
> "Being treated" is weasel wording.  Your side (the revisionists who for some reason need atheism to be a "religion") are the ones trying to "treat it" as such.
> 
> I'm not married to the Easter Bunny, nor was I even aware of the word Alepidist (which apparently you made up -- Google search directs right back to this thread).  There again you're trying to treat lack of belief in the EB as a "religion".  _With your own made-up word_ no less.
> 
> Nobody ever answered the question as to why you Revisionistas need this redefinition to happen.  What's in it for you?
> 
> We might remind you yet again that atheism is not the absence of religion; it's the absence of _theism_.  Theism by itself isn't a religion either -- it's one flavor in _some _religions.  As a parallel --- _some _religions as part of their doctrine profess, for an example, reincarnation.  That doesn't make people who don't happen to accept reincarnation a "religion".  It _can't_ do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I made the word up.  Lepus is latin for rabbit.  Alepidist.  Someone who believes there is no bunny.  And I didn't treat it as a religion.  I used it as an example of why the analogy you keep bringing up is meaningless.
> 
> You want to do this with definitions.*  I don't care about your definitions.  I do not feel constrained by them at all.*  I base my conclusions not on arbitrary definitions but by actions.  If the definition does not conform to reality, it is the definition which is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't like the standard definition so you make up your own.  Yeah I'm hip. _ That's what this entire thread is *about*_.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never said Atheism is the absence of religion.  I have said it is being treated as a religion by some Atheists.  The only people who can treat Atheism as religion are Atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All this opposition to that fallacy puts the lie to that.  And again, done before, it's a biased sample fallacy.  If atheism were a religion it would be a religion to *ALL* atheists, not some cherrypicked attention seeking practical joke group.  Logical fallacy fails yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  The standard definition is what you want it to be about.  That is the doctrine which must be followed.  I do not care about your doctrine.  What I am talking about is belief, which is an action.  I am pointing out the actions via the words being typed.  I'm not typing the words for people, I am just taking them as they come.  It's not my fault if they don't conform to the doctrine.
> 
> I have never accused you of being a member of a cherry picked attention seeking practical joke group.  If I were Huffy and the others I might be a little miffed at you for being so described.  As to your claim about ALL Atheists, I see no reason for that to be the case.  If only one person treats Atheism as a religion, then that person is treating Atheism as a religion.  If all the others don't, it doesn't change what that person is doing.
Click to expand...


It doesn't change what that publicity group is dong, no, but that's the wrong question.  The right question is: is what that cherrypicked practical joke group does  _representative _of anything beyond its own practical joke?  And obviously the answer is no.  You just cherrerrypicked it to make a sweeping generalization about the whole.  Which is, all together now, *a logical fallacy*.

Is this a "religion"?  You can become an "ordained minister"...

This is quite the desperation leap on your part.  And you *still *haven't explained why you need to morph the utter absence of something into not only a positive but a "religion".


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just contradicted yourself.
> 
> Is your non-belief in unicorns describable as "religion"?  Obviously it is not.
> Same damn thing.  Exactly .  Period.  Waiter, check please.
> 
> Having it both ways: Priceless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not and no it is not the same thing.  I don't care enough to treat it as a religion.  But I get I am questioning the dogma, which is blasphemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't "question" nothingness.  There is no "dogma" since atheism is not a thing or concept; it's simply the dearth of a concept.  In the same way that dark is not a "thing" but the dearth of light and silence is not a "thing" but the dearth of sound.  Second, you can't "blaspheme" something you never accepted in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have God equates to nothingness?  If the answer is none, what word would you use to describe a position made in the total absence of evidence?
Click to expand...


See the defensiveness yet again?
"Nothingness" there does not refer to "God".  It refers to _atheism _and its nonexistent "dogma" which you pretend to question  (which questioning is a strawman since there's no such thing).

Again, why do you feel this need to lie?


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.
> 
> I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
> 
> That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you?  It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny?  Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
> 
> Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  But it sure as hell is being treated as one.  Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one.  So don't blame others.  You're the ones who did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete strawman, just for starters, since I said no such thing.  Why do you find the need to lie to try to build a bridge to a conclusion you can't get to anyway?
> 
> "Being treated" is weasel wording.  Your side (the revisionists who for some reason need atheism to be a "religion") are the ones trying to "treat it" as such.
> 
> I'm not married to the Easter Bunny, nor was I even aware of the word Alepidist (which apparently you made up -- Google search directs right back to this thread).  There again you're trying to treat lack of belief in the EB as a "religion".  _With your own made-up word_ no less.
> 
> Nobody ever answered the question as to why you Revisionistas need this redefinition to happen.  What's in it for you?
> 
> We might remind you yet again that atheism is not the absence of religion; it's the absence of _theism_.  Theism by itself isn't a religion either -- it's one flavor in _some _religions.  As a parallel --- _some _religions as part of their doctrine profess, for an example, reincarnation.  That doesn't make people who don't happen to accept reincarnation a "religion".  It _can't_ do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I made the word up.  Lepus is latin for rabbit.  Alepidist.  Someone who believes there is no bunny.  And I didn't treat it as a religion.  I used it as an example of why the analogy you keep bringing up is meaningless.
> 
> You want to do this with definitions.*  I don't care about your definitions.  I do not feel constrained by them at all.*  I base my conclusions not on arbitrary definitions but by actions.  If the definition does not conform to reality, it is the definition which is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't like the standard definition so you make up your own.  Yeah I'm hip. _ That's what this entire thread is *about*_.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never said Atheism is the absence of religion.  I have said it is being treated as a religion by some Atheists.  The only people who can treat Atheism as religion are Atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All this opposition to that fallacy puts the lie to that.  And again, done before, it's a biased sample fallacy.  If atheism were a religion it would be a religion to *ALL* atheists, not some cherrypicked attention seeking practical joke group.  Logical fallacy fails yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  The standard definition is what you want it to be about.  That is the doctrine which must be followed.  I do not care about your doctrine.  What I am talking about is belief, which is an action.  I am pointing out the actions via the words being typed.  I'm not typing the words for people, I am just taking them as they come.  It's not my fault if they don't conform to the doctrine.
> 
> I have never accused you of being a member of a cherry picked attention seeking practical joke group.  If I were Huffy and the others I might be a little miffed at you for being so described.  As to your claim about ALL Atheists, I see no reason for that to be the case.  If only one person treats Atheism as a religion, then that person is treating Atheism as a religion.  If all the others don't, it doesn't change what that person is doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't change what that publicity group is dong, no, but that's the wrong question.  The right question is: is what that cherrypicked practical joke group does  _representative _of anything beyond its own practical joke?  And obviously the answer is no.  You just cherrerrypicked it to make a sweeping generalization about the whole.  Which is, all together now, *a logical fallacy*.
> 
> Is this a "religion"?  You can become an "ordained minister"...
> 
> This is quite the desperation leap on your part.  And you *still *haven't explained why you need to morph the utter absence of something into not only a positive but a "religion".
Click to expand...

 
No desperation on my part.  I don't care what you believe.  I am fascinated by the process of belief and I consider this particular discussion extremely interesting.  It reminds me of a discussion I once had with a biblical literalist on the subject of prayer, pointing out Jesus instructed him to only pray on his own and him tap dancing to explain why Jesus really didn't mean that at all.  The only skin I have in this game is curiosity and, admittedly, entertainment.

BTW, the only person doing sweeping generalizations here is you.  Just thought I would point that out.  I am being very specific.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just contradicted yourself.
> 
> Is your non-belief in unicorns describable as "religion"?  Obviously it is not.
> Same damn thing.  Exactly .  Period.  Waiter, check please.
> 
> Having it both ways: Priceless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not and no it is not the same thing.  I don't care enough to treat it as a religion.  But I get I am questioning the dogma, which is blasphemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't "question" nothingness.  There is no "dogma" since atheism is not a thing or concept; it's simply the dearth of a concept.  In the same way that dark is not a "thing" but the dearth of light and silence is not a "thing" but the dearth of sound.  Second, you can't "blaspheme" something you never accepted in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have God equates to nothingness?  If the answer is none, what word would you use to describe a position made in the total absence of evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the defensiveness yet again?
> "Nothingness" there does not refer to "God".  It refers to _atheism _and its nonexistent "dogma" which you pretend to question  (which questioning is a strawman since there's no such thing).
> 
> Again, why do you feel this need to lie?
Click to expand...

 
My mistake.  Though I don't pretend to question the dogma, I think I'm pretty forthright that I do question it.

Why do you feel the need to villianize?


----------



## PratchettFan

Uncensored2008 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is getting their ass kicked.  This is a discussion, not a fight.  No winners, no losers.  Just an exchange of viewpoints.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you might have made a wrong turn on your way to the Kumbaya forum...
Click to expand...

 
That's always a possibility.


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.
> 
> I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
> 
> That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you?  It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny?  Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
> 
> Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  But it sure as hell is being treated as one.  Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one.  So don't blame others.  You're the ones who did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are, talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you know atheism is not a religion, why are YOU treating it as one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please do try to take the time to read what I say.  I'm not treating it as a religion.  The only people who can treat Atheism as a religion are Atheists.  All I am doing is pointing out that that is happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  You want all philosophy called a religion so YOUR:  "I know you are but what am I"  argument will hold some water.
> 
> You NEED Atheists to be "groupthink" as you and your people operate.  You would like nothing more than to be able to point to some selfproclaimed AUTHORITY on Atheism and ask why I don't take it up with MY leaders.  Sadly for YOU there are none.
> 
> Solly Chawlee.... wrong species.  I don't roll that way.  I don't have any sign on my front door that reads "Suckers..Welcome"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can impose nothing on you.  Only you can do that.  So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care?  Why apply a name to it?  Why do you need a definition?  Why do you bother talking about it at all?
> 
> To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns.  Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed?  Zero time.  The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.
> 
> No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief.  You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion.  There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence.  Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.
Click to expand...


Utter absurdity.    Oh never mind, you just did.
Having a freaking *preference *or *opinion *on something does not a religion make.  You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke.  You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department.  That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Complete BS. I do not treat atheism as a religion, because it is not one.  I spent the past 8 years referring to myself as an agnostic simply because it's not controversial. Atheism is very unpopular, hence the meaningless weasel-word "Agnostic," which is far less controversial and will seldom be challenged.
> 
> Atheism is not two sides of the same coin. We have no doctrine. _Atheism _is often portrayed as an all-nor-nothing position.  In most cases however, it is a statement about probability or _likelihood_.
> 
> 
> 
> That you choose not to be religious regarding your atheism does not mean that the religion of atheism is non-existent.  One of your leading atheists, Richard Dawkins calls Pantheism "sexed up Atheism".  There are numerous churches that have been formed for atheists to attend and fellowship with like-minded atheists.  Therefore, the religion of Atheism exists...you just choose not to participate.
> 
> They will always be there for you....and the courts agree.  In this case, it doesn't really matter what you believe.  Nothing that you can say or do will change the fact that Atheism is a religion.  It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless.  That you are not a religious person means nothing here.  It's not all about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Richard Dawkins" = Strawman.  See "Saul Alinksy".  See also definition of religion posted earlier, which makes obvious atheism dos not qualify.
> 
> For the 99th time --- *WHY do you need to revise atheism into a "religion"?  What's in it for you?*
> 
> Do you believe in reincarnation?   If not, is that non-presence of belief a "religion"?
> 
> Easter Bunny?  Unicorns?  Loch Ness Monster?  Elvis still alive?
Click to expand...

*I don't. *It has been done by some of your fellow atheists.

*Nothing. *I am merely discussing the now ridiculous posit of the OP....that Atheism is not a religion.

It has been clearly shown...repeatedly...that there are Atheist churches available, that they have ministers, that they solicit funds (to build a church), that they seek new members, that the courts recognize them under the 1st Amendment....just like other religions.

The fact that you and Carla believe otherwise is fine with me.  I do not care what you believe or disbelieve.  What is obvious to any reasonable adult is that you have lost this debate.  Atheism is a religion.


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just contradicted yourself.
> 
> Is your non-belief in unicorns describable as "religion"?  Obviously it is not.
> Same damn thing.  Exactly .  Period.  Waiter, check please.
> 
> Having it both ways: Priceless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not and no it is not the same thing.  I don't care enough to treat it as a religion.  But I get I am questioning the dogma, which is blasphemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't "question" nothingness.  There is no "dogma" since atheism is not a thing or concept; it's simply the dearth of a concept.  In the same way that dark is not a "thing" but the dearth of light and silence is not a "thing" but the dearth of sound.  Second, you can't "blaspheme" something you never accepted in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have God equates to nothingness?  If the answer is none, what word would you use to describe a position made in the total absence of evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the defensiveness yet again?
> "Nothingness" there does not refer to "God".  It refers to _atheism _and its nonexistent "dogma" which you pretend to question  (which questioning is a strawman since there's no such thing).
> 
> Again, why do you feel this need to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mistake.  Though I don't pretend to question the dogma, I think I'm pretty forthright that I do question it.
> 
> Why do you feel the need to villianize?
Click to expand...


Aaaand we're right back to where we started, where you call your own strawman to the witness stand.
Proceed, Counselor.   Let this strawperson explain to the court what this "dogma" is.  The First Court of Circular Reasoning is now in session, Judge Pee Wee Herman presiding....


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Complete BS. I do not treat atheism as a religion, because it is not one.  I spent the past 8 years referring to myself as an agnostic simply because it's not controversial. Atheism is very unpopular, hence the meaningless weasel-word "Agnostic," which is far less controversial and will seldom be challenged.
> 
> Atheism is not two sides of the same coin. We have no doctrine. _Atheism _is often portrayed as an all-nor-nothing position.  In most cases however, it is a statement about probability or _likelihood_.
> 
> 
> 
> That you choose not to be religious regarding your atheism does not mean that the religion of atheism is non-existent.  One of your leading atheists, Richard Dawkins calls Pantheism "sexed up Atheism".  There are numerous churches that have been formed for atheists to attend and fellowship with like-minded atheists.  Therefore, the religion of Atheism exists...you just choose not to participate.
> 
> They will always be there for you....and the courts agree.  In this case, it doesn't really matter what you believe.  Nothing that you can say or do will change the fact that Atheism is a religion.  It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless.  That you are not a religious person means nothing here.  It's not all about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Richard Dawkins" = Strawman.  See "Saul Alinksy".  See also definition of religion posted earlier, which makes obvious atheism dos not qualify.
> 
> For the 99th time --- *WHY do you need to revise atheism into a "religion"?  What's in it for you?*
> 
> Do you believe in reincarnation?   If not, is that non-presence of belief a "religion"?
> 
> Easter Bunny?  Unicorns?  Loch Ness Monster?  Elvis still alive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't. *It has been done by some of your fellow atheists.
> 
> *Nothing. *I am merely discussing the now ridiculous posit of the OP....that Atheism is not a religion.
> 
> It has been clearly shown...repeatedly...that there are Atheist churches available, that they have ministers, that they solicit funds (to build a church), that they seek new members, that the courts recognize them under the 1st Amendment....just like other religions.
> 
> The fact that you and Carla believe otherwise is fine with me.  I do not care what you believe or disbelieve.  What is obvious to any reasonable adult is that you have lost this debate.  Atheism is a religion.
Click to expand...



So you're saying this guy is a god...





​Your own logic, dood...


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.
> 
> I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
> 
> That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you?  It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny?  Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
> 
> Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  But it sure as hell is being treated as one.  Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one.  So don't blame others.  You're the ones who did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are, talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you know atheism is not a religion, why are YOU treating it as one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please do try to take the time to read what I say.  I'm not treating it as a religion.  The only people who can treat Atheism as a religion are Atheists.  All I am doing is pointing out that that is happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  You want all philosophy called a religion so YOUR:  "I know you are but what am I"  argument will hold some water.
> 
> You NEED Atheists to be "groupthink" as you and your people operate.  You would like nothing more than to be able to point to some selfproclaimed AUTHORITY on Atheism and ask why I don't take it up with MY leaders.  Sadly for YOU there are none.
> 
> Solly Chawlee.... wrong species.  I don't roll that way.  I don't have any sign on my front door that reads "Suckers..Welcome"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can impose nothing on you.  Only you can do that.  So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care?  Why apply a name to it?  Why do you need a definition?  Why do you bother talking about it at all?
> 
> To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns.  Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed?  Zero time.  The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.
> 
> No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief.  You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion.  There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence.  Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Utter absurdity.    Oh never mind, you just did.
> Having a freaking *preference *or *opinion *on something does not a religion make.  You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke.  You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department.  That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".
Click to expand...

 
It doesn't make Christianity religion either.  So you tell me, what does make it religion?  What are the attributes we need to look for?


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just contradicted yourself.
> 
> Is your non-belief in unicorns describable as "religion"?  Obviously it is not.
> Same damn thing.  Exactly .  Period.  Waiter, check please.
> 
> Having it both ways: Priceless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not and no it is not the same thing.  I don't care enough to treat it as a religion.  But I get I am questioning the dogma, which is blasphemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't "question" nothingness.  There is no "dogma" since atheism is not a thing or concept; it's simply the dearth of a concept.  In the same way that dark is not a "thing" but the dearth of light and silence is not a "thing" but the dearth of sound.  Second, you can't "blaspheme" something you never accepted in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have God equates to nothingness?  If the answer is none, what word would you use to describe a position made in the total absence of evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the defensiveness yet again?
> "Nothingness" there does not refer to "God".  It refers to _atheism _and its nonexistent "dogma" which you pretend to question  (which questioning is a strawman since there's no such thing).
> 
> Again, why do you feel this need to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mistake.  Though I don't pretend to question the dogma, I think I'm pretty forthright that I do question it.
> 
> Why do you feel the need to villianize?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aaaand we're right back to where we started, where you call your own strawman to the witness stand.
> Proceed, Counselor.   Let this strawperson explain to the court what this "dogma" is.  The First Court of Circular Reasoning is now in session, Judge Pee Wee Herman presiding....
Click to expand...

 
Aaaand I am once again answering that question.  The dogma is that your belief is not belief.


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can impose nothing on you.  Only you can do that.  So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care?  Why apply a name to it?  Why do you need a definition?  Why do you bother talking about it at all?
> 
> To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns.  Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed?  Zero time.  The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.
> 
> No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief.  You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion.  There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence.  Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter absurdity.    Oh never mind, you just did.
> Having a freaking *preference *or *opinion *on something does not a religion make.  You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke.  You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department.  That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't make Christianity religion either.  So you tell me, what does make it religion?  What are the attributes we need to look for?
Click to expand...




For this leave us go back to post 395 (directed originally to Emily) -- roll tape:

religion [ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1.
a set of beliefs *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*, *especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.  (Dictionary.com)

-- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit.  That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either.  All that is is having an opinion.

I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu.  That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teach*ings*, not the teach*er.*  That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism.  However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.

(As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).

So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge.  Buddhism does that, so it's a religion.  Taoism does that so it too is a religion.  Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, Zoroastrianism, they all do that and are therefore "religions".

Not smoking does not do that; Constitutionalism does not do that; atheism does not do that.  None of them therefore are "religions".  I get the impression some here believe that proselytizing for any cause whatsoever constitutes a "religion" but it doesn't.  It constitutes _ advocacy_.  Nothing more.


--- which last point still doesn't apply to atheism since it's a personal conclusion.

Perhaps the missing ingredient in all this is the admission that beliefs are not necessarily always extroverted.  There's no reason they need to be to qualify as either belief or religion.  Atheism is by definition _introspective_.  Trying to pretend it "proselytizing" is like trying to pretend a desert is "against" the idea of water.


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just contradicted yourself.
> 
> Is your non-belief in unicorns describable as "religion"?  Obviously it is not.
> Same damn thing.  Exactly .  Period.  Waiter, check please.
> 
> Having it both ways: Priceless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not and no it is not the same thing.  I don't care enough to treat it as a religion.  But I get I am questioning the dogma, which is blasphemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't "question" nothingness.  There is no "dogma" since atheism is not a thing or concept; it's simply the dearth of a concept.  In the same way that dark is not a "thing" but the dearth of light and silence is not a "thing" but the dearth of sound.  Second, you can't "blaspheme" something you never accepted in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have God equates to nothingness?  If the answer is none, what word would you use to describe a position made in the total absence of evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the defensiveness yet again?
> "Nothingness" there does not refer to "God".  It refers to _atheism _and its nonexistent "dogma" which you pretend to question  (which questioning is a strawman since there's no such thing).
> 
> Again, why do you feel this need to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mistake.  Though I don't pretend to question the dogma, I think I'm pretty forthright that I do question it.
> 
> Why do you feel the need to villianize?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aaaand we're right back to where we started, where you call your own strawman to the witness stand.
> Proceed, Counselor.   Let this strawperson explain to the court what this "dogma" is.  The First Court of Circular Reasoning is now in session, Judge Pee Wee Herman presiding....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aaaand I am once again answering that question.  The dogma is that your belief is not belief.
Click to expand...



So now you would have this Court believe that any belief about anything constitutes a "religion"?

Or did you mean to type "non-belief" with a hyphen?  i.e. that the absence of belief is _itself_ a belief?


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Complete BS. I do not treat atheism as a religion, because it is not one.  I spent the past 8 years referring to myself as an agnostic simply because it's not controversial. Atheism is very unpopular, hence the meaningless weasel-word "Agnostic," which is far less controversial and will seldom be challenged.
> 
> Atheism is not two sides of the same coin. We have no doctrine. _Atheism _is often portrayed as an all-nor-nothing position.  In most cases however, it is a statement about probability or _likelihood_.
> 
> 
> 
> That you choose not to be religious regarding your atheism does not mean that the religion of atheism is non-existent.  One of your leading atheists, Richard Dawkins calls Pantheism "sexed up Atheism".  There are numerous churches that have been formed for atheists to attend and fellowship with like-minded atheists.  Therefore, the religion of Atheism exists...you just choose not to participate.
> 
> They will always be there for you....and the courts agree.  In this case, it doesn't really matter what you believe.  Nothing that you can say or do will change the fact that Atheism is a religion.  It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless.  That you are not a religious person means nothing here.  It's not all about you.
Click to expand...



Richard Dawkins is not my leader.  I have no leader. Since you have blind faith, that may be foreign to you. The courts don't agree and have never defined atheism as a religion. We only have equal protection.

The atheist churches you've mentioned, are nothing more than community centers, and I suspect the one that ordains ministers is just trying to raise money, possibly in a very unethical way.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.
> 
> I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
> 
> That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you?  It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny?  Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
> 
> Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  But it sure as hell is being treated as one.  Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one.  So don't blame others.  You're the ones who did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are, talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you know atheism is not a religion, why are YOU treating it as one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please do try to take the time to read what I say.  I'm not treating it as a religion.  The only people who can treat Atheism as a religion are Atheists.  All I am doing is pointing out that that is happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  You want all philosophy called a religion so YOUR:  "I know you are but what am I"  argument will hold some water.
> 
> You NEED Atheists to be "groupthink" as you and your people operate.  You would like nothing more than to be able to point to some selfproclaimed AUTHORITY on Atheism and ask why I don't take it up with MY leaders.  Sadly for YOU there are none.
> 
> Solly Chawlee.... wrong species.  I don't roll that way.  I don't have any sign on my front door that reads "Suckers..Welcome"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can impose nothing on you.  Only you can do that.  So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care?  Why apply a name to it?  Why do you need a definition?  Why do you bother talking about it at all?
> 
> To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns.  Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed?  Zero time.  The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.
> 
> No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief.  You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion.  There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence.  Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Utter absurdity.    Oh never mind, you just did.
> Having a freaking *preference *or *opinion *on something does not a religion make.  You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke.  You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department.  That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't make Christianity religion either.  So you tell me, what does make it religion?  What are the attributes we need to look for?
Click to expand...




Okay, I think I see the problem here.  Maybe once you learn the definition of religion, you'll see the flaws in your argument.


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Complete BS. I do not treat atheism as a religion, because it is not one.  I spent the past 8 years referring to myself as an agnostic simply because it's not controversial. Atheism is very unpopular, hence the meaningless weasel-word "Agnostic," which is far less controversial and will seldom be challenged.
> 
> Atheism is not two sides of the same coin. We have no doctrine. _Atheism _is often portrayed as an all-nor-nothing position.  In most cases however, it is a statement about probability or _likelihood_.
> 
> 
> 
> That you choose not to be religious regarding your atheism does not mean that the religion of atheism is non-existent.  One of your leading atheists, Richard Dawkins calls Pantheism "sexed up Atheism".  There are numerous churches that have been formed for atheists to attend and fellowship with like-minded atheists.  Therefore, the religion of Atheism exists...you just choose not to participate.
> 
> They will always be there for you....and the courts agree.  In this case, it doesn't really matter what you believe.  Nothing that you can say or do will change the fact that Atheism is a religion.  It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless.  That you are not a religious person means nothing here.  It's not all about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Richard Dawkins" = Strawman.  See "Saul Alinksy".  See also definition of religion posted earlier, which makes obvious atheism dos not qualify.
> 
> For the 99th time --- *WHY do you need to revise atheism into a "religion"?  What's in it for you?*
> 
> Do you believe in reincarnation?   If not, is that non-presence of belief a "religion"?
> 
> Easter Bunny?  Unicorns?  Loch Ness Monster?  Elvis still alive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't. *It has been done by some of your fellow atheists.
> 
> *Nothing. *I am merely discussing the now ridiculous posit of the OP....that Atheism is not a religion.
> 
> It has been clearly shown...repeatedly...that there are Atheist churches available, that they have ministers, that they solicit funds (to build a church), that they seek new members, that the courts recognize them under the 1st Amendment....just like other religions.
> 
> The fact that you and Carla believe otherwise is fine with me.  I do not care what you believe or disbelieve.  What is obvious to any reasonable adult is that you have lost this debate.  Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying this guy is a god...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​Your own logic, dood...
Click to expand...

You are pathetic, my friend....totally unequipped to participate in logical debate, obviously a regular user of the errant belief that "the last cute post wins" and incessantly depending upon false claims of what others say in order to beat a fucking dead horse.

Good luck in the continuance of your education.  You have a long row to hoe.

Here's another interesting read about atheist churches...going GLOBAL!!

Godless Church Services for Atheists Go Global - The Daily Beast

The church’s first General Assembly is being held this weekend with leaders from all over the world gathered in South London. In 150 years of the Anglican Church’s Lambeth Conference, it’s safe to say none has begun quite like this--with a raucous group karaoke rendition of “I’m So Excited_,_” but then Sunday Assembly is a very different kind of world religion. Their gatherings resemble traditional church services with singing, lessons and the chance to interact with members of the community. The only thing missing is God.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Complete BS. I do not treat atheism as a religion, because it is not one.  I spent the past 8 years referring to myself as an agnostic simply because it's not controversial. Atheism is very unpopular, hence the meaningless weasel-word "Agnostic," which is far less controversial and will seldom be challenged.
> 
> Atheism is not two sides of the same coin. We have no doctrine. _Atheism _is often portrayed as an all-nor-nothing position.  In most cases however, it is a statement about probability or _likelihood_.
> 
> 
> 
> That you choose not to be religious regarding your atheism does not mean that the religion of atheism is non-existent.  One of your leading atheists, Richard Dawkins calls Pantheism "sexed up Atheism".  There are numerous churches that have been formed for atheists to attend and fellowship with like-minded atheists.  Therefore, the religion of Atheism exists...you just choose not to participate.
> 
> They will always be there for you....and the courts agree.  In this case, it doesn't really matter what you believe.  Nothing that you can say or do will change the fact that Atheism is a religion.  It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless.  That you are not a religious person means nothing here.  It's not all about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Richard Dawkins" = Strawman.  See "Saul Alinksy".  See also definition of religion posted earlier, which makes obvious atheism dos not qualify.
> 
> For the 99th time --- *WHY do you need to revise atheism into a "religion"?  What's in it for you?*
> 
> Do you believe in reincarnation?   If not, is that non-presence of belief a "religion"?
> 
> Easter Bunny?  Unicorns?  Loch Ness Monster?  Elvis still alive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't. *It has been done by some of your fellow atheists.
> 
> *Nothing. *I am merely discussing the now ridiculous posit of the OP....that Atheism is not a religion.
> 
> It has been clearly shown...repeatedly...that there are Atheist churches available, that they have ministers, that they solicit funds (to build a church), that they seek new members, that the courts recognize them under the 1st Amendment....just like other religions.
> 
> The fact that you and Carla believe otherwise is fine with me.  I do not care what you believe or disbelieve.  What is obvious to any reasonable adult is that you have lost this debate.  Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying this guy is a god...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​Your own logic, dood...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are pathetic, my friend....totally unequipped to participate in logical debate, obviously a regular user of the errant belief that "the last cute post wins" and incessantly depending upon false claims of what others say in order to beat a fucking dead horse.
> 
> Good luck in the continuance of your education.  You have a long row to hoe.
Click to expand...


In other words, you can't refute that this is where your own logic leads, so you'll take your ball and go home. 

You could be more gracious about it, Danth....


----------



## Carla_Danger

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Complete BS. I do not treat atheism as a religion, because it is not one.  I spent the past 8 years referring to myself as an agnostic simply because it's not controversial. Atheism is very unpopular, hence the meaningless weasel-word "Agnostic," which is far less controversial and will seldom be challenged.
> 
> Atheism is not two sides of the same coin. We have no doctrine. _Atheism _is often portrayed as an all-nor-nothing position.  In most cases however, it is a statement about probability or _likelihood_.
> 
> 
> 
> That you choose not to be religious regarding your atheism does not mean that the religion of atheism is non-existent.  One of your leading atheists, Richard Dawkins calls Pantheism "sexed up Atheism".  There are numerous churches that have been formed for atheists to attend and fellowship with like-minded atheists.  Therefore, the religion of Atheism exists...you just choose not to participate.
> 
> They will always be there for you....and the courts agree.  In this case, it doesn't really matter what you believe.  Nothing that you can say or do will change the fact that Atheism is a religion.  It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless.  That you are not a religious person means nothing here.  It's not all about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Richard Dawkins" = Strawman.  See "Saul Alinksy".  See also definition of religion posted earlier, which makes obvious atheism dos not qualify.
> 
> For the 99th time --- *WHY do you need to revise atheism into a "religion"?  What's in it for you?*
> 
> Do you believe in reincarnation?   If not, is that non-presence of belief a "religion"?
> 
> Easter Bunny?  Unicorns?  Loch Ness Monster?  Elvis still alive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't. *It has been done by some of your fellow atheists.
> 
> *Nothing. *I am merely discussing the now ridiculous posit of the OP....that Atheism is not a religion.
> 
> It has been clearly shown...repeatedly...that there are Atheist churches available, that they have ministers, that they solicit funds (to build a church), that they seek new members, that the courts recognize them under the 1st Amendment....just like other religions.
> 
> The fact that you and Carla believe otherwise is fine with me.  I do not care what you believe or disbelieve.  What is obvious to any reasonable adult is that you have lost this debate.  Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying this guy is a god...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​Your own logic, dood...
Click to expand...





LOL!


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Complete BS. I do not treat atheism as a religion, because it is not one.  I spent the past 8 years referring to myself as an agnostic simply because it's not controversial. Atheism is very unpopular, hence the meaningless weasel-word "Agnostic," which is far less controversial and will seldom be challenged.
> 
> Atheism is not two sides of the same coin. We have no doctrine. _Atheism _is often portrayed as an all-nor-nothing position.  In most cases however, it is a statement about probability or _likelihood_.
> 
> 
> 
> That you choose not to be religious regarding your atheism does not mean that the religion of atheism is non-existent.  One of your leading atheists, Richard Dawkins calls Pantheism "sexed up Atheism".  There are numerous churches that have been formed for atheists to attend and fellowship with like-minded atheists.  Therefore, the religion of Atheism exists...you just choose not to participate.
> 
> They will always be there for you....and the courts agree.  In this case, it doesn't really matter what you believe.  Nothing that you can say or do will change the fact that Atheism is a religion.  It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless.  That you are not a religious person means nothing here.  It's not all about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Richard Dawkins" = Strawman.  See "Saul Alinksy".  See also definition of religion posted earlier, which makes obvious atheism dos not qualify.
> 
> For the 99th time --- *WHY do you need to revise atheism into a "religion"?  What's in it for you?*
> 
> Do you believe in reincarnation?   If not, is that non-presence of belief a "religion"?
> 
> Easter Bunny?  Unicorns?  Loch Ness Monster?  Elvis still alive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't. *It has been done by some of your fellow atheists.
> 
> *Nothing. *I am merely discussing the now ridiculous posit of the OP....that Atheism is not a religion.
> 
> It has been clearly shown...repeatedly...that there are Atheist churches available, that they have ministers, that they solicit funds (to build a church), that they seek new members, that the courts recognize them under the 1st Amendment....just like other religions.
> 
> The fact that you and Carla believe otherwise is fine with me.  I do not care what you believe or disbelieve.  What is obvious to any reasonable adult is that you have lost this debate.  Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying this guy is a god...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​Your own logic, dood...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are pathetic, my friend....totally unequipped to participate in logical debate, obviously a regular user of the errant belief that "the last cute post wins" and incessantly depending upon false claims of what others say in order to beat a fucking dead horse.
> 
> Good luck in the continuance of your education.  You have a long row to hoe.
> 
> Here's another interesting read about atheist churches...going GLOBAL!!
> 
> Godless Church Services for Atheists Go Global - The Daily Beast
> 
> The church’s first General Assembly is being held this weekend with leaders from all over the world gathered in South London. In 150 years of the Anglican Church’s Lambeth Conference, it’s safe to say none has begun quite like this--with a raucous group karaoke rendition of “I’m So Excited_,_” but then Sunday Assembly is a very different kind of world religion. Their gatherings resemble traditional church services with singing, lessons and the chance to interact with members of the community. The only thing missing is God.
Click to expand...




Spoken like a true Christian....


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Complete BS. I do not treat atheism as a religion, because it is not one.  I spent the past 8 years referring to myself as an agnostic simply because it's not controversial. Atheism is very unpopular, hence the meaningless weasel-word "Agnostic," which is far less controversial and will seldom be challenged.
> 
> Atheism is not two sides of the same coin. We have no doctrine. _Atheism _is often portrayed as an all-nor-nothing position.  In most cases however, it is a statement about probability or _likelihood_.
> 
> 
> 
> That you choose not to be religious regarding your atheism does not mean that the religion of atheism is non-existent.  One of your leading atheists, Richard Dawkins calls Pantheism "sexed up Atheism".  There are numerous churches that have been formed for atheists to attend and fellowship with like-minded atheists.  Therefore, the religion of Atheism exists...you just choose not to participate.
> 
> They will always be there for you....and the courts agree.  In this case, it doesn't really matter what you believe.  Nothing that you can say or do will change the fact that Atheism is a religion.  It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless.  That you are not a religious person means nothing here.  It's not all about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Richard Dawkins" = Strawman.  See "Saul Alinksy".  See also definition of religion posted earlier, which makes obvious atheism dos not qualify.
> 
> For the 99th time --- *WHY do you need to revise atheism into a "religion"?  What's in it for you?*
> 
> Do you believe in reincarnation?   If not, is that non-presence of belief a "religion"?
> 
> Easter Bunny?  Unicorns?  Loch Ness Monster?  Elvis still alive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't. *It has been done by some of your fellow atheists.
> 
> *Nothing. *I am merely discussing the now ridiculous posit of the OP....that Atheism is not a religion.
> 
> It has been clearly shown...repeatedly...that there are Atheist churches available, that they have ministers, that they solicit funds (to build a church), that they seek new members, that the courts recognize them under the 1st Amendment....just like other religions.
> 
> The fact that you and Carla believe otherwise is fine with me.  I do not care what you believe or disbelieve.  What is obvious to any reasonable adult is that you have lost this debate.  Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying this guy is a god...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​Your own logic, dood...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are pathetic, my friend....totally unequipped to participate in logical debate, obviously a regular user of the errant belief that "the last cute post wins" and incessantly depending upon false claims of what others say in order to beat a fucking dead horse.
> 
> Good luck in the continuance of your education.  You have a long row to hoe.
> 
> Here's another interesting read about atheist churches...going GLOBAL!!
> 
> Godless Church Services for Atheists Go Global - The Daily Beast
> 
> The church’s first General Assembly is being held this weekend with leaders from all over the world gathered in South London. In 150 years of the Anglican Church’s Lambeth Conference, it’s safe to say none has begun quite like this--with a raucous group karaoke rendition of “I’m So Excited_,_” but then Sunday Assembly is a very different kind of world religion. Their gatherings resemble traditional church services with singing, lessons and the chance to interact with members of the community. The only thing missing is God.
Click to expand...



That's an oxymoron!


From your link...

*Godless Church Services for Atheists Go Global*
Congregations for atheists are springing up all over the planet. There’s already a schism: celebrate life without a deity, or preach atheism. The celebration is winning.
Plans to set up almost 400 “atheist churches” on five continents are underway after the extraordinary success of one small congregation that began holding godless services just over a year ago.

Word about the religion-free church spread like wildfire after the first Sunday Assembly was held in a deconsecrated church in Highbury, North London, in January 2013. By September, 100 congregations will be holding services from Singapore and South Africa to Sao Paulo and San Diego. A further 274 teams currently are working on plans to launch their own assemblies. 



I'll repeat....religion-free!


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> ......
> 
> 
> From your link...
> 
> *Godless Church Services for Atheists Go Global*
> Congregations for atheists are springing up all over the planet. There’s already a schism: celebrate life without a deity, or preach atheism. The celebration is winning.
> Plans to set up almost 400 “atheist churches” on five continents are underway after the extraordinary success of one small congregation that began holding godless services just over a year ago.
> 
> Word about the religion-free church spread like wildfire after the first Sunday Assembly was held in a deconsecrated church in Highbury, North London, in January 2013. By September, 100 congregations will be holding services from Singapore and South Africa to Sao Paulo and San Diego. A further 274 teams currently are working on plans to launch their own assemblies.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll repeat....religion-free!


I'll repeat:  from the same link....

In 150 years of the Anglican Church’s Lambeth Conference, it’s safe to say none has begun quite like this--with a raucous group karaoke rendition of “I’m So Excited_,_” but then *Sunday Assembly is a very different kind of world religion.*


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> In a related story, we do have evidence that trolls exist.  And that they practice when they've lost the argument.
> 
> /thread



Funny, I thought you usually just run away when you lose an argument. At least, that is what you do every time you lose an argument with me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Those free from faith do not 'practice' a 'religion' as perceived by theists; indeed, it's a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> 
> Moreover, there is nothing to be 'advanced,' just as the Earth orbiting the Sun doesn't need to be 'advanced.' One either accepts the fact that there is no 'god' as perceived by theists or he rejects it; one acknowledges a fact because it is a fact, not because one is enticed to do so by doctrinal incentives or promises made by religious dogma.



I know people who believe very passionately in God who do not practice a religion as defined by atheists in this thread. Does that mean they don't have faith or does it just mean atheists are full of shit when they attempt to define religion?


----------



## emilynghiem

NOTE the emphasis on "HAS" as "REQUIRED" which is NOT the case!

See definitions of religion below, which INCLUDE beliefs in general held personally important or sacred:
So YES your idea of religion IS included but is NOT the ONLY one:

==================================================
*re·li·gion*
_noun_ \ri-ˈli-jən\
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

*: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group*


b (1) *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural(2) *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
*:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
_archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
4
*:  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith*
— *re·li·gion·less* _adjective
==========================================_

So Pogo my point is a religion does not HAVE to have these things you cite to be a religion.
That is NOT a requirement.

These are equally considered proper usage of the term religion:
*: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group*
*:  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith*

That's my point. Do you get it now?

See below marked in BOLD:

1. 





Pogo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do YOU get that religion *has* to ask or answer questions about these particular things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because religion is used to mean traditional religions, doesn't mean it cannot also apply loosely
> to the more general term of religion as cited above. These two can both exist, and not one is right and one is wrong.
> Some religions meet the formal traditional sense of organized religion, and some do not. What is wrong with both????
> 
> 2. Again, note:
> Even though BUDDHISM is considered a world religion,
> there are many members who say it is not.
> 
> So that's an even STRONGER argument for Atheism.
> Just because it is a religion to some people, as Buddhism is considered,
> doesn't mean it is a religion to those who call themselves Buddhists (or Atheists).
> 
> I know many people who fit under either category or none at all,
> and call themselves Buddhists or call themselves Atheist or Christian.
> Some of them DO fall under traditional religion, some under personal belief and not a formal religion,
> and some without this sense of religion at all. SO FU WHAT.
> 
> Why is there this absolute COMPULSION to label people the same?
> What religion IS THAT?
> ================================
> 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit.  That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either.  All that is is having an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3. When Constitutional values are INSTITUTIONALIZED into laws and govt, and people PRACTICE them and
> rebuke each other by those laws BY CONSCIENCE, by formal commitment and profession to uphold these laws, the same way Christians do with the Bible, to establish agreement on laws in the authority they all agree to follow, THEN it becomes religious just like Christianity.
> 
> 4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu.  That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teach*ings*, not the teach*er.*  That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism.  However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4. I was citing how people look at Buddhism from the outside as a religion.
> My mother claims not to worship Buddha, but the Buddhist do have religious rituals where they treat
> Buddha statues and any representation of Buddha so reverently that it appears to be worshipping his image.
> 
> So my POINT, Pogo is that all this IS projected from the outside. For the convenience of other people
> trying to LABEL something as religion or as worship -- when in fact, if you are inside that group, you say no it isn't that!!!
> 
> So if this happens with Buddhism, how is that any different from it happening with Atheism?
> ===========================================
> 
> 5.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the SAME is true of some Atheists who DO treat it as their religious convictions!
> Why are we having this argument if we agree?
> 
> When my mother argues that Buddhism is not a religion, we go through this same thing.
> Fine, I agree. With some people Buddhism is not a religion at all, nothing like one and has nothing to do with any of that.
> So of course I agree that some Atheists are going to say that, and some are going to be offended,
> and some are going to protest so much they contradict themselves as my mother does who IS very religious about her Buddhism!
> 
> Pogo, you of all people, I don't think I need to have this argument with.
> I don't see you as religious about anything. I am probably more religious than you are about things.
> 
> But that is not to say there AREN'T atheists out there who make a religion of their beliefs.
> 
> If you and I both agree there are religious scientists, and media nuts, or pro-this or anti-that who make
> religions out of their systems and beliefs, can we agree there are some atheists who fall into that group also?
Click to expand...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> faith
> fāTH/
> _noun_
> 
> *1*.
> complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
> "this restores one's faith in politicians"
> 
> synonyms:trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> *2*.
> strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
> 
> synonyms:religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
> "she gave her life for her faith"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]



You trust in the something that there are no gods, thus you have faith.

End of discussion.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can impose nothing on you.  Only you can do that.  So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care?  Why apply a name to it?  Why do you need a definition?  Why do you bother talking about it at all?
> 
> To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns.  Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed?  Zero time.  The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.
> 
> No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief.  You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion.  There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence.  Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter absurdity.    Oh never mind, you just did.
> Having a freaking *preference *or *opinion *on something does not a religion make.  You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke.  You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department.  That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't make Christianity religion either.  So you tell me, what does make it religion?  What are the attributes we need to look for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For this leave us go back to post 395 (directed originally to Emily) -- roll tape:
> 
> religion [ri-lij-uh n]
> noun
> 1.
> a set of beliefs *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*, *especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.  (Dictionary.com)
> 
> -- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit.  That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either.  All that is is having an opinion.
> 
> I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu.  That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teach*ings*, not the teach*er.*  That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism.  However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.
> 
> (As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).
> 
> So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge.  Buddhism does that, so it's a religion.  Taoism does that so it too is a religion.  Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, Zoroastrianism, they all do that and are therefore "religions".
> 
> Not smoking does not do that; Constitutionalism does not do that; atheism does not do that.  None of them therefore are "religions".  I get the impression some here believe that proselytizing for any cause whatsoever constitutes a "religion" but it doesn't.  It constitutes _ advocacy_.  Nothing more.
> 
> 
> --- which last point still doesn't apply to atheism since it's a personal conclusion.
> 
> Perhaps the missing ingredient in all this is the admission that beliefs are not necessarily always extroverted.  There's no reason they need to be to qualify as either belief or religion.  Atheism is by definition _introspective_.  Trying to pretend it "proselytizing" is like trying to pretend a desert is "against" the idea of water.
Click to expand...


That was a definition not a list of attributes.  I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded.  It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe.  But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition. 

The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge."  Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?

All beliefs are personal conclusions.  All beliefs are introspective.  Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.

As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth.  The truth being their own beliefs.  Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus.  Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.


----------



## Pogo

emilynghiem said:


> NOTE the emphasis on "HAS" as "REQUIRED" which is NOT the case!
> 
> See definitions of religion below, which INCLUDE beliefs in general held personally important or sacred:
> So YES your idea of religion IS included but is NOT the ONLY one:
> 
> ==================================================
> *re·li·gion*
> _noun_ \ri-ˈli-jən\
> : the belief in a god or in a group of gods
> 
> : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
> 
> *: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group*
> 
> 
> b (1) *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural(2) *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith*
> — *re·li·gion·less* _adjective
> ==========================================_
> 
> So Pogo my point is a religion does not HAVE to have these things you cite to be a religion.
> That is NOT a requirement.
> 
> These are equally considered proper usage of the term religion:
> *: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
> :  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith*
> 
> That's my point. Do you get it now?
> 
> See below marked in BOLD:
> 
> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do YOU get that religion *has* to ask or answer questions about these particular things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because religion is used to mean traditional religions, doesn't mean it cannot also apply loosely
> to the more general term of religion as cited above. These two can both exist, and not one is right and one is wrong.
> Some religions meet the formal traditional sense of organized religion, and some do not. What is wrong with both????
> 
> 2. Again, note:
> Even though BUDDHISM is considered a world religion,
> there are many members who say it is not.
> 
> So that's an even STRONGER argument for Atheism.
> Just because it is a religion to some people, as Buddhism is considered,
> doesn't mean it is a religion to those who call themselves Buddhists (or Atheists).
> 
> I know many people who fit under either category or none at all,
> and call themselves Buddhists or call themselves Atheist or Christian.
> Some of them DO fall under traditional religion, some under personal belief and not a formal religion,
> and some without this sense of religion at all. SO FU WHAT.
> 
> Why is there this absolute COMPULSION to label people the same?
> What religion IS THAT?
> ================================
> 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit.  That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either.  All that is is having an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3. When Constitutional values are INSTITUTIONALIZED into laws and govt, and people PRACTICE them and
> rebuke each other by those laws BY CONSCIENCE, by formal commitment and profession to uphold these laws, the same way Christians do with the Bible, to establish agreement on laws in the authority they all agree to follow, THEN it becomes religious just like Christianity.
> 
> 4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu.  That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teach*ings*, not the teach*er.*  That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism.  However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4. I was citing how people look at Buddhism from the outside as a religion.
> My mother claims not to worship Buddha, but the Buddhist do have religious rituals where they treat
> Buddha statues and any representation of Buddha so reverently that it appears to be worshipping his image.
> 
> So my POINT, Pogo is that all this IS projected from the outside. For the convenience of other people
> trying to LABEL something as religion or as worship -- when in fact, if you are inside that group, you say no it isn't that!!!
> 
> So if this happens with Buddhism, how is that any different from it happening with Atheism?
> ===========================================
> 
> 5.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the SAME is true of some Atheists who DO treat it as their religious convictions!
> Why are we having this argument if we agree?
> 
> When my mother argues that Buddhism is not a religion, we go through this same thing.
> Fine, I agree. With some people Buddhism is not a religion at all, nothing like one and has nothing to do with any of that.
> So of course I agree that some Atheists are going to say that, and some are going to be offended,
> and some are going to protest so much they contradict themselves as my mother does who IS very religious about her Buddhism!
> 
> Pogo, you of all people, I don't think I need to have this argument with.
> I don't see you as religious about anything. I am probably more religious than you are about things.
> 
> But that is not to say there AREN'T atheists out there who make a religion of their beliefs.
> 
> If you and I both agree there are religious scientists, and media nuts, or pro-this or anti-that who make
> religions out of their systems and beliefs, can we agree there are some atheists who fall into that group also?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Sorry Emily, that simply doesn't work.  Under that broad a definition an interest in anything at all could be described as "religion".

"I'm going to  the grocery store; are you interested in coming along?  Bring your prayer mat".

What you have there appears to be a colloquialism, a deliberately overstated misuse for comic effect.  When a fan says they "worship" a rock musician  (movie actor, sports player, whoever) they don't mean it _literally_.  It's simply expressing a strong degree of passion integrated into the verb instead of standing alone as an adjective; it's imagery.

Doesn't apply here even in the colloquial sense; atheism is a simple logical conclusion, as such rational and not subject to passion.


What gives you the idea I'm not religious?  Curious.  I've barely ever even been in this forum.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> Complete BS. I do not treat atheism as a religion, because it is not one.  I spent the past 8 years referring to myself as an agnostic simply because it's not controversial. Atheism is very unpopular, hence the meaningless weasel-word "Agnostic," which is far less controversial and will seldom be challenged.
> 
> Atheism is not two sides of the same coin. We have no doctrine. _Atheism _is often portrayed as an all-nor-nothing position.  In most cases however, it is a statement about probability or _likelihood_.



Agnosticism is only a weasel word to idiots that believe they know everything. No honest person can categorically state they know there is no God, yet you do so.

Even though I believe in the existence of God, I would never claim I could prove it to anyone else. In fact, I have repeatedly said it isn't my job to prove it, if God wants to make his existence known to you he is more than capable of doing so, He doesn't need my help.

You have expressed your belief as indisputable fact, that makes you the intellectual equivalent of Young Earth Creationists, and just as wrapped up in your faith as they are. The reason you reject that fundamental truth is that you refuse to see yourself as you really are. Funny thing, the Young Earthers have exactly the same problem.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just contradicted yourself.
> 
> Is your non-belief in unicorns describable as "religion"?  Obviously it is not.
> Same damn thing.  Exactly .  Period.  Waiter, check please.
> 
> Having it both ways: Priceless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not and no it is not the same thing.  I don't care enough to treat it as a religion.  But I get I am questioning the dogma, which is blasphemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't "question" nothingness.  There is no "dogma" since atheism is not a thing or concept; it's simply the dearth of a concept.  In the same way that dark is not a "thing" but the dearth of light and silence is not a "thing" but the dearth of sound.  Second, you can't "blaspheme" something you never accepted in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have God equates to nothingness?  If the answer is none, what word would you use to describe a position made in the total absence of evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the defensiveness yet again?
> "Nothingness" there does not refer to "God".  It refers to _atheism _and its nonexistent "dogma" which you pretend to question  (which questioning is a strawman since there's no such thing).
> 
> Again, why do you feel this need to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mistake.  Though I don't pretend to question the dogma, I think I'm pretty forthright that I do question it.
> 
> Why do you feel the need to villianize?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aaaand we're right back to where we started, where you call your own strawman to the witness stand.
> Proceed, Counselor.   Let this strawperson explain to the court what this "dogma" is.  The First Court of Circular Reasoning is now in session, Judge Pee Wee Herman presiding....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aaaand I am once again answering that question.  The dogma is that your belief is not belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So now you would have this Court believe that any belief about anything constitutes a "religion"?
> 
> Or did you mean to type "non-belief" with a hyphen?  i.e. that the absence of belief is _itself_ a belief?
Click to expand...


The absence of belief is the absence of belief.  There is that dogma again.  You do not have an absence of belief.  We have already established that, but we can again if you like.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> You just contradicted yourself.
> 
> Is your non-belief in unicorns describable as "religion"?  Obviously it is not.
> Same damn thing.  Exactly .  Period.  Waiter, check please.
> 
> Having it both ways: Priceless.



Except he didn't. Your problem is that you think your belief that there is no god is a non belief. If it were really a non belief you would have no need to defend your non beliefs from people who have a belief that is different from yours, you would simply ignore them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Uncensored2008 said:


> So, you think faith is believing in things when you have proof?
> 
> You voted for Barack Obama, dinja?



Only because she believed in him, AKA faith.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a fact that you can provide no supportable evidence for your gods.
> 
> I don't need faith to understand that. I can conclude your claims to absurdities of nature are false until proven true. Identify for us a single, verifiable supernatural event. Just one that is connected to your gods. You can't, right? I knew you couldn't.
> 
> I happen to live in a reality where your claims to supernatural entities are utterly absent substantiation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I can't.  I never once claimed I could.  Do you see how that works?  I don't make a claim so I don't have to support it.  You do make a claim so you do have to support it.
> 
> My only claim made on this or any of the other threads on the subject is that Atheism is not a matter of non-belief.  The claim that it is just non-belief is utter bullshit.  It is false.  Untrue.  Pure crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that's false.  Untrue. Pure crap.
> 
> I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.  That doesn't make not believing in the Easter Bunny a "religion".
> 
> That's all there is to it.  You yourself admitted it earlier.  And I quote:
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not smoking itself is not a religion, but it be treated like one.  Same with Atheism.  In and of itself, it is not a religion.  But that does not mean there are no Atheists who don't treat it that way.  Science is not a religion, but I have certainly known people who treated it as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you were right.  So the revisionistas can stop treating it like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spend a lot of time discussing your non-belief of the Easter Bunny on message boards, do you?  It's so important that you actually apply a label to yourself as an Alepidist to identify yourself as someone who has no beliefs in the Easter Bunny?  Remember what I said about the value of pithy little sayings?
> 
> Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  But it sure as hell is being treated as one.  Just a simple little statement of "I believe there are no gods" has been so twisted, defined and encased in doctrine that you have turned it into one.  So don't blame others.  You're the ones who did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are, talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you know atheism is not a religion, why are YOU treating it as one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please do try to take the time to read what I say.  I'm not treating it as a religion.  The only people who can treat Atheism as a religion are Atheists.  All I am doing is pointing out that that is happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  You want all philosophy called a religion so YOUR:  "I know you are but what am I"  argument will hold some water.
> 
> You NEED Atheists to be "groupthink" as you and your people operate.  You would like nothing more than to be able to point to some selfproclaimed AUTHORITY on Atheism and ask why I don't take it up with MY leaders.  Sadly for YOU there are none.
> 
> Solly Chawlee.... wrong species.  I don't roll that way.  I don't have any sign on my front door that reads "Suckers..Welcome"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can impose nothing on you.  Only you can do that.  So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care?  Why apply a name to it?  Why do you need a definition?  Why do you bother talking about it at all?
> 
> To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns.  Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed?  Zero time.  The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.
> 
> No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief.  You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion.  There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence.  Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Utter absurdity.    Oh never mind, you just did.
> Having a freaking *preference *or *opinion *on something does not a religion make.  You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke.  You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department.  That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't make Christianity religion either.  So you tell me, what does make it religion?  What are the attributes we need to look for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I think I see the problem here.  Maybe once you learn the definition of religion, you'll see the flaws in your argument.
Click to expand...


No.  I don't think you see the problem at all.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> You can't "question" nothingness.  There is no "dogma" since atheism is not a thing or concept; it's simply the dearth of a concept.  In the same way that dark is not a "thing" but the dearth of light and silence is not a "thing" but the dearth of sound.  Second, you can't "blaspheme" something you never accepted in the first place.



Atheism is the belief that there is no god. That, like it or not, is something.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> I have already disproven your gods. Prove I haven't.
> 
> Have you still not seen the futility of your nonsensical "prove it isn't" fallacy you use to prop-up your gods?



Hi Hollie: WOW! If you have proven God does not exist, you should win a Nobel!
Even Godel could only prove that (if there is a God) "only God can know truth";
"The rest of us have beliefs based on our perception of facts and accepted prior knowledge"



			
				http://www.chron.com/opinion/letters/article/Friday-letters-Ashby-high-rise-Obamacare-faith-5094759.php said:
			
		

> [RE]: Professor Kurt Godel's incompleteness and undecidability theorems. With these two theorems, Godel proved that only God(s) can know truth(s). The rest of us have beliefs based on our perception of facts and accepted prior knowledge (e.g. Scripture, the Bible, Koran, Torah).
> 
> The only things we can be relatively sure of are that we must keep our science and religion separate - the world is not flat and the sun does not revolve around the Earth - contrary to medieval truth. Religion is based on faith; science is based on best applied observations and math.



Since our perception, those facts we perceived, or the prior knowledge we accept
COULD still be faulty, then we can always be wrong or this "truth" can change.
So we can "never know" because of this possibility of error or change.

Hollie: As I stated before, the most I believe we can prove is by agreement:
1. agreeing on the meanings of God, and which meanings align to be compatible, complementary or reconcileable
2. agreeing to FORGIVE differences, even conflicts, in order to work around those and not get in the way of
COMMUNICATING the meanings and ideas we DO agree on, even if we don't see or word them in the same terms
3. proving that the degree of FORGIVENESS is what determines ability to reconcile and agree on truth,
NOT the belief system of each person which can remain in complete conflict

I believe we can prove that through experience, and documenting the results of forgiving and not forgiving conflicts or relationships, and showing the statistical patterns:
* forgiveness will correlate with reconciling differences across religious and political beliefs or groups even conflicting ones
* unforgiveness will correlate with rejection and inability to resolve conflicts, even between members of the same  groups

The real issue dividing people is whether we can forgive or not.
The other differences and conflicts that may never change are not the problem because
those can be worked around to find solutions to the same degree people are willing to forgive
and deal with those differences instead of divide and judge each other for them.

This I believe can be proven.
And I am willing to prove it, by proving it!

Your proof there is not a God cannot be proven.
(The most you can do is prove it cannot be proven, but relies on faith,
which is not the same as disproving God. You can also explain that if God represents infinitive or collective truth/knowledge/laws of all the universe, then man would have to be God in order to understand and prove all those things. So by our nature we can never prove the existence of something so beyond us, we cannot even perceive it all, much less communicate a proof of it.)

If you want to make a running bet, I will bet you 10 million
that we can sooner prove forgiveness/unforgiveness is the correlating factor
in reaching agreement on the meanings of God, Jesus etc.

vs. trying to prove God or Jesus are not real which I bet you will not happen.

I can sooner prove the meaning of Jesus "can be reconciled" with the meaning of Justice,
which does not rely on either Jesus or Justice really existing to  prove they are reconcilable as concepts. 

We can prove reconciliation is possible and it follows a pattern of steps or stages.
But to prove the system reiterates to lead to a full consensus would require to finish that process to fully prove consensus can be reached. i believe we can at least prove the
pattern can be followed, and replicates itself.

Same with establishing AGREEMENT on God by reconciling with meanings such as
*life love truth wisdom good will creation universe nature
universal laws natural laws, etc.*

Hollie if you want to prove God does not exist,
you would have to prove these do not exist, too, and/or prove that God is not any of these.

All those words in boldface are aspects of what people mean by God
so all that has to be proven to be only perceived in our minds and "made up by man"

Good luck!


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can impose nothing on you.  Only you can do that.  So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care?  Why apply a name to it?  Why do you need a definition?  Why do you bother talking about it at all?
> 
> To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns.  Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed?  Zero time.  The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.
> 
> No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief.  You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion.  There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence.  Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter absurdity.    Oh never mind, you just did.
> Having a freaking *preference *or *opinion *on something does not a religion make.  You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke.  You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department.  That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't make Christianity religion either.  So you tell me, what does make it religion?  What are the attributes we need to look for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For this leave us go back to post 395 (directed originally to Emily) -- roll tape:
> 
> religion [ri-lij-uh n]
> noun
> 1.
> a set of beliefs *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*, *especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.  (Dictionary.com)
> 
> -- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit.  That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either.  All that is is having an opinion.
> 
> I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu.  That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teach*ings*, not the teach*er.*  That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism.  However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.
> 
> (As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).
> 
> So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge.  Buddhism does that, so it's a religion.  Taoism does that so it too is a religion.  Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, Zoroastrianism, they all do that and are therefore "religions".
> 
> Not smoking does not do that; Constitutionalism does not do that; atheism does not do that.  None of them therefore are "religions".  I get the impression some here believe that proselytizing for any cause whatsoever constitutes a "religion" but it doesn't.  It constitutes _ advocacy_.  Nothing more.
> 
> 
> --- which last point still doesn't apply to atheism since it's a personal conclusion.
> 
> Perhaps the missing ingredient in all this is the admission that beliefs are not necessarily always extroverted.  There's no reason they need to be to qualify as either belief or religion.  Atheism is by definition _introspective_.  Trying to pretend it "proselytizing" is like trying to pretend a desert is "against" the idea of water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was a definition not a list of attributes.  I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded.  It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe.  But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition.
Click to expand...


That's absurd.  There is no such "set of beliefs".  Any given atheist may have wildly different beliefs about religions, general moral guidelines, politics or anything else.  They have nothing in common on the basis of atheism except not believing in the Easter Bunny theistic approach to religion.

I challenge you to prove your point by listing this "set of beliefs" -- or any part of it.



PratchettFan said:


> The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge."  Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?
> 
> All beliefs are personal conclusions.  All beliefs are introspective.  Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.



If there's a point in that section. I don't see it.



PratchettFan said:


> As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth.  The truth being their own beliefs.  Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus.  Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.



Agree with the last sentence.  Haven't seen the rest.  Also haven't seen where anyone declining theisim professes to "know the truth".  Seems to me religion by definition tries to address the Unknowable.  And it stays that way, for if something is knowable, we call that "science".


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......
> 
> 
> From your link...
> 
> *Godless Church Services for Atheists Go Global*
> Congregations for atheists are springing up all over the planet. There’s already a schism: celebrate life without a deity, or preach atheism. The celebration is winning.
> Plans to set up almost 400 “atheist churches” on five continents are underway after the extraordinary success of one small congregation that began holding godless services just over a year ago.
> 
> Word about the religion-free church spread like wildfire after the first Sunday Assembly was held in a deconsecrated church in Highbury, North London, in January 2013. By September, 100 congregations will be holding services from Singapore and South Africa to Sao Paulo and San Diego. A further 274 teams currently are working on plans to launch their own assemblies.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll repeat....religion-free!
> 
> 
> 
> I'll repeat:  from the same link....
> 
> In 150 years of the Anglican Church’s Lambeth Conference, it’s safe to say none has begun quite like this--with a raucous group karaoke rendition of “I’m So Excited_,_” but then *Sunday Assembly is a very different kind of world religion.*
Click to expand...



The author of the article doesn't get to have it both ways, and he was correct to say it's religion free.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't "question" nothingness.  There is no "dogma" since atheism is not a thing or concept; it's simply the dearth of a concept.  In the same way that dark is not a "thing" but the dearth of light and silence is not a "thing" but the dearth of sound.  Second, you can't "blaspheme" something you never accepted in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is the belief that there is no god. That, like it or not, is something.
Click to expand...


No, it is simply the absence of belief that there is.  The absence of something is not another something.

As a parallel:
Zero degrees Kelvin is the absolute absence of heat energy.  That doesn't make "cold" an "energy".


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> For this leave us go back to post 395 (directed originally to Emily) -- roll tape:
> 
> religion [ri-lij-uh n]
> noun
> 1.
> a set of beliefs *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*, *especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.  (Dictionary.com)
> 
> -- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit.  That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either.  All that is is having an opinion.
> 
> I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu.  That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teach*ings*, not the teach*er.*  That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism.  However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.
> 
> (As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).
> 
> So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge.  Buddhism does that, so it's a religion.  Taoism does that so it too is a religion.  Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, Zoroastrianism, they all do that and are therefore "religions".
> 
> Not smoking does not do that; Constitutionalism does not do that; atheism does not do that.  None of them therefore are "religions".  I get the impression some here believe that proselytizing for any cause whatsoever constitutes a "religion" but it doesn't.  It constitutes _ advocacy_.  Nothing more.
> 
> 
> --- which last point still doesn't apply to atheism since it's a personal conclusion.
> 
> Perhaps the missing ingredient in all this is the admission that beliefs are not necessarily always extroverted.  There's no reason they need to be to qualify as either belief or religion.  Atheism is by definition _introspective_.  Trying to pretend it "proselytizing" is like trying to pretend a desert is "against" the idea of water.



Now you are claiming that Emily is the authority on religion because a) you are to stupid to look up the actual dictionary definition, and b) you prefer to ignore the fact that I actually posted a definition that comes from a dictionary that proves you are wrong.

Let me do so again, I will even make the pertinent definition large enough for you to see without your rose colored glasses.

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion
More example sentences

  The freedom to manifest religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching encompasses a broad range of acts.
  The secularization debate is primarily concerned with the role or power of religion and churches in society.
  Bonaparte, however, had never made the mistake of underestimating either the power of religion or the resilience of the Church.
  Get more examples

Synonyms
faith, belief, worship, creed; sect, church, cult, denomination
View synonyms
1.1A particular system of faith and worship: the world’s great religions
More example sentences

  No organized religion preaches murder and hatred of innocent people.
  The official state religion is Roman Catholicism, but Evangelical Protestant movements are making converts among traditional Catholic believers.
  Christianity is the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
  Get more examples

1.2*A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importanc*e: consumerism is the new religion
More example sentences

  It's the backdrop because football is considered a religion worldwide and the most viewed game.
  We've been told time and again that cricket is a religion in India.
  In this city where rugby is a religion, there is the feeling that Moses has led them to the mountaintop.
  Get more examples​
religion definition of religion in Oxford dictionary American English US


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> So now you would have this Court believe that any belief about anything constitutes a "religion"?
> 
> Or did you mean to type "non-belief" with a hyphen?  i.e. that the absence of belief is _itself_ a belief?



No, we are pointing out that the court does believe that, and that you have already said you believe there is no god, which is a belief, not a non belief. A non belief is indefensible, so no logical person ever tries to defend one.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you would have this Court believe that any belief about anything constitutes a "religion"?
> 
> Or did you mean to type "non-belief" with a hyphen?  i.e. that the absence of belief is _itself_ a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we are pointing out that the court does believe that, and that you have already said you believe there is no god, which is a belief, not a non belief. A non belief is indefensible, so no logical person ever tries to defend one.
Click to expand...


I did not say that.  If you're going to descend to your usual strawmanism, you're dismissed.


----------



## emilynghiem

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't "question" nothingness.  There is no "dogma" since atheism is not a thing or concept; it's simply the dearth of a concept.  In the same way that dark is not a "thing" but the dearth of light and silence is not a "thing" but the dearth of sound.  Second, you can't "blaspheme" something you never accepted in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is the belief that there is no god. That, like it or not, is something.
Click to expand...


Yes and no.

Some people BELIEVE there is "no god."
Others just DON'T BELIEVE or think in those terms.

Because this is so confusing, over who is a real ATHEIST
and who is agnostic, I tend to use the term NONTHEIST.

So regardless what you believe or don't believe,
if you THINK in "nontheistic" terms, and don't personify
Justice as Jesus or the forces of Life/Nature as a PERSONAL God,
that means you use "secular" terms, natural laws and science to communicate truths as you understand them.

If you are THEIST and use the Bible, Quran, Buddhist or Jewish or any other scriptures
you believe are sacred authority as your laws, then you will use THOSE laws or religions to reach
agreement on principles and concepts with people.

The real issue is what terms/languages/laws you use to communicate
And then to reconcile with people using different laws or languages,
that is where forgiveness and reconciling meanings comes into place.

if we cannot forgive each other's terminology, we'll never get to the meanings
and concepts behind them where we could communicate and reach agreement.

Instead of arguing who is or what is an Atheist or religion or what,
why not just listen to what each other is trying to say, using whatever terms THEY use.
And don't argue about the terms we DON'T agree on or agree to use.

What ARE we talking about and what DO we agree to call those things?


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> For this leave us go back to post 395 (directed originally to Emily) -- roll tape:
> 
> religion [ri-lij-uh n]
> noun
> 1.
> a set of beliefs *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*, *especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.  (Dictionary.com)
> 
> -- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit.  That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either.  All that is is having an opinion.
> 
> I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu.  That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teach*ings*, not the teach*er.*  That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism.  However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.
> 
> (As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).
> 
> So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge.  Buddhism does that, so it's a religion.  Taoism does that so it too is a religion.  Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, Zoroastrianism, they all do that and are therefore "religions".
> 
> Not smoking does not do that; Constitutionalism does not do that; atheism does not do that.  None of them therefore are "religions".  I get the impression some here believe that proselytizing for any cause whatsoever constitutes a "religion" but it doesn't.  It constitutes _ advocacy_.  Nothing more.
> 
> 
> --- which last point still doesn't apply to atheism since it's a personal conclusion.
> 
> Perhaps the missing ingredient in all this is the admission that beliefs are not necessarily always extroverted.  There's no reason they need to be to qualify as either belief or religion.  Atheism is by definition _introspective_.  Trying to pretend it "proselytizing" is like trying to pretend a desert is "against" the idea of water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are claiming that Emily is the authority on religion because a) you are to stupid to look up the actual dictionary definition, and b) you prefer to ignore the fact that I actually posted a definition that comes from a dictionary that proves you are wrong.
> 
> Let me do so again, I will even make the pertinent definition large enough for you to see without your rose colored glasses.
> 
> The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion
> More example sentences
> 
> The freedom to manifest religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching encompasses a broad range of acts.
> The secularization debate is primarily concerned with the role or power of religion and churches in society.
> Bonaparte, however, had never made the mistake of underestimating either the power of religion or the resilience of the Church.
> Get more examples
> 
> Synonyms
> faith, belief, worship, creed; sect, church, cult, denomination
> View synonyms
> 1.1A particular system of faith and worship: the world’s great religions
> More example sentences
> 
> No organized religion preaches murder and hatred of innocent people.
> The official state religion is Roman Catholicism, but Evangelical Protestant movements are making converts among traditional Catholic believers.
> Christianity is the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
> Get more examples
> 
> 1.2*A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importanc*e: consumerism is the new religion
> More example sentences
> 
> It's the backdrop because football is considered a religion worldwide and the most viewed game.
> We've been told time and again that cricket is a religion in India.
> In this city where rugby is a religion, there is the feeling that Moses has led them to the mountaintop.
> Get more examples​
> religion definition of religion in Oxford dictionary American English US
Click to expand...


That's the same colloquial sense I just finished describing.  And as you're devolving to your usual ad hom tantrums, you're back on ignore.

I apologize to the thread for feeding the troll in his glorious Second coming.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can impose nothing on you.  Only you can do that.  So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care?  Why apply a name to it?  Why do you need a definition?  Why do you bother talking about it at all?
> 
> To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns.  Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed?  Zero time.  The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.
> 
> No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief.  You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion.  There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence.  Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter absurdity.    Oh never mind, you just did.
> Having a freaking *preference *or *opinion *on something does not a religion make.  You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke.  You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department.  That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't make Christianity religion either.  So you tell me, what does make it religion?  What are the attributes we need to look for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For this leave us go back to post 395 (directed originally to Emily) -- roll tape:
> 
> religion [ri-lij-uh n]
> noun
> 1.
> a set of beliefs *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*, *especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.  (Dictionary.com)
> 
> -- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit.  That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either.  All that is is having an opinion.
> 
> I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu.  That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teach*ings*, not the teach*er.*  That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism.  However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.
> 
> (As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).
> 
> So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge.  Buddhism does that, so it's a religion.  Taoism does that so it too is a religion.  Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, Zoroastrianism, they all do that and are therefore "religions".
> 
> Not smoking does not do that; Constitutionalism does not do that; atheism does not do that.  None of them therefore are "religions".  I get the impression some here believe that proselytizing for any cause whatsoever constitutes a "religion" but it doesn't.  It constitutes _ advocacy_.  Nothing more.
> 
> 
> --- which last point still doesn't apply to atheism since it's a personal conclusion.
> 
> Perhaps the missing ingredient in all this is the admission that beliefs are not necessarily always extroverted.  There's no reason they need to be to qualify as either belief or religion.  Atheism is by definition _introspective_.  Trying to pretend it "proselytizing" is like trying to pretend a desert is "against" the idea of water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was a definition not a list of attributes.  I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded.  It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe.  But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's absurd.  There is no such "set of beliefs".  Any given atheist may have wildly different beliefs about religions, general moral guidelines, politics or anything else.  They have nothing in common on the basis of atheism except not believing in the Easter Bunny theistic approach to religion.
> 
> I challenge you to prove your point by listing this "set of beliefs" -- or any part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge."  Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?
> 
> All beliefs are personal conclusions.  All beliefs are introspective.  Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's a point in that section. I don't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth.  The truth being their own beliefs.  Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus.  Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree with the last sentence.  Haven't seen the rest.  Also haven't seen where anyone declining theisim professes to "know the truth".  Seems to me religion by definition tries to address the Unknowable.  And it stays that way, for if something is knowable, we call that "science".
Click to expand...


Ok, a set of beliefs:  And keep in mind that these need not be taken as absolutes but with varying degrees of ardor.  I would refer you back to Dawkins list for that.

1-  There are no gods
2-   The various god based religions are false
3-   The universe has no controlling force behind it
4-   The universe is not an artifact

Will those work for a start?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Sorry Emily, that simply doesn't work.  Under that broad a definition an interest in anything at all could be described as "religion".
> 
> "I'm going to  the grocery store; are you interested in coming along?  Bring your prayer mat".
> 
> What you have there appears to be a colloquialism, a deliberately overstated misuse for comic effect.  When a fan says they "worship" a rock musician  (movie actor, sports player, whoever) they don't mean it _literally_.  It's simply expressing a strong degree of passion integrated into the verb instead of standing alone as an adjective; it's imagery.
> 
> Doesn't apply here even in the colloquial sense; atheism is a simple logical conclusion, as such rational and not subject to passion.
> 
> 
> What gives you the idea I'm not religious?  Curious.  I've barely ever even been in this forum.



I guess you missed the modifying words, or perhaps just slept through the courses on parsing sentences in school. Maybe you should read a book, that would make you an instant expert, and you wouldn't end up looking stupid.

http://www.amazon.com/Sister-Bernad...=8-1&keywords=parsing+sentences&tag=ff0d01-20


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> No, it is simply the absence of belief that there is.  The absence of something is not another something.
> 
> As a parallel:
> Zero degrees Kelvin is the absolute absence of heat energy.  That doesn't make "cold" an "energy".



Sigh.

archaic :  ungodliness, wickedness
2a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity
b :  *the doctrine that there is no deity *​http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheismhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Once again, you are arguing with the dictionary. If you don't like that, perhaps you should stoop using English. You obviously don't understand it.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Complete BS. I do not treat atheism as a religion, because it is not one.  I spent the past 8 years referring to myself as an agnostic simply because it's not controversial. Atheism is very unpopular, hence the meaningless weasel-word "Agnostic," which is far less controversial and will seldom be challenged.
> 
> Atheism is not two sides of the same coin. We have no doctrine. _Atheism _is often portrayed as an all-nor-nothing position.  In most cases however, it is a statement about probability or _likelihood_.
> 
> 
> 
> That you choose not to be religious regarding your atheism does not mean that the religion of atheism is non-existent.  One of your leading atheists, Richard Dawkins calls Pantheism "sexed up Atheism".  There are numerous churches that have been formed for atheists to attend and fellowship with like-minded atheists.  Therefore, the religion of Atheism exists...you just choose not to participate.
> 
> They will always be there for you....and the courts agree.  In this case, it doesn't really matter what you believe.  Nothing that you can say or do will change the fact that Atheism is a religion.  It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless.  That you are not a religious person means nothing here.  It's not all about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Richard Dawkins" = Strawman.  See "Saul Alinksy".  See also definition of religion posted earlier, which makes obvious atheism dos not qualify.
> 
> For the 99th time --- *WHY do you need to revise atheism into a "religion"?  What's in it for you?*
> 
> Do you believe in reincarnation?   If not, is that non-presence of belief a "religion"?
> 
> Easter Bunny?  Unicorns?  Loch Ness Monster?  Elvis still alive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't. *It has been done by some of your fellow atheists.
> 
> *Nothing. *I am merely discussing the now ridiculous posit of the OP....that Atheism is not a religion.
> 
> It has been clearly shown...repeatedly...that there are Atheist churches available, that they have ministers, that they solicit funds (to build a church), that they seek new members, that the courts recognize them under the 1st Amendment....just like other religions.
> 
> The fact that you and Carla believe otherwise is fine with me.  I do not care what you believe or disbelieve.  What is obvious to any reasonable adult is that you have lost this debate.  Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying this guy is a god...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​Your own logic, dood...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are pathetic, my friend....totally unequipped to participate in logical debate, obviously a regular user of the errant belief that "the last cute post wins" and incessantly depending upon false claims of what others say in order to beat a fucking dead horse.
> 
> Good luck in the continuance of your education.  You have a long row to hoe.
> 
> Here's another interesting read about atheist churches...going GLOBAL!!
> 
> Godless Church Services for Atheists Go Global - The Daily Beast
> 
> The church’s first General Assembly is being held this weekend with leaders from all over the world gathered in South London. In 150 years of the Anglican Church’s Lambeth Conference, it’s safe to say none has begun quite like this--with a raucous group karaoke rendition of “I’m So Excited_,_” but then Sunday Assembly is a very different kind of world religion. Their gatherings resemble traditional church services with singing, lessons and the chance to interact with members of the community. The only thing missing is God.
Click to expand...




They did karaoke to "I'm So Excited"  LOL!  That is so funny!


----------



## Pogo

emilynghiem said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't "question" nothingness.  There is no "dogma" since atheism is not a thing or concept; it's simply the dearth of a concept.  In the same way that dark is not a "thing" but the dearth of light and silence is not a "thing" but the dearth of sound.  Second, you can't "blaspheme" something you never accepted in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is the belief that there is no god. That, like it or not, is something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and no.
> 
> Some people BELIEVE there is "no god."
> Others just DON'T BELIEVE or think in those terms.
> 
> Because this is so confusing, over who is a real ATHEIST
> and who is agnostic, I tend to use the term NONTHEIST.
> 
> So regardless what you believe or don't believe,
> if you THINK in "nontheistic" terms, and don't personify
> Justice as Jesus or the forces of Life/Nature as a PERSONAL God,
> that means you use "secular" terms, natural laws and science to communicate truths as you understand them.
> 
> If you are THEIST and use the Bible, Quran, Buddhist or Jewish or any other scriptures
> you believe are sacred authority as your laws, then you will use THOSE laws or religions to reach
> agreement on principles and concepts with people.
> 
> The real issue is what terms/languages/laws you use to communicate
> And then to reconcile with people using different laws or languages,
> that is where forgiveness and reconciling meanings comes into place.
> 
> if we cannot forgive each other's terminology, we'll never get to the meanings
> and concepts behind them where we could communicate and reach agreement.
> 
> Instead of arguing who is or what is an Atheist or religion or what,
> why not just listen to what each other is trying to say, using whatever terms THEY use.
> And don't argue about the terms we DON'T agree on or agree to use.
> 
> What ARE we talking about and what DO we agree to call those things?
Click to expand...



"Nontheist" seems like a good term, since "non" implies something simply "not present" which is the whole idea (really, non-idea).  But then again that's what "atheist" also means and that's being morphed out of shape, for reasons yet to be addressed, so forgive me if I don't have a lot of confidence in its efficacy. 

Atheism is a conclusion derived of a logical train of thought, arrived at after considering theism.  That's all it is.  What we have here is attack on that conclusion by a phalanx of logical fallacies -- strawmen, biased samples, composition and circular reasoning.  You can't deconstruct logic with illogic.  Hence the logicjam.

(hee hee "logicjam" -- I kill me 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )

The value of theism in one theist:  one.
The value of theism in one atheist: zero.
That's it.  That's all there is.

It seems some of our friends either have trouble with, or else pretend to have trouble with, the concept of "zero".


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> That's the same colloquial sense I just finished describing.  And as you're devolving to your usual ad hom tantrums, you're back on ignore.
> 
> I apologize to the thread for feeding the troll in his glorious Second coming.



Pointing out that Pogo is wrong is a personal attack on Pogo because he never admits he is wrong.


----------



## emilynghiem

Pogo said:


> So now you would have this Court believe that any belief about anything constitutes a "religion"?
> 
> Or did you mean to type "non-belief" with a hyphen?  i.e. that the absence of belief is _itself_ a belief?



It depends.

* Some people believe "God does not exist" or is "made up" by people. 
That is a BELIEF that people are teaching God exists for other reasons, and that this is not true.

* Some people "do not believe in the description of God that is taught a certain way"
but believe in nature or natural laws and forces. Some people BELIEVE this is reconcilable
with "God" and some people do NOT believe it is reconcilable.

So if I acknowledge that other way of seeing God is real for that person but not for me,
that is NOT rejecting God, as in having a religious belief that "God does not exist"
I am merely acknowledging our ways are different and I don't believe in THAT way.

NOTE: There are as many different ways of believing or not believing as there are people on this planet.
I find it easier to listen to what each person says they believe or understand or don't, and
not focus on trying to argue or debate things that don't fit into their system.

If we were scientists, and we could either study and find the cure to a disease we DO agree to focus on,
why waste all our time and resources arguing over the things we DON'T believe,
and trying to prove why that isn't important to us? why not just take it on face value
that if you said you don't want to study or work on that, but want to focus on curing another disease,
why not just focus on what we AGREE is important?


----------



## Carla_Danger

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't "question" nothingness.  There is no "dogma" since atheism is not a thing or concept; it's simply the dearth of a concept.  In the same way that dark is not a "thing" but the dearth of light and silence is not a "thing" but the dearth of sound.  Second, you can't "blaspheme" something you never accepted in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is the belief that there is no god. That, like it or not, is something.
Click to expand...



Is "something" a religion?


----------



## emilynghiem

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the same colloquial sense I just finished describing.  And as you're devolving to your usual ad hom tantrums, you're back on ignore.
> 
> I apologize to the thread for feeding the troll in his glorious Second coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out that Pogo is wrong is a personal attack on Pogo because he never admits he is wrong.
Click to expand...


I think it is the adversarial approach setting both of you off
is what is going wrong here.

When I debate or discuss with you separately, I find you are each able to explain where we are talking past each other, or saying the same thing, etc.

So when the two of you clash, it is from too much other defensiveness or clashing perceptions causing interference.

You are both level headed, articulate, intelligent people.
Sometimes we clash online, but please don't take that as a reason to judge each other for it.

You are both better than that, and I have seen plenty of points and discussions where you are clearly above
any need for namecalling or ignoring.

Sorry you don't bring out the better sides of each other.
If you can drop that and start with points we agree on, 
I'd like to finish this conversation successfully and come to helpful solutions.

Pogo seems to respond to the term nontheist better, and quit arguing what is or what is not an atheist
since there are too many different views of that anyway. Let's just stick to what we believe
and how to explain that to each other, and that's good enough for me.

Thank you!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> Is "something" a religion?



That would depend. It is, however, the opposite of nothing, so my point stands.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

emilynghiem said:


> I think it is the adversarial approach setting both of you off
> is what is going wrong here.
> 
> When I debate or discuss with you separately, I find you are each able to explain where we are talking past each other, or saying the same thing, etc.
> 
> So when the two of you clash, it is from too much other defensiveness or clashing perceptions causing interference.
> 
> You are both level headed, articulate, intelligent people.
> Sometimes we clash online, but please don't take that as a reason to judge each other for it.
> 
> You are both better than that, and I have seen plenty of points and discussions where you are clearly above
> any need for namecalling or ignoring.
> 
> Sorry you don't bring out the better sides of each other.
> If you can drop that and start with points we agree on,
> I'd like to finish this conversation successfully and come to helpful solutions.
> 
> Pogo seems to respond to the term nontheist better, and quit arguing what is or what is not an atheist
> since there are too many different views of that anyway. Let's just stick to what we believe
> and how to explain that to each other, and that's good enough for me.
> 
> Thank you!



If Pogo had a better side he would admit he is wrong when he was presented with irrefutable proof of his errors. The fact that he chooses to run away instead is why I treat him with contempt.

And frankly, I don't take his adversarial nature personally because I actually have a better side. I have even warned people who I always argue with when they do things really stupid, like post personal information by accident. That gets me a lot more respect from them then pretending that I am not who I am.


----------



## emilynghiem

PratchettFan said:


> That was a definition not a list of attributes.  I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded.  It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe.  But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition.
> 
> The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge."  Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?
> 
> All beliefs are personal conclusions.  All beliefs are introspective.  Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.
> 
> As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth.  The truth being their own beliefs.  Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus.  Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.



1. I would say that Atheism is so broad, that SOME of the ways people practice or teach it DO fall under religion.
And SOME of the ways don't. If it did formerly organize, where enough major members respected as authorities DID decide to incorporate, then it could well become a formally recognized religion. Same with Constitutionalism.

2. RE: "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge."
That term only works if that is the only thing you are interested in discussing or in calling a religion.

3. as for "All beliefs are personal conclusions.  All beliefs are introspective.  Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way."

since some people's beliefs DO fall under a recognized religion and some do not,
the whole point is to talk about beliefs, not religions.

If each of us just talks and listens based on what each of us believes and understands,
we can communicate and reach agreement or solutions
REGARDLESS of our beliefs, religions, what we do or do not label who or what this or that.

Let's stick to the points, principles and concepts within our beliefs,
and it doesn't matter so much how we might be labeled on the outside by others.

What are we talking about on the inside, and how can we connect DIRECTLY on that level
so we can get somewhere?  No need to argue how to categorize labels on the outside.

We get the inside material content straight, then whatever we call these things (or each other) will follow from there.


----------



## emilynghiem

Quantum Windbag said:


> If Pogo had a better side he would admit he is wrong when he was presented with irrefutable proof of his errors. The fact that he chooses to run away instead is why I treat him with contempt.
> 
> And frankly, I don't take his adversarial nature personally because I actually have a better side. I have even warned people who I always argue with when they do things really stupid, like post personal confrontation by accident. That get me a lot more respect from them then pretending that I am not who I am.



I have better success with people by focusing on what we agree is RIGHT.
If we find those points, the areas of conflict get corrected in the process.

Your way may work for you, but if it brings out the worst side of Pogo, obviously it may be backfiring in that context.
If Pogo isn't getting or responding to how you tried to simplify it. we may have to start from another angle that 
will get us somewhere. 

The neat thing about this process, even if you do strike out and hit a dead end.
Something someone says in protest can open the door to discussing from a different starting point,
and bring up the issue in another way. The process continues until the conflicts are brought out and resolved.
So if one way doesn't work, it will come again in another form. Eventually we connect the dots and figure out the path
to build up points of agreement and understanding and work from there.

Truth has a way of carving itself out of the chaos.
What we have in common is our consciences all seek satisfaction in establishing truth,
and resolving any conflict or error we find faulty.  So by binary logic of 0 or 1, yes or no,
true or false, agree or disagree, by trial and error, we can map out where we align with each other.


----------



## emilynghiem

Carla_Danger said:


> Okay, I think I see the problem here.  Maybe once you learn the definition of religion, you'll see the flaws in your argument.



Hi Carla_Danger 
I also see the similar problem in not agreeing what is meant by religion, which varies per person or context, 
and what is meant by atheism which also varies.

Can we start by just talking and listening to each other by what we do believe or understand
and not whether this fits a label or not? Otherwise we are arguing about the labels.

If the main issue is what are your beliefs, what are mine, and how do these align.
That can happen without agreeing if mine or yours "counts as" atheism or religion or whatever label.
We don't have to agree on that to listen to each other's ideas and principles.

Some of the helpful uses of religion are to organize people by association so we can communicate in mass groups.

If we are going to discuss what we mean by terms,
why not come right out and discuss what is MEANT by "God" or "Jesus"
not for the purpose of ARGUING about it, but for ORGANIZING by groups.

So if people who believe in God as Wisdom know to hang out with the Buddhists,
and people who believe in Jesus as Equal Justice or Social Justice or Peace and Justice
hang out with those groups, then we can all align with likeminded neighbors
and not argue why one group teaches Jesus as Salvation and another as Justice.

We can have all going on, and just delegate to each group the
members who relate to that approach and can be most effective there.


----------



## PratchettFan

emilynghiem said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a definition not a list of attributes.  I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded.  It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe.  But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition.
> 
> The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge."  Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?
> 
> All beliefs are personal conclusions.  All beliefs are introspective.  Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.
> 
> As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth.  The truth being their own beliefs.  Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus.  Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I would say that Atheism is so broad, that SOME of the ways people practice or teach it DO fall under religion.
> And SOME of the ways don't. If it did formerly organize, where enough major members respected as authorities DID decide to incorporate, then it could well become a formally recognized religion. Same with Constitutionalism.
> 
> 2. RE: "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge."
> That term only works if that is the only thing you are interested in discussing or in calling a religion.
> 
> 3. as for "All beliefs are personal conclusions.  All beliefs are introspective.  Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way."
> 
> since some people's beliefs DO fall under a recognized religion and some do not,
> the whole point is to talk about beliefs, not religions.
> 
> If each of us just talks and listens based on what each of us believes and understands,
> we can communicate and reach agreement or solutions
> REGARDLESS of our beliefs, religions, what we do or do not label who or what this or that.
> 
> Let's stick to the points, principles and concepts within our beliefs,
> and it doesn't matter so much how we might be labeled on the outside by others.
> 
> What are we talking about on the inside, and how can we connect DIRECTLY on that level
> so we can get somewhere?  No need to argue how to categorize labels on the outside.
> 
> We get the inside material content straight, then whatever we call these things (or each other) will follow from there.
Click to expand...


I understand what you are saying.  I am just attempting to find some common ground on what it is we are discussing.  It is difficult to even understand the other's point of view if we don't know what we mean by the words we use.


----------



## emilynghiem

Pogo said:


> Sorry Emily, that simply doesn't work.  Under that broad a definition an interest in anything at all could be described as "religion".
> 
> "I'm going to  the grocery store; are you interested in coming along?  Bring your prayer mat".
> 
> What you have there appears to be a colloquialism, a deliberately overstated misuse for comic effect.  When a fan says they "worship" a rock musician  (movie actor, sports player, whoever) they don't mean it _literally_.  It's simply expressing a strong degree of passion integrated into the verb instead of standing alone as an adjective; it's imagery.
> 
> Doesn't apply here even in the colloquial sense; atheism is a simple logical conclusion, as such rational and not subject to passion.



Yes and no. You would have to take that thing and MAKE a "religion" or "religious ritual" out of it, where you really DO have that conviction in it. 

Someone similarly complained that "addiction" was starting to be used too lightly.
A real addiction is one thing, but a colloquial expression for an overdone hobby or interest as an "addiction" is another.

I agree with you, that you don't want to use terms such as religion or addiction so broadly they lose their meaning!
That is not the point.
But it IS true that ANYTHING COULD become a religious focus or COULD become an addiction.

it is POSSIBLE.
But NO you are right, and I agree, 
you don't want to call simple things addictions or religions when it isn't really to that point.

And that is NOT what I'm talking about. I'm talking about if people really do make a religion of something they believe personally. I do not mean the colloquial sense of using the term lightly.
======================================================



			
				Pogo said:
			
		

> What gives you the idea I'm not religious?  Curious.  I've barely ever even been in this forum.



In my past conversations with you, you seem pretty adept at talking out the specific issues.
I think we had some longer exchanges about healthy foods or legalization issues or something.
I got the impression you were very specific and secular minded in how you analyze things critically.

So somewhere in there, and in your arguments here, I get the impression you pinpoint
specific issues one-on-one case-by-case, and don't make broad generalizing statements
and just defend that emotionally on face value.

When I do start preaching about Constitutional equal justice and protections of the laws,
 my friends will tell me I sound like I am proselytizing propaganda, even though that's how my words come out naturally.
I don't MEAN to get religious, but what's the difference if I sound just like that?

I KNOW you do not go around "preaching" like that.
So in comparison with me, I do not see you as religious.

I admit I come across as very rightwing or Conservative [fill in the blank] to people
when actually I am a prochoice progressive liberal Democrat. I just happen to be
a Constitutionalist first. So depending on the context, I can preach back to people
using their own laws and language, whether the Bible or Bill of Rights, with as much conviction.

The only grouping I really see myself as a member of is the Constitutionalist group.
I believe I am Christian by faith, and have formally joined UU and Lutheran churches,
but whatever group I identify with is larger than those labels.

I can speak in nontheist secular terms equally as Christian or Buddhist terms.
So if I am "trilingual" in Buddhist, Christian and Constitutional terms,
what requires me to be labeled as those if I treat them as systems of laws or languages?

Why can't we be well versed in these systems and communicate freely using whatever works?

It is funny to me that the same way some people get "preachy or religious" when it comes to Christianity,
I don't in that area; but I can go to extremes preaching "Constitutionalism" to denounce government abuses.
Since I come from a more liberal secular background, I come out sounding more inclusive and prochoice
than most Constitutionalists from rightwing Christian perspectives. But since the language I use 
is associated with rightwing, that's where people think I must be or should be Tea Party/Republican or Libertarian.

The last thing they expect a Constitutionalist to be is a liberal prochoice Democrat.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Quantum Windbag said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those free from faith do not 'practice' a 'religion' as perceived by theists; indeed, it's a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> 
> Moreover, there is nothing to be 'advanced,' just as the Earth orbiting the Sun doesn't need to be 'advanced.' One either accepts the fact that there is no 'god' as perceived by theists or he rejects it; one acknowledges a fact because it is a fact, not because one is enticed to do so by doctrinal incentives or promises made by religious dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know people who believe very passionately in God who do not practice a religion as defined by atheists in this thread. Does that mean they don't have faith or does it just mean atheists are full of shit when they attempt to define religion?
Click to expand...




It probably just means that we have not talked specifically about their religion.  


.


----------



## emilynghiem

Thanks PF
Aside from all the arguing in circles over terminology
can we agree then there is not agreement on the
different types, levels, or meanings of EITHER "atheism" OR "religion"

So we are better off talking one-on-one about what each of us believes or calls things,
and UNDERSTAND that to QW, he may ONLY see atheists as "believing there is no God period"
while I may be open to nontheists "calling themselves atheists" but coming across as agnostic
(and since we can't agree, then we just focus on "nontheism" as how we approach or discuss things).
Similarly with religion, that some people even within "well-established" religions don't consider their beliefs to be that.
So if this is true for other people of other beliefs, of course, the same thing can happen with atheists or atheism.

Fine, we know we don't agree on those things.

Now, what can we talk about that we COULD find ways to agree on?

Back to my question and proof I posed to Hollie:
Could we agree to make a list of the most common meanings for
God and/or Jesus, and the secular terms they reconcile with.

And show that it is more effective to agree on the MEANINGS
and not haggle over the terms or beliefs associated with those.

If we can show that that works to bring about agreed understanding
how to communicate between theists and nontheists, then we
can suggest this approach to more people and groups to resolve these issues.
Even without changing anyone's viewpoints.
All we are doing is setting up an agreed system for ALIGNING
what we mean by terms, even between religious believers and nontheist secular thinkers,
and still communicate and work together successfully without unresolved conflicts.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can impose nothing on you.  Only you can do that.  So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care?  Why apply a name to it?  Why do you need a definition?  Why do you bother talking about it at all?
> 
> To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns.  Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed?  Zero time.  The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.
> 
> No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief.  You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion.  There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence.  Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter absurdity.    Oh never mind, you just did.
> Having a freaking *preference *or *opinion *on something does not a religion make.  You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke.  You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department.  That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't make Christianity religion either.  So you tell me, what does make it religion?  What are the attributes we need to look for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For this leave us go back to post 395 (directed originally to Emily) -- roll tape:
> 
> religion [ri-lij-uh n]
> noun
> 1.
> a set of beliefs *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*, *especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.  (Dictionary.com)
> 
> -- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit.  That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either.  All that is is having an opinion.
> 
> I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu.  That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teach*ings*, not the teach*er.*  That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism.  However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.
> 
> (As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).
> 
> So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge.  Buddhism does that, so it's a religion.  Taoism does that so it too is a religion.  Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, Zoroastrianism, they all do that and are therefore "religions".
> 
> Not smoking does not do that; Constitutionalism does not do that; atheism does not do that.  None of them therefore are "religions".  I get the impression some here believe that proselytizing for any cause whatsoever constitutes a "religion" but it doesn't.  It constitutes _ advocacy_.  Nothing more.
> 
> 
> --- which last point still doesn't apply to atheism since it's a personal conclusion.
> 
> Perhaps the missing ingredient in all this is the admission that beliefs are not necessarily always extroverted.  There's no reason they need to be to qualify as either belief or religion.  Atheism is by definition _introspective_.  Trying to pretend it "proselytizing" is like trying to pretend a desert is "against" the idea of water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was a definition not a list of attributes.  I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded.  It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe.  But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's absurd.  There is no such "set of beliefs".  Any given atheist may have wildly different beliefs about religions, general moral guidelines, politics or anything else.  They have nothing in common on the basis of atheism except not believing in the Easter Bunny theistic approach to religion.
> 
> I challenge you to prove your point by listing this "set of beliefs" -- or any part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge."  Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?
> 
> All beliefs are personal conclusions.  All beliefs are introspective.  Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's a point in that section. I don't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth.  The truth being their own beliefs.  Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus.  Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree with the last sentence.  Haven't seen the rest.  Also haven't seen where anyone declining theisim professes to "know the truth".  Seems to me religion by definition tries to address the Unknowable.  And it stays that way, for if something is knowable, we call that "science".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, a set of beliefs:  And keep in mind that these need not be taken as absolutes but with varying degrees of ardor.  I would refer you back to Dawkins list for that.
> 
> 1-  There are no gods
> 2-   The various god based religions are false
> 3-   The universe has no controlling force behind it
> 4-   The universe is not an artifact
> 
> Will those work for a start?
Click to expand...

No, they wont.

Conclusion - all gods are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition. At no time in human history have any of the gods made themselves known in any extant way.

Conclusion - religious traditions are built upon earlier traditions and many religions tend to define their gods as simply grander, more powerful versions of the gods that ruled the preceding religions. And why not?  Why would a more recent religion establish itself as subordinate to a prior religion? Thus, the incorporation and inclusion of earlier traditions in mankinds formulation of newer religions.

Conclusion - nothing in the natural world indicates or even suggests supernatural forces. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.

I’ll submit that by employing evidence and reason, we can readily discriminate between which of our competing theories (mine being natural laws; yours being supernatural intervention), deserves the greater credibility. We actually have *direct observational evidence* that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have *no observational evidence of any kind* that your god (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observere who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.

Conclusion - The universe is immensely old. That is in direct contradiction to biblical tales and fables and contradicts other religious tales.

In fact, the _only_ model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?


----------



## PratchettFan

emilynghiem said:


> Thanks PF
> Aside from all the arguing in circles over terminology
> can we agree then there is not agreement on the
> different types, levels, or meanings of EITHER "atheism" OR "religion"
> 
> So we are better off talking one-on-one about what each of us believes or calls things,
> and UNDERSTAND that to QW, he may ONLY see atheists as "believing there is no God period"
> while I may be open to nontheists "calling themselves atheists" but coming across as agnostic
> (and since we can't agree, then we just focus on "nontheism" as how we approach or discuss things).
> Similarly with religion, that some people even within "well-established" religions don't consider their beliefs to be that.
> So if this is true for other people of other beliefs, of course, the same thing can happen with atheists or atheism.
> 
> Fine, we know we don't agree on those things.
> 
> Now, what can we talk about that we COULD find ways to agree on?
> 
> Back to my question and proof I posed to Hollie:
> Could we agree to make a list of the most common meanings for
> God and/or Jesus, and the secular terms they reconcile with.
> 
> And show that it is more effective to agree on the MEANINGS
> and not haggle over the terms or beliefs associated with those.
> 
> If we can show that that works to bring about agreed understanding
> how to communicate between theists and nontheists, then we
> can suggest this approach to more people and groups to resolve these issues.
> Even without changing anyone's viewpoints.
> All we are doing is setting up an agreed system for ALIGNING
> what we mean by terms, even between religious believers and nontheist secular thinkers,
> and still communicate and work together successfully without unresolved conflicts.



I am open to the approach. It should be interesting. 

But there is another issue here and I think it is probably more profound.  While having an agreed vocabulary, or at least and understood one, is valuable, it really doesn't matter if vocabulary becomes the standard.  I think one of the biggest issue here is really all about what is belief.  I do not agree it is simply a word.  It is an action.  And if one is engaged in the action then one has belief.  Establishing a vocabulary which ignores action is pointless.


----------



## Hollie

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already disproven your gods. Prove I haven't.
> 
> Have you still not seen the futility of your nonsensical "prove it isn't" fallacy you use to prop-up your gods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Hollie: WOW! If you have proven God does not exist, you should win a Nobel!
> Even Godel could only prove that (if there is a God) "only God can know truth";
> "The rest of us have beliefs based on our perception of facts and accepted prior knowledge"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.chron.com/opinion/letters/article/Friday-letters-Ashby-high-rise-Obamacare-faith-5094759.php said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [RE]: Professor Kurt Godel's incompleteness and undecidability theorems. With these two theorems, Godel proved that only God(s) can know truth(s). The rest of us have beliefs based on our perception of facts and accepted prior knowledge (e.g. Scripture, the Bible, Koran, Torah).
> 
> The only things we can be relatively sure of are that we must keep our science and religion separate - the world is not flat and the sun does not revolve around the Earth - contrary to medieval truth. Religion is based on faith; science is based on best applied observations and math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since our perception, those facts we perceived, or the prior knowledge we accept
> COULD still be faulty, then we can always be wrong or this "truth" can change.
> So we can "never know" because of this possibility of error or change.
> 
> Hollie: As I stated before, the most I believe we can prove is by agreement:
> 1. agreeing on the meanings of God, and which meanings align to be compatible, complementary or reconcileable
> 2. agreeing to FORGIVE differences, even conflicts, in order to work around those and not get in the way of
> COMMUNICATING the meanings and ideas we DO agree on, even if we don't see or word them in the same terms
> 3. proving that the degree of FORGIVENESS is what determines ability to reconcile and agree on truth,
> NOT the belief system of each person which can remain in complete conflict
> 
> I believe we can prove that through experience, and documenting the results of forgiving and not forgiving conflicts or relationships, and showing the statistical patterns:
> * forgiveness will correlate with reconciling differences across religious and political beliefs or groups even conflicting ones
> * unforgiveness will correlate with rejection and inability to resolve conflicts, even between members of the same  groups
> 
> The real issue dividing people is whether we can forgive or not.
> The other differences and conflicts that may never change are not the problem because
> those can be worked around to find solutions to the same degree people are willing to forgive
> and deal with those differences instead of divide and judge each other for them.
> 
> This I believe can be proven.
> And I am willing to prove it, by proving it!
> 
> Your proof there is not a God cannot be proven.
> (The most you can do is prove it cannot be proven, but relies on faith,
> which is not the same as disproving God. You can also explain that if God represents infinitive or collective truth/knowledge/laws of all the universe, then man would have to be God in order to understand and prove all those things. So by our nature we can never prove the existence of something so beyond us, we cannot even perceive it all, much less communicate a proof of it.)
> 
> If you want to make a running bet, I will bet you 10 million
> that we can sooner prove forgiveness/unforgiveness is the correlating factor
> in reaching agreement on the meanings of God, Jesus etc.
> 
> vs. trying to prove God or Jesus are not real which I bet you will not happen.
> 
> I can sooner prove the meaning of Jesus "can be reconciled" with the meaning of Justice,
> which does not rely on either Jesus or Justice really existing to  prove they are reconcilable as concepts.
> 
> We can prove reconciliation is possible and it follows a pattern of steps or stages.
> But to prove the system reiterates to lead to a full consensus would require to finish that process to fully prove consensus can be reached. i believe we can at least prove the
> pattern can be followed, and replicates itself.
> 
> Same with establishing AGREEMENT on God by reconciling with meanings such as
> *life love truth wisdom good will creation universe nature
> universal laws natural laws, etc.*
> 
> Hollie if you want to prove God does not exist,
> you would have to prove these do not exist, too, and/or prove that God is not any of these.
> 
> All those words in boldface are aspects of what people mean by God
> so all that has to be proven to be only perceived in our minds and "made up by man"
> 
> Good luck!
Click to expand...

You commit the common fallacy of presuming that I have some obligation to disprove your gods. I have no such requirement.  With the presumption that the Egyptian gods are the true gods, you must accept the fact that you are worshipping false gods and are practicing a heretical belief system, at least until you disprove the fact of the Egyptian gods as true and extant. I'll await your disproof.

What I derive from your posts and those of the other... more excitable believers of "the" Bibles as "the" story of "man's" relationship with "Gods." Each of these concepts presupposes a unique reification. 

"The Bibles" ... There are many interpretations of Bibles, many verses subject to interpretation and many other holy scriptures and still more general spiritual texts besides. 

"The Story" (creation)... There are as many stories, historically, as there are consciousnesses to experience them. By what reasoning can a claim be made for the universality of any of them? The biblical creation tale is a train-wreck of falsehoods, contradictions and absurdities.

"Man" ... The evidence seems overwhelming that man does indeed share a common natural descent with all other forms of life on earth. At what point of our biotic history can we chop down the tree and say, "This creature has a soul?"

"Gods" ... The essential uniqueness of the Abrahamic God lies in the claims of its uniqueness made by its adherents. Yet the largest branch of Abrahamic spirituality claims their unique god is actually three-in-one. The second largest branch claims 9 billion names for the same divinity leaving the third leg of the tripod to mutter "_Oi vey_" under their collective breaths. "It's a bust". You broke it.

If there is one thing sure, it is that closer examination of anything will always lead to "differentiatiable" (new word?) aspects. Gods have a tendency to breed when placed in philosophical intercourse with men. So why is anyone under any obligation to accept your false gods as opposed to the true gods?


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can impose nothing on you.  Only you can do that.  So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care?  Why apply a name to it?  Why do you need a definition?  Why do you bother talking about it at all?
> 
> To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns.  Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed?  Zero time.  The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.
> 
> No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief.  You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion.  There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence.  Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter absurdity.    Oh never mind, you just did.
> Having a freaking *preference *or *opinion *on something does not a religion make.  You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke.  You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department.  That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't make Christianity religion either.  So you tell me, what does make it religion?  What are the attributes we need to look for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For this leave us go back to post 395 (directed originally to Emily) -- roll tape:
> 
> religion [ri-lij-uh n]
> noun
> 1.
> a set of beliefs *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*, *especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.  (Dictionary.com)
> 
> -- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit.  That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either.  All that is is having an opinion.
> 
> I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu.  That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teach*ings*, not the teach*er.*  That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism.  However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.
> 
> (As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).
> 
> So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge.  Buddhism does that, so it's a religion.  Taoism does that so it too is a religion.  Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, Zoroastrianism, they all do that and are therefore "religions".
> 
> Not smoking does not do that; Constitutionalism does not do that; atheism does not do that.  None of them therefore are "religions".  I get the impression some here believe that proselytizing for any cause whatsoever constitutes a "religion" but it doesn't.  It constitutes _ advocacy_.  Nothing more.
> 
> 
> --- which last point still doesn't apply to atheism since it's a personal conclusion.
> 
> Perhaps the missing ingredient in all this is the admission that beliefs are not necessarily always extroverted.  There's no reason they need to be to qualify as either belief or religion.  Atheism is by definition _introspective_.  Trying to pretend it "proselytizing" is like trying to pretend a desert is "against" the idea of water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was a definition not a list of attributes.  I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded.  It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe.  But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's absurd.  There is no such "set of beliefs".  Any given atheist may have wildly different beliefs about religions, general moral guidelines, politics or anything else.  They have nothing in common on the basis of atheism except not believing in the Easter Bunny theistic approach to religion.
> 
> I challenge you to prove your point by listing this "set of beliefs" -- or any part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge."  Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?
> 
> All beliefs are personal conclusions.  All beliefs are introspective.  Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's a point in that section. I don't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth.  The truth being their own beliefs.  Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus.  Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree with the last sentence.  Haven't seen the rest.  Also haven't seen where anyone declining theisim professes to "know the truth".  Seems to me religion by definition tries to address the Unknowable.  And it stays that way, for if something is knowable, we call that "science".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, a set of beliefs:  And keep in mind that these need not be taken as absolutes but with varying degrees of ardor.  I would refer you back to Dawkins list for that.
> 
> 1-  There are no gods
> 2-   The various god based religions are false
> 3-   The universe has no controlling force behind it
> 4-   The universe is not an artifact
> 
> Will those work for a start?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they wont.
> 
> Conclusion - all gods are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition. At no time in human history have any of the gods made themselves known in any extant way.
> 
> Conclusion - religious traditions are built upon earlier traditions and many religions tend to define their gods as simply grander, more powerful versions of the gods that ruled the preceding religions. And why not?  Why would a more recent religion establish itself as subordinate to a prior religion? Thus, the incorporation and inclusion of earlier traditions in mankinds formulation of newer religions.
> 
> Conclusion - nothing in the natural world indicates or even suggests supernatural forces. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.
> 
> I’ll submit that by employing evidence and reason, we can readily discriminate between which of our competing theories (mine being natural laws; yours being supernatural intervention), deserves the greater credibility. We actually have *direct observational evidence* that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have *no observational evidence of any kind* that your god (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observere who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> Conclusion - The universe is immensely old. That is in direct contradiction to biblical tales and fables and contradicts other religious tales.
> 
> In fact, the _only_ model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?
Click to expand...


Understand from the beginning that I am not a Christian.  I do not consider the Bible a science book.  At best it has some historical significance.  If you wish to argue Christianity, you will need to find someone else.

But I am willing to take your belief sets.  I don't know if Pogo will or not.

1-  all god are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition. 
     This is a pretty direct statement that gods are not real.  They do not exist but are entirely imaginary.  I really don't see how your statement could be taken any other way.     So, please present your evidence to support this conclusion.  And if you are going to use the argument that they have not made themselves known, you are going to have to explain your position that if they existed they would make themselves known.  Otherwise, it is irrelevant.

2-  Religious institutions are built on earlier traditions. 
     I'll grant you that and would consider this a valid statement based upon objective evidence.  I am not clear on how that matters.  If you could clarify that for me I would appreciate it.

3-  Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force. 
     I am not aware of anything which does.  OTOH, I am not aware of anything which suggests it doesn't.  The current theory (at least I think it is) is a singularity expanded to create the universe.  I am aware of nothing which indicates the origination of the singularity or the cause of the expansion.  Nor any current theory as to why the natural forces you speak of exist at all.  I stipulate they are there, but why they are there is a matter of speculation.  So, do you have any objective evidence that supernatural (I really dislike that word) forces were not involved?

Keep in mind that what I am attempting to do here is determine the nature of your conclusions, not whether or not they are true.  You have as much chance of getting it right as I do.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi Hollie: I think you are taking the approach of saying that religions that personify the forces of Life or God in a personified symbol or being "contradict" science and history by overriding it with myths; I agree that is wrongful, but I do not see that religions have to do this, and find many more believers who WORK WITH SCIENCE and MEDICINE and do not reject these.

So you are starting with a strawman argument, leaving out people who reconcile Nature and laws of science
with the construct of personifying God. These are not "mutually exclusive"

Are you okay with people who equate "God with Nature" without any contradiction?

Do you need "proof" such people exist?
I agree that God can be equated with Nature, natural scientific and universal laws,
and reconcile all the truth that is in science and history with the meanings in the Bible.

I have no problem with that, and believe it SHOULD be consistent and no conflicts taught otherwise!

Other Christians I can recommend to you as proof this is naturally reconcileable:
1. The Lutheran Pastor at the church I went to who explained that substituting "LIFE" for "GOD"
was perfectly consistent in order to communicate with atheists and others who do not see the world in terms of GOD.
His name is Senior Pastor Robert Moore
2. Agnes Sanford (deceased) Author of "The Healing Light"
explains God as Nature, and is one of the most well renowned teachers of how to facilitate natural healing (as the body/mind are already designed for) through prayer to receive more of that life energy and remove any fault disrupting the circuit
3. The founders such as Jefferson who cited Natural Laws when writing the statements and documents
that went into establishing the Constitution. Again invoking power of God from NATURE to document laws that apply to human NATURE to serve as a universal structure for reforming govt democratically as part of humanity's destiny and growth.

Other Christians I talked with said they ran across similar with Buddhists and Eastern cultures,
that instead of teaching God as a separate source, they understood that some people
see God as Creation Earth or Nature/Universe itself. Some of my Wicca and Pagan friends understand God means this.

So there are plenty of people who have proven to me, Hollie,
that God can be reconciled with general/impersonal beliefs
about universal, scientific and natural laws.

Are you going to tell me that these people don't exist.
Or that all their interpretations of God as referring to Nature and laws of science are wrong?

And ONLY YOUR interpretation that God has to mean something MYTHICAL is correct?

Why can't we agree that the CONFLICTING teachings of God are WRONG if they teach false things
that contradict scientific empirical data, laws and facts; but it there is nothing wrong with teaching
God's laws where they RECONCILE with science, history and facts demonstrated by experience.

Are you okay with making that distinction?
or do you insist on sticking with your straw man argument that God has to mean something false?

NOTE: If you insist on clinging to your preset conditions, you are leaving me out as well as
my atheists friends who have reconciled with Christians by agreeing to broader terms.

So whatever "group" you intend to prove this to is already limited and NOT universal to all humanity.
In science, that is not considered a proof if you have to limit your audience to just those who
agree to define God as only the mythical false things you pose.



Hollie said:


> Conclusion - all gods are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition. At no time in human history have any of the gods made themselves known in any extant way.
> 
> Conclusion - religious traditions are built upon earlier traditions and many religions tend to define their gods as simply grander, more powerful versions of the gods that ruled the preceding religions. And why not?  Why would a more recent religion establish itself as subordinate to a prior religion? Thus, the incorporation and inclusion of earlier traditions in mankinds formulation of newer religions.
> 
> Conclusion - nothing in the natural world indicates or even suggests supernatural forces. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.
> 
> I’ll submit that by employing evidence and reason, we can readily discriminate between which of our competing theories (mine being natural laws; yours being supernatural intervention), deserves the greater credibility. We actually have *direct observational evidence* that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have *no observational evidence of any kind* that your god (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observere who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> Conclusion - The universe is immensely old. That is in direct contradiction to biblical tales and fables and contradicts other religious tales.
> 
> In fact, the _only_ model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?



You don't have to believe in virgins spontaneously conceiving.
You can believe the symbolism refers to KARMA and that the point of Jesus breaking the cycle of karma
was that he was not born carrying KARMA from physical parents that he owes for like others do, owing to their parents for bringing us into the world. His debt he symbolizes paying for is for ALL HUMANITY forward and past. So by jesus sacrifice this act "symbolizes" the breaking of the cycle of karmic retribution killing humanity. Instead of repeating negative patterns inherited by past generations, we break the cycle by forgiveness and love by not returning evil for evil. We let "divine justice" be in charge of sorting out the karma, not us. So we only go with good positive actions thoughts and words, and let the negative be removed as we forgive and heal. We have faith in this higher "spiritual process" of truth setting us free.
So we end the patterns from the past and stick to the truth which corrects and prevents wrongs in the future.
If we make mistakes, we forgive and correct each other, and accelerate the learning curve. We do not judge, blame or punish but accept shared responsibility for corrections so we can rise above. This is what Jesus renewal and rebirth 
represents. the coming of Restorative Justice to bring lasting peace and harmony and balance back to humanity.

so you do not need to believe in a personified God or Jesus to believe in this process.
you can be an atheist like my friend Ray Hill who believes in peace and justice and gets along great with other Christians who believe the same. All it takes is forgiveness and we can work together despite differences and conflicts.

We are not perfect in that sense. We have our flaws and biases, and none of us can understand and love all other people fully equally as everyone else. but together, we can check and balance each other, so collectively we can be perfect as in mature or whole. So that is where the story in the Bible is leading to, that path of establishing truth, justice and peace.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> You commit the common fallacy of presuming that I have some obligation to disprove your gods. I have no such requirement.  With the presumption that the Egyptian gods are the true gods, you must accept the fact that you are worshipping false gods and are practicing a heretical belief system, at least until you disprove the fact of the Egyptian gods as true and extant. I'll await your disproof.



Hi Hollie: I am saying we cannot prove it OR disprove it, either way.
I am saying to prove instead the FACTOR that correlates with either conclusion:
A. if people of different views cannot reconcile differences, this correlates to the degree they cannot forgive certain people or groups.
B. if people of different views CAN work around those differences, this correlates to their ability to FORGIVE
C. and if people change from A to B, this also correlates with a change from unforgiveness to forgiveness of those conflicts.



			
				Hollie said:
			
		

> What I derive from your posts and those of the other... more excitable believers of "the" Bibles as "the" story of "man's" relationship with "Gods." Each of these concepts presupposes a unique reification.
> 
> "The Bibles" ... There are many interpretations of Bibles, many verses subject to interpretation and many other holy scriptures and still more general spiritual texts besides.
> 
> "The Story" (creation)... There are as many stories, historically, as there are consciousnesses to experience them. By what reasoning can a claim be made for the universality of any of them? The biblical creation tale is a train-wreck of falsehoods, contradictions and absurdities.
> 
> "Man" ... The evidence seems overwhelming that man does indeed share a common natural descent with all other forms of life on earth. At what point of our biotic history can we chop down the tree and say, "This creature has a soul?"
> 
> "Gods" ... The essential uniqueness of the Abrahamic God lies in the claims of its uniqueness made by its adherents. Yet the largest branch of Abrahamic spirituality claims their unique god is actually three-in-one. The second largest branch claims 9 billion names for the same divinity leaving the third leg of the tripod to mutter "_Oi vey_" under their collective breaths. "It's a bust". You broke it.
> 
> If there is one thing sure, it is that closer examination of anything will always lead to "differentiatiable" (new word?) aspects. Gods have a tendency to breed when placed in philosophical intercourse with men. So why is anyone under any obligation to accept your false gods as opposed to the true gods?



No, of course nobody is under obligation. If faith is "forced by obligation" then it is forced, and not real faith.
so that is the problem with religions, if they are conditional and forced by fear or politics or group pressure.
It is false because of that.

Let's instead focus on what meanings we FREELY AGREE make sense and reconcile with science and history.

So this is all by free choice and if it really is universal truth, then by definition all people would relate and reconcile with it one way or another. maybe not express it the same way, but at least see it is compatible and not contradictory.

I posted an interpretation above on the Bible as the history of man, and Christ Jesus as Restorative Justice.
Let me know if you can relate to that approach. no one has to believe in a concrete personal God or Jesus
to believe there is collective truth and justice. So those are fair equivalent explanations of the meaning
in more universal terms. my mother doesn't like the limited term Truth which can be subjective, and prefers Wisdom which is not necessarily dependent on what someone claims to be the truth. Either way, whatever terms you can relate to,
that is fair game and the only way to solve this human puzzle.

We have to start with what we do  relate to and call these things.
and piece it together from there if it is going to be real and true.
it cannot be forced, no fair switching stickers on the Rubik's cube to make it come out right.

We find out where everyone has ways of seeing and words for saying things,
and align where the like pieces matchup. and work out the rest like a huge puzzle.

as we get the major centers and sides in place, the other pieces fall into place accordingly.


----------



## emilynghiem

PratchettFan said:


> I am open to the approach. It should be interesting.
> 
> But there is another issue here and I think it is probably more profound.  While having an agreed vocabulary, or at least and understood one, is valuable, it really doesn't matter if vocabulary becomes the standard.  I think one of the biggest issue here is really all about what is belief.  I do not agree it is simply a word.  It is an action.  And if one is engaged in the action then one has belief.  Establishing a vocabulary which ignores action is pointless.



Very well stated. I believe in Restorative Justice. I believe that by establishing just, truthful relations between people first, much like how we are connecting here, then collectively this influences greater society to establish consistent standards.  My main focus is finding where there are debts and damages caused by injustice or abuses, and finding ways of solving that problem, reinvesting resources and efforts into corrections or restitution as needed, so there is not only physical solution, and prevention in the future by using that example for education and experience, but also personal healing for the people affected. Thus both words and action.

What do you call your values that you live by as your way of words and actions being one?
What terms or concepts do you relate to that describe what matters or motivates you the most?


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can impose nothing on you.  Only you can do that.  So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care?  Why apply a name to it?  Why do you need a definition?  Why do you bother talking about it at all?
> 
> To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns.  Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed?  Zero time.  The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.
> 
> No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief.  You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion.  There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence.  Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter absurdity.    Oh never mind, you just did.
> Having a freaking *preference *or *opinion *on something does not a religion make.  You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke.  You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department.  That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't make Christianity religion either.  So you tell me, what does make it religion?  What are the attributes we need to look for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For this leave us go back to post 395 (directed originally to Emily) -- roll tape:
> 
> religion [ri-lij-uh n]
> noun
> 1.
> a set of beliefs *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*, *especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.  (Dictionary.com)
> 
> -- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit.  That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either.  All that is is having an opinion.
> 
> I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu.  That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teach*ings*, not the teach*er.*  That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism.  However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.
> 
> (As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).
> 
> So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge.  Buddhism does that, so it's a religion.  Taoism does that so it too is a religion.  Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, Zoroastrianism, they all do that and are therefore "religions".
> 
> Not smoking does not do that; Constitutionalism does not do that; atheism does not do that.  None of them therefore are "religions".  I get the impression some here believe that proselytizing for any cause whatsoever constitutes a "religion" but it doesn't.  It constitutes _ advocacy_.  Nothing more.
> 
> 
> --- which last point still doesn't apply to atheism since it's a personal conclusion.
> 
> Perhaps the missing ingredient in all this is the admission that beliefs are not necessarily always extroverted.  There's no reason they need to be to qualify as either belief or religion.  Atheism is by definition _introspective_.  Trying to pretend it "proselytizing" is like trying to pretend a desert is "against" the idea of water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was a definition not a list of attributes.  I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded.  It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe.  But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's absurd.  There is no such "set of beliefs".  Any given atheist may have wildly different beliefs about religions, general moral guidelines, politics or anything else.  They have nothing in common on the basis of atheism except not believing in the Easter Bunny theistic approach to religion.
> 
> I challenge you to prove your point by listing this "set of beliefs" -- or any part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge."  Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?
> 
> All beliefs are personal conclusions.  All beliefs are introspective.  Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's a point in that section. I don't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth.  The truth being their own beliefs.  Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus.  Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree with the last sentence.  Haven't seen the rest.  Also haven't seen where anyone declining theisim professes to "know the truth".  Seems to me religion by definition tries to address the Unknowable.  And it stays that way, for if something is knowable, we call that "science".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, a set of beliefs:  And keep in mind that these need not be taken as absolutes but with varying degrees of ardor.  I would refer you back to Dawkins list for that.
> 
> 1-  There are no gods
> 2-   The various god based religions are false
> 3-   The universe has no controlling force behind it
> 4-   The universe is not an artifact
> 
> Will those work for a start?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they wont.
> 
> Conclusion - all gods are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition. At no time in human history have any of the gods made themselves known in any extant way.
> 
> Conclusion - religious traditions are built upon earlier traditions and many religions tend to define their gods as simply grander, more powerful versions of the gods that ruled the preceding religions. And why not?  Why would a more recent religion establish itself as subordinate to a prior religion? Thus, the incorporation and inclusion of earlier traditions in mankinds formulation of newer religions.
> 
> Conclusion - nothing in the natural world indicates or even suggests supernatural forces. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.
> 
> I’ll submit that by employing evidence and reason, we can readily discriminate between which of our competing theories (mine being natural laws; yours being supernatural intervention), deserves the greater credibility. We actually have *direct observational evidence* that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have *no observational evidence of any kind* that your god (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observere who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> Conclusion - The universe is immensely old. That is in direct contradiction to biblical tales and fables and contradicts other religious tales.
> 
> In fact, the _only_ model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understand from the beginning that I am not a Christian.  I do not consider the Bible a science book.  At best it has some historical significance.  If you wish to argue Christianity, you will need to find someone else.
> 
> But I am willing to take your belief sets.  I don't know if Pogo will or not.
> 
> 1-  all god are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition.
> This is a pretty direct statement that gods are not real.  They do not exist but are entirely imaginary.  I really don't see how your statement could be taken any other way.     So, please present your evidence to support this conclusion.  And if you are going to use the argument that they have not made themselves known, you are going to have to explain your position that if they existed they would make themselves known.  Otherwise, it is irrelevant.
> 
> 2-  Religious institutions are built on earlier traditions.
> I'll grant you that and would consider this a valid statement based upon objective evidence.  I am not clear on how that matters.  If you could clarify that for me I would appreciate it.
> 
> 3-  Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force.
> I am not aware of anything which does.  OTOH, I am not aware of anything which suggests it doesn't.  The current theory (at least I think it is) is a singularity expanded to create the universe.  I am aware of nothing which indicates the origination of the singularity or the cause of the expansion.  Nor any current theory as to why the natural forces you speak of exist at all.  I stipulate they are there, but why they are there is a matter of speculation.  So, do you have any objective evidence that supernatural (I really dislike that word) forces were not involved?
> 
> Keep in mind that what I am attempting to do here is determine the nature of your conclusions, not whether or not they are true.  You have as much chance of getting it right as I do.
Click to expand...

Why are you having such difficulty with acknowledging your fundamentalist Christian beliefs?

It’s been pointed out repeatedly and tediously that reason and rationality lead to conclusions that leave as superficial and subordinate, your allegiance to supernaturalism and mysticism.

In your theistic worldview, what accounts for the existence of all are Supreme Beings whose minds we can never know, whose methods are wholly mysterious, whose goals are self-contradictory (an all supreme being cannot have any challenges or goals-- there is nothing beyond its ability to achieve, instantaneously, hence has no wants).

This, you religionists claim, is the "origin" of existence, and it's supposed to be a defendable position?. Well, what have you fundies "answered" in this paradigm? That an unknowable being, for unfathomable, self-contradictory reasons, using methods beyond our scope to perceive, created everything. This "answer" is not only tantamount to no answer, it is also purposely accepting no answer as the answer precluding one from ever discovering any answer.

We are in agreement on numerous levels. There is no evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods. _All_ is assumption from the religious perspective, (the theist assumes gods, the materialist assumes logic). Given the plethora of gods thoughout human history, none of which are open to any proof, yes, it is rational and logical to conclude that gods are invented to explain phenomenon. Unless you are willing to argue that any number of assertions of gods other than the one you selected as "true" doesn't illustrate this fact very clearly. I’m still waiting for you to support your gods as true to the exclusion of the Egyptian gods, which were obviously meant to "explain existence" and have no more or less authority than that of the conclusions of your Judeo-Christian gods.

You simply cannot disprove the fact that your gods are false and the Egyptian gods are true.

Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force. That is true.
While challenges to your fundamentalist views are met with nothing more than _“but… but… but…. but you can’t prove it isn’t”,_ I opt for reason and rationality as a conclusion primarily because as a member of the natural universe, we can most correctly assess natural realities as empirically supported. Other than assuming logic is cohesive, there is nothing more to _assume_ in the rationalist camp. While there are so-far unanswered questions, these questions do not leap frog out of the physical and into the metaphysical at any point, and even in analogies where reality doesn't behave quite like we expected to (quantuum mechanics for instance), you religionists are just as shackled to that reality as is the rationalist.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

emilynghiem said:


> I have better success with people by focusing on what we agree is RIGHT.
> If we find those points, the areas of conflict get corrected in the process.
> 
> Your way may work for you, but if it brings out the worst side of Pogo, obviously it may be backfiring in that context.
> If Pogo isn't getting or responding to how you tried to simplify it. we may have to start from another angle that
> will get us somewhere.
> 
> The neat thing about this process, even if you do strike out and hit a dead end.
> Something someone says in protest can open the door to discussing from a different starting point,
> and bring up the issue in another way. The process continues until the conflicts are brought out and resolved.
> So if one way doesn't work, it will come again in another form. Eventually we connect the dots and figure out the path
> to build up points of agreement and understanding and work from there.
> 
> Truth has a way of carving itself out of the chaos.
> What we have in common is our consciences all seek satisfaction in establishing truth,
> and resolving any conflict or error we find faulty.  So by binary logic of 0 or 1, yes or no,
> true or false, agree or disagree, by trial and error, we can map out where we align with each other.



Pogo hasn't got anything right in this thread, so what could I possibly focus on?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> It probably just means that we have not talked specifically about their religion.
> 
> 
> .



We haven't discussed Christianity? Have you been posting with your head up your ass?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

emilynghiem said:


> Thanks PF
> Aside from all the arguing in circles over terminology
> can we agree then there is not agreement on the
> different types, levels, or meanings of EITHER "atheism" OR "religion"
> 
> So we are better off talking one-on-one about what each of us believes or calls things,
> and UNDERSTAND that to QW, he may ONLY see atheists as "believing there is no God period"



That is the dictionary definition of atheist, and some idiots in this thread are arguing they don't believe that, even though they argue exactly that position. The fact that I refuse to let them do that is indicative of my search for truth. The fact that they continue to claim they don't actually believe that is proof they are not seeking truth.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> No, they wont.
> 
> Conclusion - all gods are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition. At no time in human history have any of the gods made themselves known in any extant way.
> 
> Conclusion - religious traditions are built upon earlier traditions and many religions tend to define their gods as simply grander, more powerful versions of the gods that ruled the preceding religions. And why not?  Why would a more recent religion establish itself as subordinate to a prior religion? Thus, the incorporation and inclusion of earlier traditions in mankinds formulation of newer religions.
> 
> Conclusion - nothing in the natural world indicates or even suggests supernatural forces. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.
> 
> I’ll submit that by employing evidence and reason, we can readily discriminate between which of our competing theories (mine being natural laws; yours being supernatural intervention), deserves the greater credibility. We actually have *direct observational evidence* that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have *no observational evidence of any kind* that your god (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observere who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> Conclusion - The universe is immensely old. That is in direct contradiction to biblical tales and fables and contradicts other religious tales.
> 
> In fact, the _only_ model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?



In order for any of those things to be a conclusion you have to present some type of argument to support them. The fact that I have to point that out is indicative that you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> Why are you having such difficulty with acknowledging your fundamentalist Christian beliefs?



Why are you having such trouble reading people's posts?

What evidence, other than the fact that Pratchet doesn't agree with you, do you have that he is a fundamentalist Christian?



Hollie said:


> It’s been pointed out repeatedly and tediously that reason and rationality lead to conclusions that leave as superficial and subordinate, your allegiance to supernaturalism and mysticism.



It has been pointed out repeatedly that simply declaring something to be true is neither reason or rationality. If you had the ability to use either you would be able to provide some examples of them.



Hollie said:


> In your theistic worldview, what accounts for the existence of all are Supreme Beings whose minds we can never know, whose methods are wholly mysterious, whose goals are self-contradictory (an all supreme being cannot have any challenges or goals-- there is nothing beyond its ability to achieve, instantaneously, hence has no wants).



What theistic worldviews has he expressed? I must have missed it in all the times he expressly said he doesn't believe in God.



Hollie said:


> This, you religionists claim, is the "origin" of existence, and it's supposed to be a defendable position?. Well, what have you fundies "answered" in this paradigm? That an unknowable being, for unfathomable, self-contradictory reasons, using methods beyond our scope to perceive, created everything. This "answer" is not only tantamount to no answer, it is also purposely accepting no answer as the answer precluding one from ever discovering any answer.



Another example of you arguing with the voices in your head.



Hollie said:


> We are in agreement on numerous levels. There is no evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods. _All_ is assumption from the religious perspective, (the theist assumes gods, the materialist assumes logic). Given the plethora of gods thoughout human history, none of which are open to any proof, yes, it is rational and logical to conclude that gods are invented to explain phenomenon. Unless you are willing to argue that any number of assertions of gods other than the one you selected as "true" doesn't illustrate this fact very clearly. I’m still waiting for you to support your gods as true to the exclusion of the Egyptian gods, which were obviously meant to "explain existence" and have no more or less authority than that of the conclusions of your Judeo-Christian gods.



Prove my faith is based on assumptions.

Keep in mind as you do so that you will be wrong no matter what you say.



Hollie said:


> You simply cannot disprove the fact that your gods are false and the Egyptian gods are true.



What makes you think I think the Egyptian gods are not real?

Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force. That is true.


Hollie said:


> While challenges to your fundamentalist views are met with nothing more than _“but… but… but…. but you can’t prove it isn’t”,_ I opt for reason and rationality as a conclusion primarily because as a member of the natural universe, we can most correctly assess natural realities as empirically supported. Other than assuming logic is cohesive, there is nothing more to _assume_ in the rationalist camp. While there are so-far unanswered questions, these questions do not leap frog out of the physical and into the metaphysical at any point, and even in analogies where reality doesn't behave quite like we expected to (quantuum mechanics for instance), you religionists are just as shackled to that reality as is the rationalist.



Once again, Pratchet is not a Christian, but feel free to keep arguing with those voices in your head.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Quantum Windbag said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It probably just means that we have not talked specifically about their religion.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't discussed Christianity? Have you been posting with your head up your ass?
Click to expand...



Here was your quote you cut off... *"I know people who believe very passionately in God who do not practice a religion as defined by atheists in this thread. Does that mean they don't have faith or does it just mean atheists are full of shit when they attempt to define religion?"*

You didn't specifically say Christianity. Am I a freaking mind reader, windbag? It is not my job to define the different types of Christianity, and it's certainly not your job to define atheism.


----------



## HUGGY

Of course it is the religists job to define everything having to do with religion....ESPECIALLY Atheism.  It's right there in their "Babble".  If they are not the bosses of everything "religion" who is?  Gaawwwdddd said it in his own words that they get to call all the shots.  AND when THEY don't...Gaaawwwddd Jr the Allah gets his turn.  Why don't you think the Muzzlims would just as soon lop off your head as any Christian's?  It's cuz they are jealous of our lifestyle Cuz.  The Nuzzlums are just as pissed at the Christians for dropping the ball and allowing people to appear to NOT BELIEVE. Fiddlesticks !!!  EVERYBODY HAS FAITH !!! Realizing this the American ChristoFacsist Religist Terrorists have been picking up the speed and taken a more hands on approach to demanding that THEY get to decide who is and who ain't a religion.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they wont.
> 
> Conclusion - all gods are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition. At no time in human history have any of the gods made themselves known in any extant way.
> 
> Conclusion - religious traditions are built upon earlier traditions and many religions tend to define their gods as simply grander, more powerful versions of the gods that ruled the preceding religions. And why not?  Why would a more recent religion establish itself as subordinate to a prior religion? Thus, the incorporation and inclusion of earlier traditions in mankinds formulation of newer religions.
> 
> Conclusion - nothing in the natural world indicates or even suggests supernatural forces. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.
> 
> I’ll submit that by employing evidence and reason, we can readily discriminate between which of our competing theories (mine being natural laws; yours being supernatural intervention), deserves the greater credibility. We actually have *direct observational evidence* that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have *no observational evidence of any kind* that your god (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observere who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> Conclusion - The universe is immensely old. That is in direct contradiction to biblical tales and fables and contradicts other religious tales.
> 
> In fact, the _only_ model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order for any of those things to be a conclusion you have to present some type of argument to support them. The fact that I have to point that out is indicative that you don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

The problem you share with fundie Christians is that evidence running counter to your beliefs is viewed as a threat to those beliefs.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you having such difficulty with acknowledging your fundamentalist Christian beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you having such trouble reading people's posts?
> 
> What evidence, other than the fact that Pratchet doesn't agree with you, do you have that he is a fundamentalist Christian?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s been pointed out repeatedly and tediously that reason and rationality lead to conclusions that leave as superficial and subordinate, your allegiance to supernaturalism and mysticism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has been pointed out repeatedly that simply declaring something to be true is neither reason or rationality. If you had the ability to use either you would be able to provide some examples of them.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your theistic worldview, what accounts for the existence of all are Supreme Beings whose minds we can never know, whose methods are wholly mysterious, whose goals are self-contradictory (an all supreme being cannot have any challenges or goals-- there is nothing beyond its ability to achieve, instantaneously, hence has no wants).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What theistic worldviews has he expressed? I must have missed it in all the times he expressly said he doesn't believe in God.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, you religionists claim, is the "origin" of existence, and it's supposed to be a defendable position?. Well, what have you fundies "answered" in this paradigm? That an unknowable being, for unfathomable, self-contradictory reasons, using methods beyond our scope to perceive, created everything. This "answer" is not only tantamount to no answer, it is also purposely accepting no answer as the answer precluding one from ever discovering any answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another example of you arguing with the voices in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are in agreement on numerous levels. There is no evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods. _All_ is assumption from the religious perspective, (the theist assumes gods, the materialist assumes logic). Given the plethora of gods thoughout human history, none of which are open to any proof, yes, it is rational and logical to conclude that gods are invented to explain phenomenon. Unless you are willing to argue that any number of assertions of gods other than the one you selected as "true" doesn't illustrate this fact very clearly. I’m still waiting for you to support your gods as true to the exclusion of the Egyptian gods, which were obviously meant to "explain existence" and have no more or less authority than that of the conclusions of your Judeo-Christian gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove my faith is based on assumptions.
> 
> Keep in mind as you do so that you will be wrong no matter what you say.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You simply cannot disprove the fact that your gods are false and the Egyptian gods are true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think I think the Egyptian gods are not real?
> 
> Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force. That is true.
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> While challenges to your fundamentalist views are met with nothing more than _“but… but… but…. but you can’t prove it isn’t”,_ I opt for reason and rationality as a conclusion primarily because as a member of the natural universe, we can most correctly assess natural realities as empirically supported. Other than assuming logic is cohesive, there is nothing more to _assume_ in the rationalist camp. While there are so-far unanswered questions, these questions do not leap frog out of the physical and into the metaphysical at any point, and even in analogies where reality doesn't behave quite like we expected to (quantuum mechanics for instance), you religionists are just as shackled to that reality as is the rationalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, Pratchet is not a Christian, but feel free to keep arguing with those voices in your head.
Click to expand...


Once again, we have you making claims you are unable to support.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can impose nothing on you.  Only you can do that.  So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care?  Why apply a name to it?  Why do you need a definition?  Why do you bother talking about it at all?
> 
> To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns.  Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed?  Zero time.  The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.
> 
> No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief.  You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion.  There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence.  Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter absurdity.    Oh never mind, you just did.
> Having a freaking *preference *or *opinion *on something does not a religion make.  You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke.  You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department.  That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't make Christianity religion either.  So you tell me, what does make it religion?  What are the attributes we need to look for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For this leave us go back to post 395 (directed originally to Emily) -- roll tape:
> 
> religion [ri-lij-uh n]
> noun
> 1.
> a set of beliefs *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*, *especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.  (Dictionary.com)
> 
> -- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit.  That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either.  All that is is having an opinion.
> 
> I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu.  That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teach*ings*, not the teach*er.*  That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism.  However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.
> 
> (As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).
> 
> So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge.  Buddhism does that, so it's a religion.  Taoism does that so it too is a religion.  Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, Zoroastrianism, they all do that and are therefore "religions".
> 
> Not smoking does not do that; Constitutionalism does not do that; atheism does not do that.  None of them therefore are "religions".  I get the impression some here believe that proselytizing for any cause whatsoever constitutes a "religion" but it doesn't.  It constitutes _ advocacy_.  Nothing more.
> 
> 
> --- which last point still doesn't apply to atheism since it's a personal conclusion.
> 
> Perhaps the missing ingredient in all this is the admission that beliefs are not necessarily always extroverted.  There's no reason they need to be to qualify as either belief or religion.  Atheism is by definition _introspective_.  Trying to pretend it "proselytizing" is like trying to pretend a desert is "against" the idea of water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was a definition not a list of attributes.  I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded.  It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe.  But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's absurd.  There is no such "set of beliefs".  Any given atheist may have wildly different beliefs about religions, general moral guidelines, politics or anything else.  They have nothing in common on the basis of atheism except not believing in the Easter Bunny theistic approach to religion.
> 
> I challenge you to prove your point by listing this "set of beliefs" -- or any part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge."  Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?
> 
> All beliefs are personal conclusions.  All beliefs are introspective.  Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's a point in that section. I don't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth.  The truth being their own beliefs.  Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus.  Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree with the last sentence.  Haven't seen the rest.  Also haven't seen where anyone declining theisim professes to "know the truth".  Seems to me religion by definition tries to address the Unknowable.  And it stays that way, for if something is knowable, we call that "science".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, a set of beliefs:  And keep in mind that these need not be taken as absolutes but with varying degrees of ardor.  I would refer you back to Dawkins list for that.
> 
> 1-  There are no gods
> 2-   The various god based religions are false
> 3-   The universe has no controlling force behind it
> 4-   The universe is not an artifact
> 
> Will those work for a start?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they wont.
> 
> Conclusion - all gods are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition. At no time in human history have any of the gods made themselves known in any extant way.
> 
> Conclusion - religious traditions are built upon earlier traditions and many religions tend to define their gods as simply grander, more powerful versions of the gods that ruled the preceding religions. And why not?  Why would a more recent religion establish itself as subordinate to a prior religion? Thus, the incorporation and inclusion of earlier traditions in mankinds formulation of newer religions.
> 
> Conclusion - nothing in the natural world indicates or even suggests supernatural forces. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.
> 
> I’ll submit that by employing evidence and reason, we can readily discriminate between which of our competing theories (mine being natural laws; yours being supernatural intervention), deserves the greater credibility. We actually have *direct observational evidence* that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have *no observational evidence of any kind* that your god (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observere who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> Conclusion - The universe is immensely old. That is in direct contradiction to biblical tales and fables and contradicts other religious tales.
> 
> In fact, the _only_ model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understand from the beginning that I am not a Christian.  I do not consider the Bible a science book.  At best it has some historical significance.  If you wish to argue Christianity, you will need to find someone else.
> 
> But I am willing to take your belief sets.  I don't know if Pogo will or not.
> 
> 1-  all god are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition.
> This is a pretty direct statement that gods are not real.  They do not exist but are entirely imaginary.  I really don't see how your statement could be taken any other way.     So, please present your evidence to support this conclusion.  And if you are going to use the argument that they have not made themselves known, you are going to have to explain your position that if they existed they would make themselves known.  Otherwise, it is irrelevant.
> 
> 2-  Religious institutions are built on earlier traditions.
> I'll grant you that and would consider this a valid statement based upon objective evidence.  I am not clear on how that matters.  If you could clarify that for me I would appreciate it.
> 
> 3-  Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force.
> I am not aware of anything which does.  OTOH, I am not aware of anything which suggests it doesn't.  The current theory (at least I think it is) is a singularity expanded to create the universe.  I am aware of nothing which indicates the origination of the singularity or the cause of the expansion.  Nor any current theory as to why the natural forces you speak of exist at all.  I stipulate they are there, but why they are there is a matter of speculation.  So, do you have any objective evidence that supernatural (I really dislike that word) forces were not involved?
> 
> Keep in mind that what I am attempting to do here is determine the nature of your conclusions, not whether or not they are true.  You have as much chance of getting it right as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you having such difficulty with acknowledging your fundamentalist Christian beliefs?
> 
> It’s been pointed out repeatedly and tediously that reason and rationality lead to conclusions that leave as superficial and subordinate, your allegiance to supernaturalism and mysticism.
> 
> In your theistic worldview, what accounts for the existence of all are Supreme Beings whose minds we can never know, whose methods are wholly mysterious, whose goals are self-contradictory (an all supreme being cannot have any challenges or goals-- there is nothing beyond its ability to achieve, instantaneously, hence has no wants).
> 
> This, you religionists claim, is the "origin" of existence, and it's supposed to be a defendable position?. Well, what have you fundies "answered" in this paradigm? That an unknowable being, for unfathomable, self-contradictory reasons, using methods beyond our scope to perceive, created everything. This "answer" is not only tantamount to no answer, it is also purposely accepting no answer as the answer precluding one from ever discovering any answer.
> 
> We are in agreement on numerous levels. There is no evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods. _All_ is assumption from the religious perspective, (the theist assumes gods, the materialist assumes logic). Given the plethora of gods thoughout human history, none of which are open to any proof, yes, it is rational and logical to conclude that gods are invented to explain phenomenon. Unless you are willing to argue that any number of assertions of gods other than the one you selected as "true" doesn't illustrate this fact very clearly. I’m still waiting for you to support your gods as true to the exclusion of the Egyptian gods, which were obviously meant to "explain existence" and have no more or less authority than that of the conclusions of your Judeo-Christian gods.
> 
> You simply cannot disprove the fact that your gods are false and the Egyptian gods are true.
> 
> Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force. That is true.
> While challenges to your fundamentalist views are met with nothing more than _“but… but… but…. but you can’t prove it isn’t”,_ I opt for reason and rationality as a conclusion primarily because as a member of the natural universe, we can most correctly assess natural realities as empirically supported. Other than assuming logic is cohesive, there is nothing more to _assume_ in the rationalist camp. While there are so-far unanswered questions, these questions do not leap frog out of the physical and into the metaphysical at any point, and even in analogies where reality doesn't behave quite like we expected to (quantuum mechanics for instance), you religionists are just as shackled to that reality as is the rationalist.
Click to expand...


It is interesting that you tell me I am a fundamentalist Christian immediately after the post where I tell you I am not a Christian and have no interest in arguing Christianity.  And then proceed to ignore everything else I wrote. 

You say you opt for reason and rationality but when I ask for the evidential basis of your position you have none.  This is not reason and rationality.  I agree we are all shackled to reality.  That is my point really.  Part of the reality is our own human nature but you think you are free of that nature.  You are not.

In any case, my interest in this discussion is the nature of belief, not the existence of gods.  Gods are your thing, not mine.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can impose nothing on you.  Only you can do that.  So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care?  Why apply a name to it?  Why do you need a definition?  Why do you bother talking about it at all?
> 
> To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns.  Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed?  Zero time.  The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.
> 
> No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief.  You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion.  There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence.  Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter absurdity.    Oh never mind, you just did.
> Having a freaking *preference *or *opinion *on something does not a religion make.  You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke.  You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department.  That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't make Christianity religion either.  So you tell me, what does make it religion?  What are the attributes we need to look for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For this leave us go back to post 395 (directed originally to Emily) -- roll tape:
> 
> religion [ri-lij-uh n]
> noun
> 1.
> a set of beliefs *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*, *especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.  (Dictionary.com)
> 
> -- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit.  That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either.  All that is is having an opinion.
> 
> I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu.  That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teach*ings*, not the teach*er.*  That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism.  However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.
> 
> (As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).
> 
> So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge.  Buddhism does that, so it's a religion.  Taoism does that so it too is a religion.  Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, Zoroastrianism, they all do that and are therefore "religions".
> 
> Not smoking does not do that; Constitutionalism does not do that; atheism does not do that.  None of them therefore are "religions".  I get the impression some here believe that proselytizing for any cause whatsoever constitutes a "religion" but it doesn't.  It constitutes _ advocacy_.  Nothing more.
> 
> 
> --- which last point still doesn't apply to atheism since it's a personal conclusion.
> 
> Perhaps the missing ingredient in all this is the admission that beliefs are not necessarily always extroverted.  There's no reason they need to be to qualify as either belief or religion.  Atheism is by definition _introspective_.  Trying to pretend it "proselytizing" is like trying to pretend a desert is "against" the idea of water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was a definition not a list of attributes.  I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded.  It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe.  But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's absurd.  There is no such "set of beliefs".  Any given atheist may have wildly different beliefs about religions, general moral guidelines, politics or anything else.  They have nothing in common on the basis of atheism except not believing in the Easter Bunny theistic approach to religion.
> 
> I challenge you to prove your point by listing this "set of beliefs" -- or any part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge."  Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?
> 
> All beliefs are personal conclusions.  All beliefs are introspective.  Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's a point in that section. I don't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth.  The truth being their own beliefs.  Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus.  Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree with the last sentence.  Haven't seen the rest.  Also haven't seen where anyone declining theisim professes to "know the truth".  Seems to me religion by definition tries to address the Unknowable.  And it stays that way, for if something is knowable, we call that "science".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, a set of beliefs:  And keep in mind that these need not be taken as absolutes but with varying degrees of ardor.  I would refer you back to Dawkins list for that.
> 
> 1-  There are no gods
> 2-   The various god based religions are false
> 3-   The universe has no controlling force behind it
> 4-   The universe is not an artifact
> 
> Will those work for a start?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they wont.
> 
> Conclusion - all gods are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition. At no time in human history have any of the gods made themselves known in any extant way.
> 
> Conclusion - religious traditions are built upon earlier traditions and many religions tend to define their gods as simply grander, more powerful versions of the gods that ruled the preceding religions. And why not?  Why would a more recent religion establish itself as subordinate to a prior religion? Thus, the incorporation and inclusion of earlier traditions in mankinds formulation of newer religions.
> 
> Conclusion - nothing in the natural world indicates or even suggests supernatural forces. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.
> 
> I’ll submit that by employing evidence and reason, we can readily discriminate between which of our competing theories (mine being natural laws; yours being supernatural intervention), deserves the greater credibility. We actually have *direct observational evidence* that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have *no observational evidence of any kind* that your god (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observere who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> Conclusion - The universe is immensely old. That is in direct contradiction to biblical tales and fables and contradicts other religious tales.
> 
> In fact, the _only_ model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understand from the beginning that I am not a Christian.  I do not consider the Bible a science book.  At best it has some historical significance.  If you wish to argue Christianity, you will need to find someone else.
> 
> But I am willing to take your belief sets.  I don't know if Pogo will or not.
> 
> 1-  all god are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition.
> This is a pretty direct statement that gods are not real.  They do not exist but are entirely imaginary.  I really don't see how your statement could be taken any other way.     So, please present your evidence to support this conclusion.  And if you are going to use the argument that they have not made themselves known, you are going to have to explain your position that if they existed they would make themselves known.  Otherwise, it is irrelevant.
> 
> 2-  Religious institutions are built on earlier traditions.
> I'll grant you that and would consider this a valid statement based upon objective evidence.  I am not clear on how that matters.  If you could clarify that for me I would appreciate it.
> 
> 3-  Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force.
> I am not aware of anything which does.  OTOH, I am not aware of anything which suggests it doesn't.  The current theory (at least I think it is) is a singularity expanded to create the universe.  I am aware of nothing which indicates the origination of the singularity or the cause of the expansion.  Nor any current theory as to why the natural forces you speak of exist at all.  I stipulate they are there, but why they are there is a matter of speculation.  So, do you have any objective evidence that supernatural (I really dislike that word) forces were not involved?
> 
> Keep in mind that what I am attempting to do here is determine the nature of your conclusions, not whether or not they are true.  You have as much chance of getting it right as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you having such difficulty with acknowledging your fundamentalist Christian beliefs?
> 
> It’s been pointed out repeatedly and tediously that reason and rationality lead to conclusions that leave as superficial and subordinate, your allegiance to supernaturalism and mysticism.
> 
> In your theistic worldview, what accounts for the existence of all are Supreme Beings whose minds we can never know, whose methods are wholly mysterious, whose goals are self-contradictory (an all supreme being cannot have any challenges or goals-- there is nothing beyond its ability to achieve, instantaneously, hence has no wants).
> 
> This, you religionists claim, is the "origin" of existence, and it's supposed to be a defendable position?. Well, what have you fundies "answered" in this paradigm? That an unknowable being, for unfathomable, self-contradictory reasons, using methods beyond our scope to perceive, created everything. This "answer" is not only tantamount to no answer, it is also purposely accepting no answer as the answer precluding one from ever discovering any answer.
> 
> We are in agreement on numerous levels. There is no evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods. _All_ is assumption from the religious perspective, (the theist assumes gods, the materialist assumes logic). Given the plethora of gods thoughout human history, none of which are open to any proof, yes, it is rational and logical to conclude that gods are invented to explain phenomenon. Unless you are willing to argue that any number of assertions of gods other than the one you selected as "true" doesn't illustrate this fact very clearly. I’m still waiting for you to support your gods as true to the exclusion of the Egyptian gods, which were obviously meant to "explain existence" and have no more or less authority than that of the conclusions of your Judeo-Christian gods.
> 
> You simply cannot disprove the fact that your gods are false and the Egyptian gods are true.
> 
> Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force. That is true.
> While challenges to your fundamentalist views are met with nothing more than _“but… but… but…. but you can’t prove it isn’t”,_ I opt for reason and rationality as a conclusion primarily because as a member of the natural universe, we can most correctly assess natural realities as empirically supported. Other than assuming logic is cohesive, there is nothing more to _assume_ in the rationalist camp. While there are so-far unanswered questions, these questions do not leap frog out of the physical and into the metaphysical at any point, and even in analogies where reality doesn't behave quite like we expected to (quantuum mechanics for instance), you religionists are just as shackled to that reality as is the rationalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is interesting that you tell me I am a fundamentalist Christian immediately after the post where I tell you I am not a Christian and have no interest in arguing Christianity.  And then proceed to ignore everything else I wrote.
> 
> You say you opt for reason and rationality but when I ask for the evidential basis of your position you have none.  This is not reason and rationality.  I agree we are all shackled to reality.  That is my point really.  Part of the reality is our own human nature but you think you are free of that nature.  You are not.
> 
> In any case, my interest in this discussion is the nature of belief, not the existence of gods.  Gods are your thing, not mine.
Click to expand...


What's interesting is that your "_prove it isn't_" sidestepping is a typical pattern of behavior for fundie Christians. It’s an old ploy of religionists. It's the nonsensical demand that others prove something "doesn't exist" as you believe it calms an emotional requirement that placates your belief in the supernatural. That's why you sidestep the requirement to disprove the Greek gods as the true gods. 

You're repulsed at the use of reason and rationality to come to conclusions about the natural world because you're left to explain reality with nothing more than appeals to supernaturalism. Thus, your inability to actually address challenges to fears and superstitions that are used by religions to whip a populace into submission.

The catalyst that generally ends belief in the tooth fairy is the exposure of that parental fraud. Similarly, your nonsensical “prove it isn't" is an artifact of such fraud. It permits the apologist to dismiss such inconvenient details with a _counter claim_ of fabrication.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can impose nothing on you.  Only you can do that.  So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care?  Why apply a name to it?  Why do you need a definition?  Why do you bother talking about it at all?
> 
> To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns.  Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed?  Zero time.  The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.
> 
> No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief.  You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion.  There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence.  Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter absurdity.    Oh never mind, you just did.
> Having a freaking *preference *or *opinion *on something does not a religion make.  You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke.  You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department.  That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't make Christianity religion either.  So you tell me, what does make it religion?  What are the attributes we need to look for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For this leave us go back to post 395 (directed originally to Emily) -- roll tape:
> 
> religion [ri-lij-uh n]
> noun
> 1.
> a set of beliefs *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*, *especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.  (Dictionary.com)
> 
> -- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit.  That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either.  All that is is having an opinion.
> 
> I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu.  That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teach*ings*, not the teach*er.*  That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism.  However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.
> 
> (As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).
> 
> So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge.  Buddhism does that, so it's a religion.  Taoism does that so it too is a religion.  Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, Zoroastrianism, they all do that and are therefore "religions".
> 
> Not smoking does not do that; Constitutionalism does not do that; atheism does not do that.  None of them therefore are "religions".  I get the impression some here believe that proselytizing for any cause whatsoever constitutes a "religion" but it doesn't.  It constitutes _ advocacy_.  Nothing more.
> 
> 
> --- which last point still doesn't apply to atheism since it's a personal conclusion.
> 
> Perhaps the missing ingredient in all this is the admission that beliefs are not necessarily always extroverted.  There's no reason they need to be to qualify as either belief or religion.  Atheism is by definition _introspective_.  Trying to pretend it "proselytizing" is like trying to pretend a desert is "against" the idea of water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was a definition not a list of attributes.  I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded.  It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe.  But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's absurd.  There is no such "set of beliefs".  Any given atheist may have wildly different beliefs about religions, general moral guidelines, politics or anything else.  They have nothing in common on the basis of atheism except not believing in the Easter Bunny theistic approach to religion.
> 
> I challenge you to prove your point by listing this "set of beliefs" -- or any part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge."  Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?
> 
> All beliefs are personal conclusions.  All beliefs are introspective.  Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's a point in that section. I don't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth.  The truth being their own beliefs.  Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus.  Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree with the last sentence.  Haven't seen the rest.  Also haven't seen where anyone declining theisim professes to "know the truth".  Seems to me religion by definition tries to address the Unknowable.  And it stays that way, for if something is knowable, we call that "science".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, a set of beliefs:  And keep in mind that these need not be taken as absolutes but with varying degrees of ardor.  I would refer you back to Dawkins list for that.
> 
> 1-  There are no gods
> 2-   The various god based religions are false
> 3-   The universe has no controlling force behind it
> 4-   The universe is not an artifact
> 
> Will those work for a start?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they wont.
> 
> Conclusion - all gods are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition. At no time in human history have any of the gods made themselves known in any extant way.
> 
> Conclusion - religious traditions are built upon earlier traditions and many religions tend to define their gods as simply grander, more powerful versions of the gods that ruled the preceding religions. And why not?  Why would a more recent religion establish itself as subordinate to a prior religion? Thus, the incorporation and inclusion of earlier traditions in mankinds formulation of newer religions.
> 
> Conclusion - nothing in the natural world indicates or even suggests supernatural forces. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.
> 
> I’ll submit that by employing evidence and reason, we can readily discriminate between which of our competing theories (mine being natural laws; yours being supernatural intervention), deserves the greater credibility. We actually have *direct observational evidence* that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have *no observational evidence of any kind* that your god (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observere who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> Conclusion - The universe is immensely old. That is in direct contradiction to biblical tales and fables and contradicts other religious tales.
> 
> In fact, the _only_ model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understand from the beginning that I am not a Christian.  I do not consider the Bible a science book.  At best it has some historical significance.  If you wish to argue Christianity, you will need to find someone else.
> 
> But I am willing to take your belief sets.  I don't know if Pogo will or not.
> 
> 1-  all god are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition.
> This is a pretty direct statement that gods are not real.  They do not exist but are entirely imaginary.  I really don't see how your statement could be taken any other way.     So, please present your evidence to support this conclusion.  And if you are going to use the argument that they have not made themselves known, you are going to have to explain your position that if they existed they would make themselves known.  Otherwise, it is irrelevant.
> 
> 2-  Religious institutions are built on earlier traditions.
> I'll grant you that and would consider this a valid statement based upon objective evidence.  I am not clear on how that matters.  If you could clarify that for me I would appreciate it.
> 
> 3-  Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force.
> I am not aware of anything which does.  OTOH, I am not aware of anything which suggests it doesn't.  The current theory (at least I think it is) is a singularity expanded to create the universe.  I am aware of nothing which indicates the origination of the singularity or the cause of the expansion.  Nor any current theory as to why the natural forces you speak of exist at all.  I stipulate they are there, but why they are there is a matter of speculation.  So, do you have any objective evidence that supernatural (I really dislike that word) forces were not involved?
> 
> Keep in mind that what I am attempting to do here is determine the nature of your conclusions, not whether or not they are true.  You have as much chance of getting it right as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you having such difficulty with acknowledging your fundamentalist Christian beliefs?
> 
> It’s been pointed out repeatedly and tediously that reason and rationality lead to conclusions that leave as superficial and subordinate, your allegiance to supernaturalism and mysticism.
> 
> In your theistic worldview, what accounts for the existence of all are Supreme Beings whose minds we can never know, whose methods are wholly mysterious, whose goals are self-contradictory (an all supreme being cannot have any challenges or goals-- there is nothing beyond its ability to achieve, instantaneously, hence has no wants).
> 
> This, you religionists claim, is the "origin" of existence, and it's supposed to be a defendable position?. Well, what have you fundies "answered" in this paradigm? That an unknowable being, for unfathomable, self-contradictory reasons, using methods beyond our scope to perceive, created everything. This "answer" is not only tantamount to no answer, it is also purposely accepting no answer as the answer precluding one from ever discovering any answer.
> 
> We are in agreement on numerous levels. There is no evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods. _All_ is assumption from the religious perspective, (the theist assumes gods, the materialist assumes logic). Given the plethora of gods thoughout human history, none of which are open to any proof, yes, it is rational and logical to conclude that gods are invented to explain phenomenon. Unless you are willing to argue that any number of assertions of gods other than the one you selected as "true" doesn't illustrate this fact very clearly. I’m still waiting for you to support your gods as true to the exclusion of the Egyptian gods, which were obviously meant to "explain existence" and have no more or less authority than that of the conclusions of your Judeo-Christian gods.
> 
> You simply cannot disprove the fact that your gods are false and the Egyptian gods are true.
> 
> Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force. That is true.
> While challenges to your fundamentalist views are met with nothing more than _“but… but… but…. but you can’t prove it isn’t”,_ I opt for reason and rationality as a conclusion primarily because as a member of the natural universe, we can most correctly assess natural realities as empirically supported. Other than assuming logic is cohesive, there is nothing more to _assume_ in the rationalist camp. While there are so-far unanswered questions, these questions do not leap frog out of the physical and into the metaphysical at any point, and even in analogies where reality doesn't behave quite like we expected to (quantuum mechanics for instance), you religionists are just as shackled to that reality as is the rationalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is interesting that you tell me I am a fundamentalist Christian immediately after the post where I tell you I am not a Christian and have no interest in arguing Christianity.  And then proceed to ignore everything else I wrote.
> 
> You say you opt for reason and rationality but when I ask for the evidential basis of your position you have none.  This is not reason and rationality.  I agree we are all shackled to reality.  That is my point really.  Part of the reality is our own human nature but you think you are free of that nature.  You are not.
> 
> In any case, my interest in this discussion is the nature of belief, not the existence of gods.  Gods are your thing, not mine.
Click to expand...



Maybe it's how you treat religion. Kinda like how you said atheism is not a religion, it's how atheists treat their atheism that makes it a religion...whatever that means. Maybe you treat religion the same as a fundie.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Quantum Windbag said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks PF
> Aside from all the arguing in circles over terminology
> can we agree then there is not agreement on the
> different types, levels, or meanings of EITHER "atheism" OR "religion"
> 
> So we are better off talking one-on-one about what each of us believes or calls things,
> and UNDERSTAND that to QW, he may ONLY see atheists as "believing there is no God period"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the dictionary definition of atheist, and some idiots in this thread are arguing they don't believe that, even though they argue exactly that position. The fact that I refuse to let them do that is indicative of my search for truth. The fact that they continue to claim they don't actually believe that is proof they are not seeking truth.
Click to expand...


Your Merriam Webster definition is inaccurate. There are much better definitions out there for those not looking to cherry pick.



Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1957

atheism: Disbelief in the existence of God; the state of godlessness. Atheism: unbelief in or denial of God or any supernaturalism; to ancient Greek it meant denial and lack of recognition of state gods. In 18th cent. it was a protest against religious hypocrisy; in 19th cent. it was any system not recognizing the idea of a personal Creator or any one supreme being. It sees marter, not spirit, as sole universal principle; its history one of opposition. Term often loosely used in referring to agnostics who neither deny nor admit the existence of God, or in regard to others who disagree with current theological doctrine.

disbelief: lack of belief, unbelief.

Unlike most dictionaries, this one traces the course of how the term "athiesm" has been used over the centuries, leading us to the more modern usage which incorporates anything which simply does not bother believing in any gods.

_Dictionary Definition of Atheism How Modern Dictionaries Define Atheism Atheists
_


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> Here was your quote you cut off... *"I know people who believe very passionately in God who do not practice a religion as defined by atheists in this thread. Does that mean they don't have faith or does it just mean atheists are full of shit when they attempt to define religion?"*
> 
> You didn't specifically say Christianity. Am I a freaking mind reader, windbag? It is not my job to define the different types of Christianity, and it's certainly not your job to define atheism.



Would you prefer me pointing out that there are Muslims that don't practice religion by going to Mosques and praying in a group? That Buddhist there are Buddhist that don't practice religion? That every religions group has people who consider themselves more spiritual than religions, and thus reject the trappings of religion that idiots you have not challenged  insist are the defining elements of religion? 

At least you have demonstrated one thing, you are definitely posting with your head up your ass.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> The problem you share with fundie Christians is that evidence running counter to your beliefs is viewed as a threat to those beliefs.



Why don't you present the evidence that you think run counter to my beliefs and see how I react to it? Could it be because you have no idea what my beliefs actually are?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> Once again, we have you making claims you are unable to support.



The only claim I mad is that Pratchet has repeatedly said he is not a Christian. I can easily support that by quoting the many post where he said that, all of which you ignored because they run counter to your beliefs.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> Your Merriam Webster definition is inaccurate. There are much better definitions out there for those not looking to cherry pick.



Is that because it disproves your bigoted delusion that atheism is not a belief?



Carla_Danger said:


> Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1957



1957? Is it remotely possible that the way people define something has changed in the last half century?



Carla_Danger said:


> atheism: Disbelief in the existence of God; the state of godlessness. Atheism: unbelief in or denial of God or any supernaturalism; to ancient Greek it meant denial and lack of recognition of state gods. In 18th cent. it was a protest against religious hypocrisy; in 19th cent. it was any system not recognizing the idea of a personal Creator or any one supreme being. It sees marter, not spirit, as sole universal principle; its history one of opposition. Term often loosely used in referring to agnostics who neither deny nor admit the existence of God, or in regard to others who disagree with current theological doctrine.



What, exactly, does disbelief mean? Lets find out, shall we?

From your link.

A common theme throughout the definitions on this page is the primary use of "disbelieve" when defining atheism. Some modern dictionaries drop this, but most comprehensive dictionaries do not. For some reason, however, people simply ignore this word and move right along to the secondary sense of "denial." When we take a closer look at the word "disbelieve," however, we find two senses: an active and a passive.

In the passive sense, "disbelieve" simply means "not believe" — thus a person who disbelieves a claim may simply not accept the truth of the claim without going any further, like asserting the opposite. This is the broadest sense of atheism, lacking belief in any gods. In the active sense, "disbelieve" involves deliberately refusing to believe something (possible reasons might include a lack of evidence or an incoherent claim). Once again, however, this is not the same as asserting that the claim is false and represents a slightly narrower version of weak atheism.

I*n the active sense, "disbelieve" involves deliberately refusing to believe something (possible reasons might include a lack of evidence or an incoherent claim). Thus, the definition of atheism, dating back at least to 1903 and probably much earlier, encompasses both the "weak" and the "strong" senses of atheism used by atheists today. The same will be true, with minor changes in wording, through nearly all of the dictionary definitions quoted here. *​
Damn, look at that. If you assert actively that there is no god you are stating a belief, even if you term it a disbelief. People who simply do not believe have ne need to attack other people that disagree with them, which is why you rarely see people defending there lack of belief in unicorns. They simply do not care, they just don't believe.

Perhaps you should learn the difference in active and passive voice before you try to use words to outsmart an author.



Carla_Danger said:


> disbelief: lack of belief, unbelief.
> 
> Unlike most dictionaries, this one traces the course of how the term "athiesm" has been used over the centuries, leading us to the more modern usage which incorporates anything which simply does not bother believing in any gods.
> 
> _Dictionary Definition of Atheism How Modern Dictionaries Define Atheism Atheists_



By the way, thanks for the link that debunks your claim that atheism is simply not believing in something.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem you share with fundie Christians is that evidence running counter to your beliefs is viewed as a threat to those beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you present the evidence that you think run counter to my beliefs and see how I react to it? Could it be because you have no idea what my beliefs actually are?
Click to expand...

More likely, you have no idea what your beliefs are.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, we have you making claims you are unable to support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only claim I mad is that Pratchet has repeatedly said he is not a Christian. I can easily support that by quoting the many post where he said that, all of which you ignored because they run counter to your beliefs.
Click to expand...

I ignore many claims that run counter to the content and context of what some posters post. Your hope to contribute meaningful dialogue would be among the many claims that run counter to the content and context of what you actually post.


----------



## Pogo

emilynghiem said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the same colloquial sense I just finished describing.  And as you're devolving to your usual ad hom tantrums, you're back on ignore.
> 
> I apologize to the thread for feeding the troll in his glorious Second coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out that Pogo is wrong is a personal attack on Pogo because he never admits he is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is the adversarial approach setting both of you off
> is what is going wrong here.
> 
> When I debate or discuss with you separately, I find you are each able to explain where we are talking past each other, or saying the same thing, etc.
> 
> So when the two of you clash, it is from too much other defensiveness or clashing perceptions causing interference.
> 
> You are both level headed, articulate, intelligent people.
> Sometimes we clash online, but please don't take that as a reason to judge each other for it.
> 
> You are both better than that, and I have seen plenty of points and discussions where you are clearly above
> any need for namecalling or ignoring.
> 
> Sorry you don't bring out the better sides of each other.
> If you can drop that and start with points we agree on,
> I'd like to finish this conversation successfully and come to helpful solutions.
> 
> Pogo seems to respond to the term nontheist better, and quit arguing what is or what is not an atheist
> since there are too many different views of that anyway. Let's just stick to what we believe
> and how to explain that to each other, and that's good enough for me.
> 
> Thank you!
Click to expand...


Hey, Emily.

In answer to the last paragraph the more I think on it I think you are correct, I like "nontheist" better than "atheist", as "non-" implies nothing more than the non-presence of some attribute, where "a-" can imply almost an "anti", a sort of antagonism to the attribute.  Technically it doesn't carry that connotation (q.v. _atonal_, _amoral_, _asexual_) but perhaps that's the emotional baggage that those defensive about "atheist" have brought to it.

So yes I would lean to *nontheist *as more accurate, given that it has been largely out of range of attacks such as we see here, and through no fault of its own connotes better the concept of simple innately passive absence of something (zero) rather than the active removal  of something.  That's useful, as some walk among us who refuse to acknowledge the nature of Zero as a *void*, rather than the result of "one-minus-one".

Numerical value of theism in one theist: one
Numerical value of theism in one atheist: zero
Numerical value of atheism: does not exist

Thank you for your kind words.  I'm not interested in exchanges with Windbag; he's a dedicated Contrarian -- if you pointed to the sky and said it was "up" he would insist it was "down" and then proceed to insult you about it... as he did me, as he's doing to others since.  That's why I pass over his posts; they're a complete waste of time.  He has no wish to discuss any topic --- all he wants to do is drag every thread into the ground to see his name on the internet.  It's sad.


----------



## Pogo

emilynghiem said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I think I see the problem here.  Maybe once you learn the definition of religion, you'll see the flaws in your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Carla_Danger
> I also see the similar problem in not agreeing what is meant by religion, which varies per person or context,
> and what is meant by atheism which also varies.
> 
> Can we start by just talking and listening to each other by what we do believe or understand
> and not whether this fits a label or not? Otherwise we are arguing about the labels.
> 
> If the main issue is what are your beliefs, what are mine, and how do these align.
> That can happen without agreeing if mine or yours "counts as" atheism or religion or whatever label.
> We don't have to agree on that to listen to each other's ideas and principles.
> 
> Some of the helpful uses of religion are to organize people by association so we can communicate in mass groups.
> 
> If we are going to discuss what we mean by terms,
> why not come right out and discuss what is MEANT by "God" or "Jesus"
> not for the purpose of ARGUING about it, but for ORGANIZING by groups.
> 
> So if people who believe in God as Wisdom know to hang out with the Buddhists,
> and people who believe in Jesus as Equal Justice or Social Justice or Peace and Justice
> hang out with those groups, then we can all align with likeminded neighbors
> and not argue why one group teaches Jesus as Salvation and another as Justice.
> 
> We can have all going on, and just delegate to each group the
> members who relate to that approach and can be most effective there.
Click to expand...



I don't think "what is meant by religion" is relevant except as a benchmark to refute the myth of a zero being a "religion".  It's an interesting question but we speak of atheism, which is not the absence of religion, but the absence of _theism_.  As one possible (but not mandatory) *component *of religion, theism is also not a religion, but a *modality *of expression _within_ a religion.  Nontheism simply rejects that modality as unworkable.  It doesn't establish, prescribe or suggest (as a real religion must) what a working modality _*is*_ -- just rejects the one it finds flawed.

Analogy:
Your car may run on gas while my car may run on diesel.  Neither gas nor diesel are "cars" but the fuel that powers them.  Your car is therefore "adiesel".


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> More likely, you have no idea what your beliefs are.



In your bigoted and delusional world, I probably don't. In the rel world, I know them much better than you ever will.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> I ignore many claims that run counter to the content and context of what some posters post. Your hope to contribute meaningful dialogue would be among the many claims that run counter to the content and context of what you actually post.



What content has he posted that runs counter to anything other than your delusional belief that you can read minds?


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> More likely, you have no idea what your beliefs are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your bigoted and delusional world, I probably don't. In the rel world, I know them much better than you ever will.
Click to expand...

Of course you do, dear. 

Wonderful folks you self-hating fundies.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ignore many claims that run counter to the content and context of what some posters post. Your hope to contribute meaningful dialogue would be among the many claims that run counter to the content and context of what you actually post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What content has he posted that runs counter to anything other than your delusional belief that you can read minds?
Click to expand...

Make a list for us. There's a good fellow.


----------



## Pogo

emilynghiem said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Emily, that simply doesn't work.  Under that broad a definition an interest in anything at all could be described as "religion".
> 
> "I'm going to  the grocery store; are you interested in coming along?  Bring your prayer mat".
> 
> What you have there appears to be a colloquialism, a deliberately overstated misuse for comic effect.  When a fan says they "worship" a rock musician  (movie actor, sports player, whoever) they don't mean it _literally_.  It's simply expressing a strong degree of passion integrated into the verb instead of standing alone as an adjective; it's imagery.
> 
> Doesn't apply here even in the colloquial sense; atheism is a simple logical conclusion, as such rational and not subject to passion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no. You would have to take that thing and MAKE a "religion" or "religious ritual" out of it, where you really DO have that conviction in it.
> 
> Someone similarly complained that "addiction" was starting to be used too lightly.
> A real addiction is one thing, but a colloquial expression for an overdone hobby or interest as an "addiction" is another.
> 
> I agree with you, that you don't want to use terms such as religion or addiction so broadly they lose their meaning!
> That is not the point.
> But it IS true that ANYTHING COULD become a religious focus or COULD become an addiction.
> 
> it is POSSIBLE.
> But NO you are right, and I agree,
> you don't want to call simple things addictions or religions when it isn't really to that point.
> 
> And that is NOT what I'm talking about. I'm talking about if people really do make a religion of something they believe personally. I do not mean the colloquial sense of using the term lightly.
> ======================================================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What gives you the idea I'm not religious?  Curious.  I've barely ever even been in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my past conversations with you, you seem pretty adept at talking out the specific issues.
> I think we had some longer exchanges about healthy foods or legalization issues or something.
> I got the impression you were very specific and secular minded in how you analyze things critically.
> 
> So somewhere in there, and in your arguments here, I get the impression you pinpoint
> specific issues one-on-one case-by-case, and don't make broad generalizing statements
> and just defend that emotionally on face value.
> 
> When I do start preaching about Constitutional equal justice and protections of the laws,
> my friends will tell me I sound like I am proselytizing propaganda, even though that's how my words come out naturally.
> I don't MEAN to get religious, but what's the difference if I sound just like that?
> 
> I KNOW you do not go around "preaching" like that.
> So in comparison with me, I do not see you as religious.
> 
> I admit I come across as very rightwing or Conservative [fill in the blank] to people
> when actually I am a prochoice progressive liberal Democrat. I just happen to be
> a Constitutionalist first. So depending on the context, I can preach back to people
> using their own laws and language, whether the Bible or Bill of Rights, with as much conviction.
> 
> The only grouping I really see myself as a member of is the Constitutionalist group.
> I believe I am Christian by faith, and have formally joined UU and Lutheran churches,
> but whatever group I identify with is larger than those labels.
> 
> I can speak in nontheist secular terms equally as Christian or Buddhist terms.
> So if I am "trilingual" in Buddhist, Christian and Constitutional terms,
> what requires me to be labeled as those if I treat them as systems of laws or languages?
> 
> Why can't we be well versed in these systems and communicate freely using whatever works?
> 
> It is funny to me that the same way some people get "preachy or religious" when it comes to Christianity,
> I don't in that area; but I can go to extremes preaching "Constitutionalism" to denounce government abuses.
> Since I come from a more liberal secular background, I come out sounding more inclusive and prochoice
> than most Constitutionalists from rightwing Christian perspectives. But since the language I use
> is associated with rightwing, that's where people think I must be or should be Tea Party/Republican or Libertarian.
> 
> The last thing they expect a Constitutionalist to be is a liberal prochoice Democrat.
Click to expand...



I don't get that impression (very right wing conservative) Emily -- actually my impression of you is quite fuzzy. 

But that's politics, not in play here.  However I suspect the discussion on addiction was indeed with me; that's actually a very similar exchange to what we're doing here -- hyperextending a term beyond its meaning.

I wouldn't say your rants on Constitutionalism are especially political (they are, but since we're not talking politics here I ignore that aspect) but I would describe your writing on them as "zealous".  That however does not qualify it as a religion.  One could wax equally zealous over a piece of music or art, a type of food, politics, philosophy, linguitics, almost anything, but that would make none of them "religions".  Clearly there are adherents to every religion who are not zealots, yet they're as much of a Buddhist/Catholic/Muslim/Taoist/whatever as their fellow adherents are.  This simply fails as a test to establish "religion".


----------



## percysunshine

.

Doctrinaire, dogmatic, inflexible, exclusive, and superior morals.

Yup...atheism is a religion.

.


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can impose nothing on you.  Only you can do that.  So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care?  Why apply a name to it?  Why do you need a definition?  Why do you bother talking about it at all?
> 
> To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns.  Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed?  Zero time.  The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.
> 
> No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief.  You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion.  There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence.  Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter absurdity.    Oh never mind, you just did.
> Having a freaking *preference *or *opinion *on something does not a religion make.  You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke.  You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department.  That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't make Christianity religion either.  So you tell me, what does make it religion?  What are the attributes we need to look for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For this leave us go back to post 395 (directed originally to Emily) -- roll tape:
> 
> religion [ri-lij-uh n]
> noun
> 1.
> a set of beliefs *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*, *especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.  (Dictionary.com)
> 
> -- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit.  That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either.  All that is is having an opinion.
> 
> I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu.  That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teach*ings*, not the teach*er.*  That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism.  However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.
> 
> (As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).
> 
> So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge.  Buddhism does that, so it's a religion.  Taoism does that so it too is a religion.  Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, Zoroastrianism, they all do that and are therefore "religions".
> 
> Not smoking does not do that; Constitutionalism does not do that; atheism does not do that.  None of them therefore are "religions".  I get the impression some here believe that proselytizing for any cause whatsoever constitutes a "religion" but it doesn't.  It constitutes _ advocacy_.  Nothing more.
> 
> 
> --- which last point still doesn't apply to atheism since it's a personal conclusion.
> 
> Perhaps the missing ingredient in all this is the admission that beliefs are not necessarily always extroverted.  There's no reason they need to be to qualify as either belief or religion.  Atheism is by definition _introspective_.  Trying to pretend it "proselytizing" is like trying to pretend a desert is "against" the idea of water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was a definition not a list of attributes.  I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded.  It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe.  But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's absurd.  There is no such "set of beliefs".  Any given atheist may have wildly different beliefs about religions, general moral guidelines, politics or anything else.  They have nothing in common on the basis of atheism except not believing in the Easter Bunny theistic approach to religion.
> 
> I challenge you to prove your point by listing this "set of beliefs" -- or any part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge."  Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?
> 
> All beliefs are personal conclusions.  All beliefs are introspective.  Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's a point in that section. I don't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth.  The truth being their own beliefs.  Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus.  Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree with the last sentence.  Haven't seen the rest.  Also haven't seen where anyone declining theisim professes to "know the truth".  Seems to me religion by definition tries to address the Unknowable.  And it stays that way, for if something is knowable, we call that "science".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, a set of beliefs:  And keep in mind that these need not be taken as absolutes but with varying degrees of ardor.  I would refer you back to Dawkins list for that.
> 
> 1-  There are no gods
> 2-   The various god based religions are false
> 3-   The universe has no controlling force behind it
> 4-   The universe is not an artifact
> 
> Will those work for a start?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they wont.
> 
> Conclusion - all gods are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition. At no time in human history have any of the gods made themselves known in any extant way.
> 
> Conclusion - religious traditions are built upon earlier traditions and many religions tend to define their gods as simply grander, more powerful versions of the gods that ruled the preceding religions. And why not?  Why would a more recent religion establish itself as subordinate to a prior religion? Thus, the incorporation and inclusion of earlier traditions in mankinds formulation of newer religions.
> 
> Conclusion - nothing in the natural world indicates or even suggests supernatural forces. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.
> 
> I’ll submit that by employing evidence and reason, we can readily discriminate between which of our competing theories (mine being natural laws; yours being supernatural intervention), deserves the greater credibility. We actually have *direct observational evidence* that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have *no observational evidence of any kind* that your god (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observere who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> Conclusion - The universe is immensely old. That is in direct contradiction to biblical tales and fables and contradicts other religious tales.
> 
> In fact, the _only_ model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understand from the beginning that I am not a Christian.  I do not consider the Bible a science book.  At best it has some historical significance.  If you wish to argue Christianity, you will need to find someone else.
> 
> But I am willing to take your belief sets.  I don't know if Pogo will or not.
> 
> 1-  all god are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition.
> This is a pretty direct statement that gods are not real.  They do not exist but are entirely imaginary.  I really don't see how your statement could be taken any other way.     So, please present your evidence to support this conclusion.  And if you are going to use the argument that they have not made themselves known, you are going to have to explain your position that if they existed they would make themselves known.  Otherwise, it is irrelevant.
> 
> 2-  Religious institutions are built on earlier traditions.
> I'll grant you that and would consider this a valid statement based upon objective evidence.  I am not clear on how that matters.  If you could clarify that for me I would appreciate it.
> 
> 3-  Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force.
> I am not aware of anything which does.  OTOH, I am not aware of anything which suggests it doesn't.  The current theory (at least I think it is) is a singularity expanded to create the universe.  I am aware of nothing which indicates the origination of the singularity or the cause of the expansion.  Nor any current theory as to why the natural forces you speak of exist at all.  I stipulate they are there, but why they are there is a matter of speculation.  So, do you have any objective evidence that supernatural (I really dislike that word) forces were not involved?
> 
> Keep in mind that what I am attempting to do here is determine the nature of your conclusions, not whether or not they are true.  You have as much chance of getting it right as I do.
Click to expand...


I didn't really look into that list until now -- first impressions will be a bit dicey...

#2 first, as the simplest: agreed, religious institutions are built on earlier cultural traditions.
On #1 and 3, it would depend on what we mean by "gods" and "supernatural".  Not sure if we want to really go down this road, mired as we are already... but just as an intro, "gods" is a word necessarily limited by our own traditions and culture -- where we begin with our concept of a single anthropomorphized sky-being (complete with beard and interestingly, _gender_), creator of all, which we call "God" and then try to fathom other religious traditions by comparison to that benchmark. 

But in doing that we have already limited ourselves to that modality.  It muddles along bumpily through studies of ancient Greece, but once we get to the spiritual realms of Native America, Asia and Africa we find ourselves speaking an entirely different conceptual language.  In the religious traditions of Santeria/Candomblé/Voodoo for instance, what our studies would term "gods" (Xangó, Exu, Oxun et al) are simply not perceived in the anthropomorphized modality Europeans conceived "God" or "gods" -- these are rather forces of Nature, the "character" if you will of those unknowable spiritual dynamcs; moreover that spirit world is conceived not as a hierarchy 'up there' in the sky but as part of the tangible world with which it _intersects_.

This is a very long and twisted road to go down in a simple thread about the definition of atheism.  A fascinating one but perhaps so tangential as to be of questionable practical value.... 

But again --- different _modality_.  There are many many paths.  Theism is but one vehicle to traverse them.


----------



## Pogo

percysunshine said:


> .
> 
> Doctrinaire, dogmatic, inflexible, exclusive, and superior morals.
> 
> Yup...atheism is a religion.




0 for 5 with five strikeouts.  In baseball that's called the "golden sombrero".

Of course that post itself is the equivalent of walking into the world's greatest restaurant and asking the world's greatest chef for a Big Mac and a side of fries to go while complaining there's no drive-up window.  Thanks for uh, breaking a sweat.

smh...


----------



## sealybobo

percysunshine said:


> .
> 
> Doctrinaire, dogmatic, inflexible, exclusive, and superior morals.
> 
> Yup...atheism is a religion.
> 
> .



Number 24 

Why there is no god

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.  Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. 

Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. 

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

_“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Number 24
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.  Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.
> 
> Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> _“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather



Calling atheism a lack of belief when you actively argue against someone else's belief is like calling idiots geniuses.


----------



## asaratis

Quantum Windbag said:


> Calling atheism a lack of belief when you actively argue against someone else's belief is like calling idiots geniuses.


Atheists give idiots a bad name!


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Number 24
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.  Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.
> 
> Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> _“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling atheism a lack of belief when you actively argue against someone else's belief is like calling idiots geniuses.
Click to expand...

That was as pointless and idiotic as your usual drivel.

Religious faith (belief in supernaturalism / mysticism), is not equally valid to scientific consensus / rationalism. People may be equally free to embrace any religious belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.

There are valid conclusions which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., religious claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs _always_ are attended by the exoneration from you religious extremists "Well, you can't prove it _ain't_.

Nope. I'm under no obligation to "prove it ain't". That doesn't make it true.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> ........
> That was as pointless and idiotic as your usual drivel.
> 
> Religious faith (belief in supernaturalism / mysticism), is not equally valid to scientific consensus / rationalism. *People may be equally free to embrace any religious belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.*
> 
> There are valid conclusions which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., religious claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs _always_ are attended by the exoneration from you religious extremists "Well, you can't prove it _ain't_.
> 
> Nope.* I'm under no obligation to "prove it ain't". *That doesn't make it true.


This (the above in bold) is true.  You are also under no obligation to ridicule and attack others for not agreeing with your atheism.  You do so in support of your belief that "it ain't true".  Your religion of atheism causes you to attempt to convince others that you are correct.  You have less proof (none) that God doesn't exist than the believers have that He does.

A silent (regarding the religions of others), non-interfering atheist is not religious.  You and others like you are...as you seek comfort in the company of others.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........
> That was as pointless and idiotic as your usual drivel.
> 
> Religious faith (belief in supernaturalism / mysticism), is not equally valid to scientific consensus / rationalism. *People may be equally free to embrace any religious belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.*
> 
> There are valid conclusions which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., religious claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs _always_ are attended by the exoneration from you religious extremists "Well, you can't prove it _ain't_.
> 
> Nope.* I'm under no obligation to "prove it ain't". *That doesn't make it true.
> 
> 
> 
> This (the above in bold) is true.  You are also under no obligation to ridicule and attack others for not agreeing with your atheism.  You do so in support of your belief that "it ain't true".  Your religion of atheism causes you to attempt to convince others that you are correct.  You have less proof (none) that God doesn't exist than the believers have that He does.
> 
> A silent (regarding the religions of others), non-interfering atheist is not religious.  You and others like you are...as you seek comfort in the company of others.
Click to expand...

Written with all the boilerplate slogans, clichés and falsehoods of the true fundie Christian.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> That was as pointless and idiotic as your usual drivel.



Yet far superior to yours.



Hollie said:


> Religious faith (belief in supernaturalism / mysticism), is not equally valid to scientific consensus / rationalism. People may be equally free to embrace any religious belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.



Rationalism is hokum by another name. Rationalism rejects reality in favor of the belief that the universe ultimately is susceptible to being defined by humans, and is totally contradicted by quantum mechanics. The only real way to understand the universe is through empiricism.



Hollie said:


> There are valid conclusions which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., religious claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs _always_ are attended by the exoneration from you religious extremists "Well, you can't prove it _ain't_.



You cannot claim to follow both rationalism and empiricism and make any sense. The simple fact that you do not understand that those two philosophies are totally at odds with each other explains 98% of your idiotic ramblings. the rest is attributable to simple delusion.

By the way, define real, if you can. Under the doctrine of rationalism nothing is real unless it is subject to reason, and religion is eminently subject to reason, despite your idiotic assertions to the contrary. Rationalism teaches that the universe is rationally ordered, a premise which is supported by many religions. 

I suggest you learn what the fuck you are talking about before you try to explain your beliefs, you obviously do not know what the words you are saying actually mean.



Hollie said:


> Nope. I'm under no obligation to "prove it ain't". That doesn't make it true.



Funny that you feel yourself under no obligation to prove that the things you say are true.


----------



## percysunshine

sealybobo said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Doctrinaire, dogmatic, inflexible, exclusive, and superior morals.
> 
> Yup...atheism is a religion.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Number 24
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.  Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.
> 
> Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> _“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather
Click to expand...



Hitchhiking the universe again?

.

.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was as pointless and idiotic as your usual drivel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet far superior to yours.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious faith (belief in supernaturalism / mysticism), is not equally valid to scientific consensus / rationalism. People may be equally free to embrace any religious belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rationalism is hokum by another name. Rationalism rejects reality in favor of the belief that the universe ultimately is susceptible to being defined by humans, and is totally contradicted by quantum mechanics. The only real way to understand the universe is through empiricism.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are valid conclusions which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., religious claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs _always_ are attended by the exoneration from you religious extremists "Well, you can't prove it _ain't_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot claim to follow both rationalism and empiricism and make any sense. The simple fact that you do not understand that those two philosophies are totally at odds with each other explains 98% of your idiotic ramblings. the rest is attributable to simple delusion.
> 
> By the way, define real, if you can. Under the doctrine of rationalism nothing is real unless it is subject to reason, and religion is eminently subject to reason, despite your idiotic assertions to the contrary. Rationalism teaches that the universe is rationally ordered, a premise which is supported by many religions.
> 
> I suggest you learn what the fuck you are talking about before you try to explain your beliefs, you obviously do not know what the words you are saying actually mean.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I'm under no obligation to "prove it ain't". That doesn't make it true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny that you feel yourself under no obligation to prove that the things you say are true.
Click to expand...

It's actually comical to see the Christian zealots flailing about. Funny that the zealots continue to sidestep submitting any "pwoofs" to their claims to magic and supernaturalism and demand others disprove their invented realms.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........
> That was as pointless and idiotic as your usual drivel.
> 
> Religious faith (belief in supernaturalism / mysticism), is not equally valid to scientific consensus / rationalism. *People may be equally free to embrace any religious belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.*
> 
> There are valid conclusions which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., religious claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs _always_ are attended by the exoneration from you religious extremists "Well, you can't prove it _ain't_.
> 
> Nope.* I'm under no obligation to "prove it ain't". *That doesn't make it true.
> 
> 
> 
> This (the above in bold) is true.  You are also under no obligation to ridicule and attack others for not agreeing with your atheism.  You do so in support of your belief that "it ain't true".  Your religion of atheism causes you to attempt to convince others that you are correct.  You have less proof (none) that God doesn't exist than the believers have that He does.
> 
> A silent (regarding the religions of others), non-interfering atheist is not religious.  You and others like you are...as you seek comfort in the company of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Written with all the boilerplate slogans, clichés and falsehoods of the true fundie Christian.
Click to expand...

Show me a single slogan or cliche in that post.

I realize that you consider everything I say as a falsehood.  That's your way of practicing your Atheist religious doctrine of attacking and denying anything and everything said by the believers.

You seem to confuse non-belief in God with believing there is not a God....therefore you argue with the believers.  If you simply had a non-belief, you would have no reason whatsoever to defend yourself by denigrating others.  You are a religious atheist.


----------



## indiajo

Hollie said:


> [
> 
> 
> Funny that you feel yourself under no obligation to prove that the things you say are true.


It's actually comical to see the Christian zealots flailing about. Funny that the zealots continue to sidestep submitting any "pwoofs" to their claims to magic and supernaturalism and demand others disprove their invented realms.[/QUOTE]

Well, Hollie, I admire your efforts. But they are pointless.
I made this experience on a German Board while disputing an admittedly very well educated (roman catholic theology, latin and ancient greek as language, literature in general) fellow.
As soon as he could not resort to the usual sidesteps of defining the single paragraphs of his faith system as allegories or misinterpretations, because I pushed his nose into the very nothing of the foundation on which his humonguous theological bubble bath is built upon, the otherwise distinguished gentleman became as aggressive as the typcal Moslem once you question Allah.

Reasoning does not help. This is hard wired. I was raised catholic myself, and if I would not have been pretty introverted as a child and had always hated to the bone the constant urge of expressing my submission publicly, probably I would not have made this "snip" experience either.

The only sense "discussions" like this have, is to raise awareness with undetermined spotters who are already in doubt and search for confirmation.
Atheistic PR, so to say.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........
> That was as pointless and idiotic as your usual drivel.
> 
> Religious faith (belief in supernaturalism / mysticism), is not equally valid to scientific consensus / rationalism. *People may be equally free to embrace any religious belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.*
> 
> There are valid conclusions which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., religious claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs _always_ are attended by the exoneration from you religious extremists "Well, you can't prove it _ain't_.
> 
> Nope.* I'm under no obligation to "prove it ain't". *That doesn't make it true.
> 
> 
> 
> This (the above in bold) is true.  You are also under no obligation to ridicule and attack others for not agreeing with your atheism.  You do so in support of your belief that "it ain't true".  Your religion of atheism causes you to attempt to convince others that you are correct.  You have less proof (none) that God doesn't exist than the believers have that He does.
> 
> A silent (regarding the religions of others), non-interfering atheist is not religious.  You and others like you are...as you seek comfort in the company of others.
Click to expand...



So, atheism is not a religion if we shuddup?  LOL!  

Did Jeebus preach that kind of freedumb?  Where are you getting that?

I'm glad you're finally admitting that it's not a religion.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........
> That was as pointless and idiotic as your usual drivel.
> 
> Religious faith (belief in supernaturalism / mysticism), is not equally valid to scientific consensus / rationalism. *People may be equally free to embrace any religious belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.*
> 
> There are valid conclusions which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., religious claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs _always_ are attended by the exoneration from you religious extremists "Well, you can't prove it _ain't_.
> 
> Nope.* I'm under no obligation to "prove it ain't". *That doesn't make it true.
> 
> 
> 
> This (the above in bold) is true.  You are also under no obligation to ridicule and attack others for not agreeing with your atheism.  You do so in support of your belief that "it ain't true".  Your religion of atheism causes you to attempt to convince others that you are correct.  You have less proof (none) that God doesn't exist than the believers have that He does.
> 
> A silent (regarding the religions of others), non-interfering atheist is not religious.  You and others like you are...as you seek comfort in the company of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Written with all the boilerplate slogans, clichés and falsehoods of the true fundie Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me a single slogan or cliche in that post.
> 
> I realize that you consider everything I say as a falsehood.  That's your way of practicing your Atheist religious doctrine of attacking and denying anything and everything said by the believers.
> 
> You seem to confuse non-belief in God with believing there is not a God....therefore you argue with the believers.  If you simply had a non-belief, you would have no reason whatsoever to defend yourself by denigrating others.  You are a religious atheist.
Click to expand...

Yet another post of boilerplate slogans and cliches'.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........
> That was as pointless and idiotic as your usual drivel.
> 
> Religious faith (belief in supernaturalism / mysticism), is not equally valid to scientific consensus / rationalism. *People may be equally free to embrace any religious belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.*
> 
> There are valid conclusions which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., religious claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs _always_ are attended by the exoneration from you religious extremists "Well, you can't prove it _ain't_.
> 
> Nope.* I'm under no obligation to "prove it ain't". *That doesn't make it true.
> 
> 
> 
> This (the above in bold) is true.  You are also under no obligation to ridicule and attack others for not agreeing with your atheism.  You do so in support of your belief that "it ain't true".  Your religion of atheism causes you to attempt to convince others that you are correct.  You have less proof (none) that God doesn't exist than the believers have that He does.
> 
> A silent (regarding the religions of others), non-interfering atheist is not religious.  You and others like you are...as you seek comfort in the company of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, atheism is not a religion if we shuddup?  LOL!
> 
> I'm glad you're finally admitting that it's not a religion.
Click to expand...

Your sense of logic is so fucked up.  I pointed out that an atheist can choose not to be religious, just as a Jew can choose not to be religious and a Christian can choose not to be religious.  Their so choosing (not to be religious) does NOT make the religion disappear.

Anyone can choose to be non-religious.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........
> That was as pointless and idiotic as your usual drivel.
> 
> Religious faith (belief in supernaturalism / mysticism), is not equally valid to scientific consensus / rationalism. *People may be equally free to embrace any religious belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.*
> 
> There are valid conclusions which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., religious claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs _always_ are attended by the exoneration from you religious extremists "Well, you can't prove it _ain't_.
> 
> Nope.* I'm under no obligation to "prove it ain't". *That doesn't make it true.
> 
> 
> 
> This (the above in bold) is true.  You are also under no obligation to ridicule and attack others for not agreeing with your atheism.  You do so in support of your belief that "it ain't true".  Your religion of atheism causes you to attempt to convince others that you are correct.  You have less proof (none) that God doesn't exist than the believers have that He does.
> 
> A silent (regarding the religions of others), non-interfering atheist is not religious.  You and others like you are...as you seek comfort in the company of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Written with all the boilerplate slogans, clichés and falsehoods of the true fundie Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me a single slogan or cliche in that post.
> 
> I realize that you consider everything I say as a falsehood.  That's your way of practicing your Atheist religious doctrine of attacking and denying anything and everything said by the believers.
> 
> You seem to confuse non-belief in God with believing there is not a God....therefore you argue with the believers.  If you simply had a non-belief, you would have no reason whatsoever to defend yourself by denigrating others.  You are a religious atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another post of boilerplate slogans and cliches'.
Click to expand...

I see you're not up to the challenge.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........
> That was as pointless and idiotic as your usual drivel.
> 
> Religious faith (belief in supernaturalism / mysticism), is not equally valid to scientific consensus / rationalism. *People may be equally free to embrace any religious belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.*
> 
> There are valid conclusions which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., religious claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs _always_ are attended by the exoneration from you religious extremists "Well, you can't prove it _ain't_.
> 
> Nope.* I'm under no obligation to "prove it ain't". *That doesn't make it true.
> 
> 
> 
> This (the above in bold) is true.  You are also under no obligation to ridicule and attack others for not agreeing with your atheism.  You do so in support of your belief that "it ain't true".  Your religion of atheism causes you to attempt to convince others that you are correct.  You have less proof (none) that God doesn't exist than the believers have that He does.
> 
> A silent (regarding the religions of others), non-interfering atheist is not religious.  You and others like you are...as you seek comfort in the company of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, atheism is not a religion if we shuddup?  LOL!
> 
> I'm glad you're finally admitting that it's not a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your sense of logic is so fucked up.  I pointed out that an atheist can choose not to be religious, just as a Jew can choose not to be religious and a Christian can choose not to be religious.  Their so choosing (not to be religious) does NOT make the religion disappear.
> 
> Anyone can choose to be non-religious.
Click to expand...



Oh, I understood you alright...

If only we'd shuddup.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> It's actually comical to see the Christian zealots flailing about. Funny that the zealots continue to sidestep submitting any "pwoofs" to their claims to magic and supernaturalism and demand others disprove their invented realms.



Let me fix that for you.

It's actually comical to see the zealots flailing about. Funny that the zealots continue to sidestep submitting any "pwoofs" to their claims.​Now it reads like something that makes sense.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually comical to see the Christian zealots flailing about. Funny that the zealots continue to sidestep submitting any "pwoofs" to their claims to magic and supernaturalism and demand others disprove their invented realms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me fix that for you.
> 
> It's actually comical to see the zealots flailing about. Funny that the zealots continue to sidestep submitting any "pwoofs" to their claims.​Now it reads like something that makes sense.
Click to expand...

That's as corrupt as your usual pointlessness. 

If you science/knowledge loathing fundies have any "pwoofs" of your supernatural realms haunted by angry gods are real and extant, provide them.

If you have issues with science knowledge that confounds your belief in a 6,000 year old earth, talking snakes and eternal damnation for fruit theft, try a heapin' helpin' of the Kool-aid and be done with it.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, we have you making claims you are unable to support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only claim I mad is that Pratchet has repeatedly said he is not a Christian. I can easily support that by quoting the many post where he said that, all of which you ignored because they run counter to your beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ignore many claims that run counter to the content and context of what some posters post. Your hope to contribute meaningful dialogue would be among the many claims that run counter to the content and context of what you actually post.
Click to expand...




Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can impose nothing on you.  Only you can do that.  So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care?  Why apply a name to it?  Why do you need a definition?  Why do you bother talking about it at all?
> 
> To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns.  Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed?  Zero time.  The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.
> 
> No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief.  You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion.  There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence.  Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter absurdity.    Oh never mind, you just did.
> Having a freaking *preference *or *opinion *on something does not a religion make.  You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke.  You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department.  That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't make Christianity religion either.  So you tell me, what does make it religion?  What are the attributes we need to look for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For this leave us go back to post 395 (directed originally to Emily) -- roll tape:
> 
> religion [ri-lij-uh n]
> noun
> 1.
> a set of beliefs *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*, *especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.  (Dictionary.com)
> 
> -- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit.  That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either.  All that is is having an opinion.
> 
> I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu.  That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teach*ings*, not the teach*er.*  That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism.  However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.
> 
> (As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).
> 
> So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge.  Buddhism does that, so it's a religion.  Taoism does that so it too is a religion.  Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, Zoroastrianism, they all do that and are therefore "religions".
> 
> Not smoking does not do that; Constitutionalism does not do that; atheism does not do that.  None of them therefore are "religions".  I get the impression some here believe that proselytizing for any cause whatsoever constitutes a "religion" but it doesn't.  It constitutes _ advocacy_.  Nothing more.
> 
> 
> --- which last point still doesn't apply to atheism since it's a personal conclusion.
> 
> Perhaps the missing ingredient in all this is the admission that beliefs are not necessarily always extroverted.  There's no reason they need to be to qualify as either belief or religion.  Atheism is by definition _introspective_.  Trying to pretend it "proselytizing" is like trying to pretend a desert is "against" the idea of water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was a definition not a list of attributes.  I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded.  It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe.  But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's absurd.  There is no such "set of beliefs".  Any given atheist may have wildly different beliefs about religions, general moral guidelines, politics or anything else.  They have nothing in common on the basis of atheism except not believing in the Easter Bunny theistic approach to religion.
> 
> I challenge you to prove your point by listing this "set of beliefs" -- or any part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge."  Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?
> 
> All beliefs are personal conclusions.  All beliefs are introspective.  Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's a point in that section. I don't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth.  The truth being their own beliefs.  Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus.  Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree with the last sentence.  Haven't seen the rest.  Also haven't seen where anyone declining theisim professes to "know the truth".  Seems to me religion by definition tries to address the Unknowable.  And it stays that way, for if something is knowable, we call that "science".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, a set of beliefs:  And keep in mind that these need not be taken as absolutes but with varying degrees of ardor.  I would refer you back to Dawkins list for that.
> 
> 1-  There are no gods
> 2-   The various god based religions are false
> 3-   The universe has no controlling force behind it
> 4-   The universe is not an artifact
> 
> Will those work for a start?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they wont.
> 
> Conclusion - all gods are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition. At no time in human history have any of the gods made themselves known in any extant way.
> 
> Conclusion - religious traditions are built upon earlier traditions and many religions tend to define their gods as simply grander, more powerful versions of the gods that ruled the preceding religions. And why not?  Why would a more recent religion establish itself as subordinate to a prior religion? Thus, the incorporation and inclusion of earlier traditions in mankinds formulation of newer religions.
> 
> Conclusion - nothing in the natural world indicates or even suggests supernatural forces. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.
> 
> I’ll submit that by employing evidence and reason, we can readily discriminate between which of our competing theories (mine being natural laws; yours being supernatural intervention), deserves the greater credibility. We actually have *direct observational evidence* that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have *no observational evidence of any kind* that your god (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observere who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> Conclusion - The universe is immensely old. That is in direct contradiction to biblical tales and fables and contradicts other religious tales.
> 
> In fact, the _only_ model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understand from the beginning that I am not a Christian.  I do not consider the Bible a science book.  At best it has some historical significance.  If you wish to argue Christianity, you will need to find someone else.
> 
> But I am willing to take your belief sets.  I don't know if Pogo will or not.
> 
> 1-  all god are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition.
> This is a pretty direct statement that gods are not real.  They do not exist but are entirely imaginary.  I really don't see how your statement could be taken any other way.     So, please present your evidence to support this conclusion.  And if you are going to use the argument that they have not made themselves known, you are going to have to explain your position that if they existed they would make themselves known.  Otherwise, it is irrelevant.
> 
> 2-  Religious institutions are built on earlier traditions.
> I'll grant you that and would consider this a valid statement based upon objective evidence.  I am not clear on how that matters.  If you could clarify that for me I would appreciate it.
> 
> 3-  Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force.
> I am not aware of anything which does.  OTOH, I am not aware of anything which suggests it doesn't.  The current theory (at least I think it is) is a singularity expanded to create the universe.  I am aware of nothing which indicates the origination of the singularity or the cause of the expansion.  Nor any current theory as to why the natural forces you speak of exist at all.  I stipulate they are there, but why they are there is a matter of speculation.  So, do you have any objective evidence that supernatural (I really dislike that word) forces were not involved?
> 
> Keep in mind that what I am attempting to do here is determine the nature of your conclusions, not whether or not they are true.  You have as much chance of getting it right as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't really look into that list until now -- first impressions will be a bit dicey...
> 
> #2 first, as the simplest: agreed, religious institutions are built on earlier cultural traditions.
> On #1 and 3, it would depend on what we mean by "gods" and "supernatural".  Not sure if we want to really go down this road, mired as we are already... but just as an intro, "gods" is a word necessarily limited by our own traditions and culture -- where we begin with our concept of a single anthropomorphized sky-being (complete with beard and interestingly, _gender_), creator of all, which we call "God" and then try to fathom other religious traditions by comparison to that benchmark.
> 
> But in doing that we have already limited ourselves to that modality.  It muddles along bumpily through studies of ancient Greece, but once we get to the spiritual realms of Native America, Asia and Africa we find ourselves speaking an entirely different conceptual language.  In the religious traditions of Santeria/Candomblé/Voodoo for instance, what our studies would term "gods" (Xangó, Exu, Oxun et al) are simply not perceived in the anthropomorphized modality Europeans conceived "God" or "gods" -- these are rather forces of Nature, the "character" if you will of those unknowable spiritual dynamcs; moreover that spirit world is conceived not as a hierarchy 'up there' in the sky but as part of the tangible world with which it _intersects_.
> 
> This is a very long and twisted road to go down in a simple thread about the definition of atheism.  A fascinating one but perhaps so tangential as to be of questionable practical value....
> 
> But again --- different _modality_.  There are many many paths.  Theism is but one vehicle to traverse them.
Click to expand...


Ok.  I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it.  If something exists, it is natural.  But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed.  So...  what do you mean by "gods"?


----------



## PratchettFan

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........
> That was as pointless and idiotic as your usual drivel.
> 
> Religious faith (belief in supernaturalism / mysticism), is not equally valid to scientific consensus / rationalism. *People may be equally free to embrace any religious belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.*
> 
> There are valid conclusions which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., religious claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs _always_ are attended by the exoneration from you religious extremists "Well, you can't prove it _ain't_.
> 
> Nope.* I'm under no obligation to "prove it ain't". *That doesn't make it true.
> 
> 
> 
> This (the above in bold) is true.  You are also under no obligation to ridicule and attack others for not agreeing with your atheism.  You do so in support of your belief that "it ain't true".  Your religion of atheism causes you to attempt to convince others that you are correct.  You have less proof (none) that God doesn't exist than the believers have that He does.
> 
> A silent (regarding the religions of others), non-interfering atheist is not religious.  You and others like you are...as you seek comfort in the company of others.
Click to expand...


I think both sides have the same amount proof - none.  In fact, proof is too strong a word.  Neither side has any evidence.


----------



## Pogo

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Understand from the beginning that I am not a Christian.  I do not consider the Bible a science book.  At best it has some historical significance.  If you wish to argue Christianity, you will need to find someone else.
> 
> But I am willing to take your belief sets.  I don't know if Pogo will or not.
> 
> 1-  all god are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition.
> This is a pretty direct statement that gods are not real.  They do not exist but are entirely imaginary.  I really don't see how your statement could be taken any other way.     So, please present your evidence to support this conclusion.  And if you are going to use the argument that they have not made themselves known, you are going to have to explain your position that if they existed they would make themselves known.  Otherwise, it is irrelevant.
> 
> 2-  Religious institutions are built on earlier traditions.
> I'll grant you that and would consider this a valid statement based upon objective evidence.  I am not clear on how that matters.  If you could clarify that for me I would appreciate it.
> 
> 3-  Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force.
> I am not aware of anything which does.  OTOH, I am not aware of anything which suggests it doesn't.  The current theory (at least I think it is) is a singularity expanded to create the universe.  I am aware of nothing which indicates the origination of the singularity or the cause of the expansion.  Nor any current theory as to why the natural forces you speak of exist at all.  I stipulate they are there, but why they are there is a matter of speculation.  So, do you have any objective evidence that supernatural (I really dislike that word) forces were not involved?
> 
> Keep in mind that what I am attempting to do here is determine the nature of your conclusions, not whether or not they are true.  You have as much chance of getting it right as I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't really look into that list until now -- first impressions will be a bit dicey...
> 
> #2 first, as the simplest: agreed, religious institutions are built on earlier cultural traditions.
> On #1 and 3, it would depend on what we mean by "gods" and "supernatural".  Not sure if we want to really go down this road, mired as we are already... but just as an intro, "gods" is a word necessarily limited by our own traditions and culture -- where we begin with our concept of a single anthropomorphized sky-being (complete with beard and interestingly, _gender_), creator of all, which we call "God" and then try to fathom other religious traditions by comparison to that benchmark.
> 
> But in doing that we have already limited ourselves to that modality.  It muddles along bumpily through studies of ancient Greece, but once we get to the spiritual realms of Native America, Asia and Africa we find ourselves speaking an entirely different conceptual language.  In the religious traditions of Santeria/Candomblé/Voodoo for instance, what our studies would term "gods" (Xangó, Exu, Oxun et al) are simply not perceived in the anthropomorphized modality Europeans conceived "God" or "gods" -- these are rather forces of Nature, the "character" if you will of those unknowable spiritual dynamcs; moreover that spirit world is conceived not as a hierarchy 'up there' in the sky but as part of the tangible world with which it _intersects_.
> 
> This is a very long and twisted road to go down in a simple thread about the definition of atheism.  A fascinating one but perhaps so tangential as to be of questionable practical value....
> 
> But again --- different _modality_.  There are many many paths.  Theism is but one vehicle to traverse them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it.  If something exists, it is natural.  But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed.  So...  what do you mean by "gods"?
Click to expand...



Was this directed to me?  When you let your posts grow to a giant redwood like that it's reeeeeaaally hard to tell what's referring to what.  I'll ask you to please prune the nest as you go.  I cut out about 80% of this and it wasn't easy.

Assuming it's to me, I guess we're free to grope for another word for 'supernatural' but some term is needed -- meaning that which is beyond the natural world.  Natural and supernatrual are two different things, and the latter is what religion attempts to address.

In the term "gods" I was pointing out that our language/cultural background, in using the term "gods", is insufficient to grok the concept as it's used in cultures outside our own -- IOW we may describe Greek "gods" or African or Native American animist "gods" but imagining them as a parallel based on our own monotheistic anthropomorphize Guy-in-the-Sky is just not accurate.

Some cultures, where we describe "gods", see not "gods" but something more at "essence" or "energy" or, dare I say, "spirit".  This comes into play when we start analyzing that this religion over here has "gods", that one over there has "no gods" --- our language and the culture behind it simply does not have the scope to make those assessments in black and white.  So when we start constructing rules and guidelines about what constitutes a religion, or even what constitutes theism, we venture into a very grey area, linguistically.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> That's as corrupt as your usual pointlessness.
> 
> If you science/knowledge loathing fundies have any "pwoofs" of your supernatural realms haunted by angry gods are real and extant, provide them.
> 
> If you have issues with science knowledge that confounds your belief in a 6,000 year old earth, talking snakes and eternal damnation for fruit theft, try a heapin' helpin' of the Kool-aid and be done with it.



Newsflash.

I detailed an argument as to why you can not claim to be both rational and empirical, and you responded with bullshit about how I am a fundamentalist Christian that refuses to prove that things I have not said are true.

In other words, I am not the idiot in this conversation.


----------



## MaryL

How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's as corrupt as your usual pointlessness.
> 
> If you science/knowledge loathing fundies have any "pwoofs" of your supernatural realms haunted by angry gods are real and extant, provide them.
> 
> If you have issues with science knowledge that confounds your belief in a 6,000 year old earth, talking snakes and eternal damnation for fruit theft, try a heapin' helpin' of the Kool-aid and be done with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash.
> 
> I detailed an argument as to why you can not claim to be both rational and empirical, and you responded with bullshit about how I am a fundamentalist Christian that refuses to prove that things I have not said are true.
> 
> In other words, I am not the idiot in this conversation.
Click to expand...

The voices in your head are confusing you.


----------



## Carla_Danger

MaryL said:


> How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.




Thank you, Mary!


----------



## asaratis

PratchettFan said:


> Ok.  I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it. * If something exists, it is natural. * But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed.  So...  what do you mean by "gods"?


Off topic: Sorry, I cannot agree with that.  While anything that exists in nature without manipulation might be considered natural, many things that exist are not found in nature...not natural.  Rayon, stainless steel, baseball, divorce papers....the list is relatively endless.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it. * If something exists, it is natural. * But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed.  So...  what do you mean by "gods"?
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic: Sorry, I cannot agree with that.  While anything that exists in nature without manipulation might be considered natural, many things that exist are not found in nature...not natural.  Rayon, stainless steel, baseball, divorce papers....the list is relatively endless.
Click to expand...


I took him to mean "natural" as "part of the natural world", i.e. the world we can see and sense  -- as opposed to part of the supernatural (unknown, invisible) world.

I do like the oxymor-ironic juxtaposition of "relatively endless" though.  That's almost as good as "the atheist religion".


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Mary!
Click to expand...

You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it. * If something exists, it is natural. * But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed.  So...  what do you mean by "gods"?
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic: Sorry, I cannot agree with that.  While anything that exists in nature without manipulation might be considered natural, many things that exist are not found in nature...not natural.  Rayon, stainless steel, baseball, divorce papers....the list is relatively endless.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I took him to mean "natural" as "part of the natural world", i.e. the world we can see and sense  -- as opposed to part of the supernatural (unknown, invisible) world.
Click to expand...

I realize what he meant.  He just said it wrongly.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Mary!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.
Click to expand...



You've already admitted (finally) that atheism is not a religion.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Mary!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.
Click to expand...


For the 135th time -- why do you NEED them/us/everybody to be "wrong"?  What agenda does it serve?


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Mary!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've already admitted (finally) that atheism is not a religion.
Click to expand...

No I haven't.  I said that an atheist does not have to be religious.  YOU misstated what I said to make your claim.  What you're doing here is similar to the liberal's tactic of repeating a lie until it appears to be the truth.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it. * If something exists, it is natural. * But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed.  So...  what do you mean by "gods"?
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic: Sorry, I cannot agree with that.  While anything that exists in nature without manipulation might be considered natural, many things that exist are not found in nature...not natural.  Rayon, stainless steel, baseball, divorce papers....the list is relatively endless.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I took him to mean "natural" as "part of the natural world", i.e. the world we can see and sense  -- as opposed to part of the supernatural (unknown, invisible) world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I realize what he meant.  He just said it wrongly.
Click to expand...


*nat·u·ral*
_adjective_ \ˈna-chə-rəl, ˈnach-rəl\
*Full Definition of NATURAL*
...
12
_a_ *:*  having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious <a corporation is a legal but not a _natural_ person>

_b_ *:*  of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <_natural_ laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>


For lo, thus spake Merriam-Webster.  Hominy hominy hominy.


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Mary!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the 135th time -- why do you NEED them/us/everybody to be "wrong"?  What agenda does it serve?
Click to expand...

I don't NEED for anyone to be wrong.  That doesn't change the fact that you are.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Mary!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've already admitted (finally) that atheism is not a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I haven't.  I said that an atheist does not have to be religious.  YOU misstated what I said to make your claim.  What you're doing here is similar to the liberal's tactic of repeating a lie until it appears to be the truth.
Click to expand...


Actually, your making up this canard about atheism being a "religion" is what started this thread.  Its Big Bang so to speak.  And you've been repeating it over and over.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Mary!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the 135th time -- why do you NEED them/us/everybody to be "wrong"?  What agenda does it serve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't NEED for anyone to be wrong.  That doesn't change the fact that you are.
Click to expand...


So you still can't answer.


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it. * If something exists, it is natural. * But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed.  So...  what do you mean by "gods"?
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic: Sorry, I cannot agree with that.  While anything that exists in nature without manipulation might be considered natural, many things that exist are not found in nature...not natural.  Rayon, stainless steel, baseball, divorce papers....the list is relatively endless.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I took him to mean "natural" as "part of the natural world", i.e. the world we can see and sense  -- as opposed to part of the supernatural (unknown, invisible) world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I realize what he meant.  He just said it wrongly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *nat·u·ral*
> _adjective_ \ˈna-chə-rəl, ˈnach-rəl\
> *Full Definition of NATURAL*
> ...
> 12
> _a_ *:*  having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious <a corporation is a legal but not a _natural_ person>
> 
> _b_ *:*  of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <_natural_ laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>
> 
> 
> For lo, thus spake Merriam-Webster.  Hominy hominy hominy.
Click to expand...

No accepted definition of "natural" that you can muster will change the incorrectness of what he said.

* If something exists, it is natural. <<<<<FALSE*


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Mary!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've already admitted (finally) that atheism is not a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I haven't.  I said that an atheist does not have to be religious.  YOU misstated what I said to make your claim.  What you're doing here is similar to the liberal's tactic of repeating a lie until it appears to be the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, your making up this canard about atheism being a "religion" is what started this thread.  Its Big Bang so to speak.  And you've been repeating it over and over.
Click to expand...

But it's not a lie.  I can direct you to the websites of several Atheist churches.  Atheism is a religion available to all.  That you choose not to be religious does not change that FACT.


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Mary!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the 135th time -- why do you NEED them/us/everybody to be "wrong"?  What agenda does it serve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't NEED for anyone to be wrong.  That doesn't change the fact that you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you still can't answer.
Click to expand...

I did answer.  I have no need for you to be wrong.

A similar question to yours is:  Have you stopped beating your wife?


----------



## MaryL

My dad died from brain cancer, in pain...I wondered were god's love was then. Then, well, life is filled with  all sorts of injustices and woe. God always seems to be nowhere around when you need  him the most. Pray, nada. Random meaningless stuff happens. I find it hard to believe in God because his "love" is as meaningless as if God wasn't there. Why bother with the pretenses? Religion is a waste of time.


----------



## Pogo

"Because I said it is!"  

Actually he tries to evade the question every time but he left a clue why he needs atheism to be a "religion" in the mother thread:



asaratis said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Atheist leaders are there?   *What TV Atheist evangelists?*   What Atheist political pundits with the ear of the politically powerful?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you silly rabbit!  Atheists cannot be evangelists as that relates to teaching the ways of Christianity, especially of the Gospels.  The atheist leaders are the activists that promote their cause...for reasons aforementioned.  I would imagine that the scarcity of atheist political pundits results from the severe lack of large audiences likely to listen to their drivel. (There are not many liberal talk show hosts either...for the same reason...they can't hold a decent audience.)
> 
> My estimates are that atheists comprise about 2% of the world population and maybe 6% of the United States population...hardly worth trying to form a political party behind.
Click to expand...



He doesn't know the difference between "religion" and "politics".  He actually thinks we're talking about some kind of political party.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Mary!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've already admitted (finally) that atheism is not a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I haven't.  I said that an atheist does not have to be religious.  YOU misstated what I said to make your claim.  What you're doing here is similar to the liberal's tactic of repeating a lie until it appears to be the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, your making up this canard about atheism being a "religion" is what started this thread.  Its Big Bang so to speak.  And you've been repeating it over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it's not a lie.  I can direct you to the websites of several Atheist churches.  Atheism is a religion available to all.  That you choose not to be religious does not change that FACT.
Click to expand...


What you have there is, again, a Composition Fallacy.  "I found a 'church'!  Must be a religion!"
Uhhh.... no.  I found Grape Nuts on the grocery shelf -- doesn't make it a grape or nut product.

As a comparison I directed you to the Church of the Subgenius.  That doesn't make J.R. "Bob" Dobbs a god. 

As I remember that's when you left this thread.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it. * If something exists, it is natural. * But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed.  So...  what do you mean by "gods"?
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic: Sorry, I cannot agree with that.  While anything that exists in nature without manipulation might be considered natural, many things that exist are not found in nature...not natural.  Rayon, stainless steel, baseball, divorce papers....the list is relatively endless.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I took him to mean "natural" as "part of the natural world", i.e. the world we can see and sense  -- as opposed to part of the supernatural (unknown, invisible) world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I realize what he meant.  He just said it wrongly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *nat·u·ral*
> _adjective_ \ˈna-chə-rəl, ˈnach-rəl\
> *Full Definition of NATURAL*
> ...
> 12
> _a_ *:*  having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious <a corporation is a legal but not a _natural_ person>
> 
> _b_ *:*  of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <_natural_ laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>
> 
> 
> For lo, thus spake Merriam-Webster.  Hominy hominy hominy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No accepted definition of "natural" that you can muster will change the incorrectness of what he said.
> 
> * If something exists, it is natural. <<<<<FALSE*
Click to expand...


Yuh huh.  What dictionary did you write again?

"Atheism is Religion!"
"_Natural_ can only mean nature!"
"War is Peace!"
"Freedom is Slavery!"

And of course, the biggie...

"Ignorance is Strength!"


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it. * If something exists, it is natural. * But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed.  So...  what do you mean by "gods"?
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic: Sorry, I cannot agree with that.  While anything that exists in nature without manipulation might be considered natural, many things that exist are not found in nature...not natural.  Rayon, stainless steel, baseball, divorce papers....the list is relatively endless.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I took him to mean "natural" as "part of the natural world", i.e. the world we can see and sense  -- as opposed to part of the supernatural (unknown, invisible) world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I realize what he meant.  He just said it wrongly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *nat·u·ral*
> _adjective_ \ˈna-chə-rəl, ˈnach-rəl\
> *Full Definition of NATURAL*
> ...
> 12
> _a_ *:*  having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious <a corporation is a legal but not a _natural_ person>
> 
> _b_ *:*  of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <_natural_ laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>
> 
> 
> For lo, thus spake Merriam-Webster.  Hominy hominy hominy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No accepted definition of "natural" that you can muster will change the incorrectness of what he said.
> 
> * If something exists, it is natural. <<<<<FALSE*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yuh huh.  What dictionary did you write again?
> 
> "Atheism is Religion!"
> "_Natural_ can only mean nature!"
> "War is Peace!"
> "Freedom is Slavery!"
> 
> And of course, the biggie...
> 
> "Ignorance is Strength!"
Click to expand...

You've taken strawman to a whole new level.


----------



## Pogo

Clearly then, Strawman is a "religion".


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> For the 135th time -- why do you NEED them/us/everybody to be "wrong"?  What agenda does it serve?



This from the guy that insists that he has the only valid definition of religion, and that anyone that doesn't agree with him is a moron.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> Ok.  I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it.  If something exists, it is natural.  But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed.  So...  what do you mean by "gods"?


 

Was this directed to me?  When you let your posts grow to a giant redwood like that it's reeeeeaaally hard to tell what's referring to what.  I'll ask you to please prune the nest as you go.  I cut out about 80% of this and it wasn't easy.

Assuming it's to me, I guess we're free to grope for another word for 'supernatural' but some term is needed -- meaning that which is beyond the natural world.  Natural and supernatrual are two different things, and the latter is what religion attempts to address.

In the term "gods" I was pointing out that our language/cultural background, in using the term "gods", is insufficient to grok the concept as it's used in cultures outside our own -- IOW we may describe Greek "gods" or African or Native American animist "gods" but imagining them as a parallel based on our own monotheistic anthropomorphize Guy-in-the-Sky is just not accurate.

Some cultures, where we describe "gods", see not "gods" but something more at "essence" or "energy" or, dare I say, "spirit".  This comes into play when we start analyzing that this religion over here has "gods", that one over there has "no gods" --- our language and the culture behind it simply does not have the scope to make those assessments in black and white.  So when we start constructing rules and guidelines about what constitutes a religion, or even what constitutes theism, we venture into a very grey area, linguistically.[/QUOTE]

*************************************************************************

I disagree we need the word supernatural.  If something exists, then it is natural.  I think we use the word for things we don't know or understand.  At the dawn of our species a cigarette lighter would have been seen as supernatural.

I asked what you meant by gods.  When you say you have no belief in gods, what are you talking about?

As to the nature of religion, I think you are pointing out the uselessness of basing it on definitions.  I prefer to look at attributes of behavior, for those are objective and identifiable.  If we were to investigate the possibility of religion within a group of chimpanzees, what behavior would we be looking for?  IMO, there are three basic behaviors in religion (four in some cases - if you want to include proselytizing).

1.  A group identity.  A differentiation between us and them.
2.  Faith based.  The group is identified by core beliefs which are not related directly to physical reality.
3.  Dogma.  The tenets of the group are unquestioned.

Some might include ritual in this, but I consider that to be a factor of hierarchy.  Ritual is a justification for priests.


----------



## PratchettFan

asaratis said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it. * If something exists, it is natural. * But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed.  So...  what do you mean by "gods"?
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic: Sorry, I cannot agree with that.  While anything that exists in nature without manipulation might be considered natural, many things that exist are not found in nature...not natural.  Rayon, stainless steel, baseball, divorce papers....the list is relatively endless.
Click to expand...

 
Are you saying rayon is supernatural?


----------



## asaratis

PratchettFan said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it. * If something exists, it is natural. * But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed.  So...  what do you mean by "gods"?
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic: Sorry, I cannot agree with that.  While anything that exists in nature without manipulation might be considered natural, many things that exist are not found in nature...not natural.  Rayon, stainless steel, baseball, divorce papers....the list is relatively endless.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying rayon is supernatural?
Click to expand...

Of course not.  It is man made.  Invented and constructed by man as opposed to occurring naturally.  Iron ore is natural.  Knives are not.


----------



## PratchettFan

asaratis said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  I don't like the word supernatural and would prefer we just drop it. * If something exists, it is natural. * But if we are going to have a subject regarding belief then we do need to talk about what it is being believed.  So...  what do you mean by "gods"?
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic: Sorry, I cannot agree with that.  While anything that exists in nature without manipulation might be considered natural, many things that exist are not found in nature...not natural.  Rayon, stainless steel, baseball, divorce papers....the list is relatively endless.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying rayon is supernatural?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course not.  It is man made.  Invented and constructed by man as opposed to occurring naturally.  Iron ore is natural.  Knives are not.
Click to expand...

 
So a bird's nest would not be natural.  Nor would a wasp's nest or bee hive.


----------



## Sallow

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.



Most Atheists aren't trying to convert anyone.

They just don't want to hear the bullshit. Keep it in your churches/temples/mosques and homes.

We fucking pay for it.


----------



## PratchettFan

Sallow said:


> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Atheists aren't trying to convert anyone.
> 
> They just don't want to hear the bullshit. Keep it in your churches/temples/mosques and homes.
> 
> We fucking pay for it.
Click to expand...

 
I expect they don't want to keep it there and, per the first amendment, they don't have to.


----------



## Sallow

PratchettFan said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Atheists aren't trying to convert anyone.
> 
> They just don't want to hear the bullshit. Keep it in your churches/temples/mosques and homes.
> 
> We fucking pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I expect they don't want to keep it there and, per the first amendment, they don't have to.
Click to expand...


That's fine.

As per the first amendment the government can't advocate for it and I can shout them down.

Thanks.


----------



## asaratis

PratchettFan said:


> So a bird's nest would not be natural.  Nor would a wasp's nest or bee hive.


Wrong.  That is their natural way of protecting and raising their young.


----------



## PratchettFan

Sallow said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Atheists aren't trying to convert anyone.
> 
> They just don't want to hear the bullshit. Keep it in your churches/temples/mosques and homes.
> 
> We fucking pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I expect they don't want to keep it there and, per the first amendment, they don't have to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's fine.
> 
> As per the first amendment the government can't advocate for it and I can shout them down.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...

 
Sure.  That's what freedom is all about.


----------



## PratchettFan

asaratis said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a bird's nest would not be natural.  Nor would a wasp's nest or bee hive.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  That is their natural way of protecting and raising their young.
Click to expand...

 
Then help me out here.  If a bird uses natural material to make something, that is natural.  But if a human uses natural material to make something, that is not natural.  What is the difference?


----------



## alpine

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]



Atheism is not worshipping a god, thats obvious.

But everything human beings express is as result of "belief", just like our emotions, actions, thoughts and religious views, atheism being an extension to that...

Think about this; if there was no perception of "god", the theistic view, there would not be a perception of "no god", a-theist view. When you define yourself an "atheist", you do this do define yourself in the "religious" framework.

Therefore, calling "atheism" a religion is not that wrong afterall...


----------



## Pogo

alpine said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not worshipping a god, thats obvious.
> 
> But everything human beings express is as result of "belief", just like our emotions, actions, thoughts and religious views, atheism being an extension to that...
> 
> Think about this; if there was no perception of "god", the theistic view, there would not be a perception of "no god", a-theist view. When you define yourself an "atheist", you do this do define yourself in the "religious" framework.
> 
> Therefore, calling "atheism" a religion is not that wrong afterall...
Click to expand...


That makes no sense.  If I say I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, I "define" myself within the framework of the concept of the Easter Bunny --- that doesn't make me a mythologist.  _How is it possible to negate a concept without any reference to its premise?_
This logic would require an atheist to declare, "I don't believe in ...uh, "something".  I can't tell you what it is I don't believe in, but trust me but it ain't there".  No one would know what you're talking about.

I can declare, "golf is a stupid, mindless game and a waste of time"; I don't need to book a tee time at a country club to make that statement.

Obviously, religion means something more specific than "belief".  I can "believe" it's going to rain this afternoon; that doesn't make my weather observation a "religion".

And on the other side of that coin and perhaps more to your point, a religion does not need a "god" to be a religion; _*theism* _does_._  So at best you can say when you define yourself as an atheist, you define yourself within the framework of _theism _-- but not that of religion, _of which theism is a subset_.  But clearly it doesn't make you a theist by taking its opposite _view_.  It *still *means nothing deeper than, among "that group of people that believe in theism", the atheist is not among them.  That's all there is to it.  Zero is still not "one" and will never be. 

Theism is a _modality_ in *some *religions; not a mandatory one in all.  If I do not believe in the Volvo specifically as a mode of transport, it doesn't mean I don't believe in cars.


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a bird's nest would not be natural.  Nor would a wasp's nest or bee hive.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  That is their natural way of protecting and raising their young.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then help me out here.  If a bird uses natural material to make something, that is natural.  But if a human uses natural material to make something, that is not natural.  What is the difference?
Click to expand...


 

Well done.  Hoist with his own petard.


----------



## alpine

Pogo said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not worshipping a god, thats obvious.
> 
> But everything human beings express is as result of "belief", just like our emotions, actions, thoughts and religious views, atheism being an extension to that...
> 
> Think about this; if there was no perception of "god", the theistic view, there would not be a perception of "no god", a-theist view. When you define yourself an "atheist", you do this do define yourself in the "religious" framework.
> 
> Therefore, calling "atheism" a religion is not that wrong afterall...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  If I say I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, I "define" myself within the framework of the concept of the Easter Bunny --- that doesn't make me a mythologist.  _How is it possible to negate a concept without any reference to it?_
> This logic would require an atheist to declare, "I don't believe in something.  I can't tell you what it is I don't believe in, but trust me but it ain't there".  No one would know what you're talking about.
> 
> Obviously, religion means something more specific than "belief".  I can "believe" it's going to rain this afternoon; that doesn't make my weather observation a "religion".
> 
> And on the other side of that coin and perhaps more to your point, a religion does not need a "god" to be a religion; _*theism* _does_._  So at best you can say when you define yourself as an atheist, you define yourself within the framework of _theism _-- but not that of religion, _of which theism is a subset_.  But clearly it doesn't make you a theist by taking its opposite _view_.  It *still *means nothing deeper than, among "that group of people that believe in theism", the atheist is not among them.  That's all there is to it.  *Zero is still not "one" and will never be.*
> 
> Theism is a _modality_ in *some *religions; not a mandatory one in all.  If I do not believe in the Volvo specifically as a mode of transport, it doesn't mean I'm against cars.
Click to expand...


I agree religion doesn't need a "god" in definition, but if you look at the definition up above in the OP:

"the belief in and *worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."*

Am I reading this wrong?

So when you are defining yourself in the framework of "theism" as an a(nti)-theist, and the religion is defined as theism(as in the OP), than atheism becomes a religion itself. Innit?


----------



## Pogo

alpine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not worshipping a god, thats obvious.
> 
> But everything human beings express is as result of "belief", just like our emotions, actions, thoughts and religious views, atheism being an extension to that...
> 
> Think about this; if there was no perception of "god", the theistic view, there would not be a perception of "no god", a-theist view. When you define yourself an "atheist", you do this do define yourself in the "religious" framework.
> 
> Therefore, calling "atheism" a religion is not that wrong afterall...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  If I say I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, I "define" myself within the framework of the concept of the Easter Bunny --- that doesn't make me a mythologist.  _How is it possible to negate a concept without any reference to it?_
> This logic would require an atheist to declare, "I don't believe in something.  I can't tell you what it is I don't believe in, but trust me but it ain't there".  No one would know what you're talking about.
> 
> Obviously, religion means something more specific than "belief".  I can "believe" it's going to rain this afternoon; that doesn't make my weather observation a "religion".
> 
> And on the other side of that coin and perhaps more to your point, a religion does not need a "god" to be a religion; _*theism* _does_._  So at best you can say when you define yourself as an atheist, you define yourself within the framework of _theism _-- but not that of religion, _of which theism is a subset_.  But clearly it doesn't make you a theist by taking its opposite _view_.  It *still *means nothing deeper than, among "that group of people that believe in theism", the atheist is not among them.  That's all there is to it.  *Zero is still not "one" and will never be.*
> 
> Theism is a _modality_ in *some *religions; not a mandatory one in all.  If I do not believe in the Volvo specifically as a mode of transport, it doesn't mean I'm against cars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree religion doesn't need a "god" in definition, but if you look at the definition up above in the OP:
> 
> "the belief in and *worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."*
> 
> Am I reading this wrong?
> 
> So when you are defining yourself in the framework of "theism" as an a(nti)-theist, and the religion is defined as theism(as in the OP), than atheism becomes a religion itself. Innit?
Click to expand...


No.  I don't see how that follows.

Again -- _how_ can you reject a theory without referencing the theory you're rejecting?  

If I say "hand me that, please" -- what am I talking about?  "That" cup of coffee?   "That" pencil?  "That" piano?

"Religion" is a set of beliefs about the deeper universe (regardless whether those beliefs include theism or not).  Atheism *has no such beliefs* in itself; it simply rejects one of many theories.  Therefore it does not qualify, having no doctrinal framework that makes a religion a religion.  An atheist may hold any number of beliefs in that area, even directly contradictory to those of another atheist.  Because atheism doesn't dictate any particular belief at all.  It tells us absolutely nothing about what the subject believes.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Number 24
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.  Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.
> 
> Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> _“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling atheism a lack of belief when you actively argue against someone else's belief is like calling idiots geniuses.
Click to expand...


The generic god that most people on USMB argue for, it really doesn't matter if there is or isn't a god.

So really the only god that I argue against is the one you say will send me to hell if I don't believe in him or the Muslim one that says kill anyone who isn't a muslim.  And I'm sure you have to be a Mormon or Jehova to go to heaven right?  

All other gods are harmless.  

So if not believing in YOUR GOD is a religion, where do I join?  

If I'm obsessed about your god it's because your stories are so god damn stupid and you were clearly brainwashed to believe such stupid stories.  The more I hear the less I believe.  The other day am radio they were talking about ancient revelations that came true.  First off, so fucking what and second off, prove it?  Or show me a new proficy fulfilled.  Tell me one that has yet to be fullfilled and that is coming up, besides the end of the world.  The mark of the beast?  You freaking kooks crack me up.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Mary!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the 135th time -- why do you NEED them/us/everybody to be "wrong"?  What agenda does it serve?
Click to expand...



Bill Maher nailed it when he said they're trying to put our reason on the shelf with their un-reason, to create a fake fair and balanced argument. I know you are, but what am I?

.


----------



## alpine

Pogo said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not worshipping a god, thats obvious.
> 
> But everything human beings express is as result of "belief", just like our emotions, actions, thoughts and religious views, atheism being an extension to that...
> 
> Think about this; if there was no perception of "god", the theistic view, there would not be a perception of "no god", a-theist view. When you define yourself an "atheist", you do this do define yourself in the "religious" framework.
> 
> Therefore, calling "atheism" a religion is not that wrong afterall...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  If I say I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, I "define" myself within the framework of the concept of the Easter Bunny --- that doesn't make me a mythologist.  _How is it possible to negate a concept without any reference to it?_
> This logic would require an atheist to declare, "I don't believe in something.  I can't tell you what it is I don't believe in, but trust me but it ain't there".  No one would know what you're talking about.
> 
> Obviously, religion means something more specific than "belief".  I can "believe" it's going to rain this afternoon; that doesn't make my weather observation a "religion".
> 
> And on the other side of that coin and perhaps more to your point, a religion does not need a "god" to be a religion; _*theism* _does_._  So at best you can say when you define yourself as an atheist, you define yourself within the framework of _theism _-- but not that of religion, _of which theism is a subset_.  But clearly it doesn't make you a theist by taking its opposite _view_.  It *still *means nothing deeper than, among "that group of people that believe in theism", the atheist is not among them.  That's all there is to it.  *Zero is still not "one" and will never be.*
> 
> Theism is a _modality_ in *some *religions; not a mandatory one in all.  If I do not believe in the Volvo specifically as a mode of transport, it doesn't mean I'm against cars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree religion doesn't need a "god" in definition, but if you look at the definition up above in the OP:
> 
> "the belief in and *worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."*
> 
> Am I reading this wrong?
> 
> So when you are defining yourself in the framework of "theism" as an a(nti)-theist, and the religion is defined as theism(as in the OP), than atheism becomes a religion itself. Innit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I don't see how that follows.
> 
> How can you reject a theory without referencing the theory you're rejecting?
Click to expand...


You can not, therefore, you are bound to it, like atheism being bound to theism, religion...

Religions are real, gods are real, they are the production of our brain (just like other real thoughts we have) and a specific setup in our brain too. But this same specific setup also produce the atheistic view.

As a result, you either produce your christianity, islam, buddhism,... or atheism. Atheism is your own production just like the other views in religion. Your religious view is an atheistic one. You don't believe in gods, nor supernatural being, but some other things that make the universe as we know it, if you are an atheist.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Mary!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've already admitted (finally) that atheism is not a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I haven't.  I said that an atheist does not have to be religious.  YOU misstated what I said to make your claim.  What you're doing here is similar to the liberal's tactic of repeating a lie until it appears to be the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, your making up this canard about atheism being a "religion" is what started this thread.  Its Big Bang so to speak.  And you've been repeating it over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it's not a lie.  I can direct you to the websites of several Atheist churches.  Atheism is a religion available to all.  That you choose not to be religious does not change that FACT.
Click to expand...



The definition of Church is a building used for public Christian worship. If they're calling it a church, that's incorrect. It's nothing more than a community center, because they worship no one.

.


----------



## Pogo

Carla_Danger said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Mary!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the 135th time -- why do you NEED them/us/everybody to be "wrong"?  What agenda does it serve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Maher nailed it when he said they're trying to put our reason on the shelf with their un-reason, to create a fake fair and balanced argument. I know you are, but what am I?
Click to expand...



Seems like it.  Since they won't answer the question, that will have to do.

And it makes logical sense; in other words once it's been pointed out that they've painted themselves into a corner, they want company in that corner, presumably to save face.  So they start insisting, "hey, you're standing in the corner too" --- to people who aren't even in the _room_.


----------



## Pogo

alpine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not worshipping a god, thats obvious.
> 
> But everything human beings express is as result of "belief", just like our emotions, actions, thoughts and religious views, atheism being an extension to that...
> 
> Think about this; if there was no perception of "god", the theistic view, there would not be a perception of "no god", a-theist view. When you define yourself an "atheist", you do this do define yourself in the "religious" framework.
> 
> Therefore, calling "atheism" a religion is not that wrong afterall...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  If I say I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, I "define" myself within the framework of the concept of the Easter Bunny --- that doesn't make me a mythologist.  _How is it possible to negate a concept without any reference to it?_
> This logic would require an atheist to declare, "I don't believe in something.  I can't tell you what it is I don't believe in, but trust me but it ain't there".  No one would know what you're talking about.
> 
> Obviously, religion means something more specific than "belief".  I can "believe" it's going to rain this afternoon; that doesn't make my weather observation a "religion".
> 
> And on the other side of that coin and perhaps more to your point, a religion does not need a "god" to be a religion; _*theism* _does_._  So at best you can say when you define yourself as an atheist, you define yourself within the framework of _theism _-- but not that of religion, _of which theism is a subset_.  But clearly it doesn't make you a theist by taking its opposite _view_.  It *still *means nothing deeper than, among "that group of people that believe in theism", the atheist is not among them.  That's all there is to it.  *Zero is still not "one" and will never be.*
> 
> Theism is a _modality_ in *some *religions; not a mandatory one in all.  If I do not believe in the Volvo specifically as a mode of transport, it doesn't mean I'm against cars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree religion doesn't need a "god" in definition, but if you look at the definition up above in the OP:
> 
> "the belief in and *worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."*
> 
> Am I reading this wrong?
> 
> So when you are defining yourself in the framework of "theism" as an a(nti)-theist, and the religion is defined as theism(as in the OP), than atheism becomes a religion itself. Innit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I don't see how that follows.
> 
> How can you reject a theory without referencing the theory you're rejecting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can not, therefore, you are bound to it, like atheism being bound to theism, religion...
> 
> Religions are real, gods are real, they are the production of our brain (just like other real thoughts we have) and a specific setup in our brain too. But this same specific setup also produce the atheistic view.
> 
> As a result, you either produce your christianity, islam, buddhism,... or atheism. Atheism is your own production just like the other views in religion. Your religious view is an atheistic one. You don't believe in gods, nor supernatural being, but some other things that make the universe as we know it, if you are an atheist.
Click to expand...


Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void.  What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief.  It only tells us one theory that is *not *present.

If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I _*am*_ wearing.  I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.

And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed.  _*That's the whole point in dismissing it*_.


----------



## Pogo

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Mary!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've already admitted (finally) that atheism is not a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I haven't.  I said that an atheist does not have to be religious.  YOU misstated what I said to make your claim.  What you're doing here is similar to the liberal's tactic of repeating a lie until it appears to be the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, your making up this canard about atheism being a "religion" is what started this thread.  Its Big Bang so to speak.  And you've been repeating it over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it's not a lie.  I can direct you to the websites of several Atheist churches.  Atheism is a religion available to all.  That you choose not to be religious does not change that FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The definition of Church is a building used for public Christian worship. If they're calling it a church, that's incorrect. It's nothing more than a community center, because they worship no one.
Click to expand...



By his logic the "Pennsylvania Dutch" would have to move to Holland to start interbreeding; the band 10,000 Maniacs would need a massive stage; and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a place where everybody gets a vote and the People run the joint.  Also you'd have to completely change the entire ingredient list of Grape Nuts.


----------



## Pogo

alpine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not worshipping a god, thats obvious.
> 
> But everything human beings express is as result of "belief", just like our emotions, actions, thoughts and religious views, atheism being an extension to that...
> 
> Think about this; if there was no perception of "god", the theistic view, there would not be a perception of "no god", a-theist view. When you define yourself an "atheist", you do this do define yourself in the "religious" framework.
> 
> Therefore, calling "atheism" a religion is not that wrong afterall...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  If I say I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, I "define" myself within the framework of the concept of the Easter Bunny --- that doesn't make me a mythologist.  _How is it possible to negate a concept without any reference to it?_
> This logic would require an atheist to declare, "I don't believe in something.  I can't tell you what it is I don't believe in, but trust me but it ain't there".  No one would know what you're talking about.
> 
> Obviously, religion means something more specific than "belief".  I can "believe" it's going to rain this afternoon; that doesn't make my weather observation a "religion".
> 
> And on the other side of that coin and perhaps more to your point, a religion does not need a "god" to be a religion; _*theism* _does_._  So at best you can say when you define yourself as an atheist, you define yourself within the framework of _theism _-- but not that of religion, _of which theism is a subset_.  But clearly it doesn't make you a theist by taking its opposite _view_.  It *still *means nothing deeper than, among "that group of people that believe in theism", the atheist is not among them.  That's all there is to it.  *Zero is still not "one" and will never be.*
> 
> Theism is a _modality_ in *some *religions; not a mandatory one in all.  If I do not believe in the Volvo specifically as a mode of transport, it doesn't mean I'm against cars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree religion doesn't need a "god" in definition, but if you look at the definition up above in the OP:
> 
> "the belief in and *worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."*
> 
> Am I reading this wrong?
Click to expand...


I'm afraid that definition is faultily limited.  It's a definition of _theistic _religion.

More inclusive for this purpose, brought forth from earlier:

*religion* [ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1.
a set of beliefs *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*, *especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (Dictionary.com)


----------



## alpine

Pogo said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not worshipping a god, thats obvious.
> 
> But everything human beings express is as result of "belief", just like our emotions, actions, thoughts and religious views, atheism being an extension to that...
> 
> Think about this; if there was no perception of "god", the theistic view, there would not be a perception of "no god", a-theist view. When you define yourself an "atheist", you do this do define yourself in the "religious" framework.
> 
> Therefore, calling "atheism" a religion is not that wrong afterall...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  If I say I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, I "define" myself within the framework of the concept of the Easter Bunny --- that doesn't make me a mythologist.  _How is it possible to negate a concept without any reference to it?_
> This logic would require an atheist to declare, "I don't believe in something.  I can't tell you what it is I don't believe in, but trust me but it ain't there".  No one would know what you're talking about.
> 
> Obviously, religion means something more specific than "belief".  I can "believe" it's going to rain this afternoon; that doesn't make my weather observation a "religion".
> 
> And on the other side of that coin and perhaps more to your point, a religion does not need a "god" to be a religion; _*theism* _does_._  So at best you can say when you define yourself as an atheist, you define yourself within the framework of _theism _-- but not that of religion, _of which theism is a subset_.  But clearly it doesn't make you a theist by taking its opposite _view_.  It *still *means nothing deeper than, among "that group of people that believe in theism", the atheist is not among them.  That's all there is to it.  *Zero is still not "one" and will never be.*
> 
> Theism is a _modality_ in *some *religions; not a mandatory one in all.  If I do not believe in the Volvo specifically as a mode of transport, it doesn't mean I'm against cars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree religion doesn't need a "god" in definition, but if you look at the definition up above in the OP:
> 
> "the belief in and *worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."*
> 
> Am I reading this wrong?
> 
> So when you are defining yourself in the framework of "theism" as an a(nti)-theist, and the religion is defined as theism(as in the OP), than atheism becomes a religion itself. Innit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I don't see how that follows.
> 
> How can you reject a theory without referencing the theory you're rejecting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can not, therefore, you are bound to it, like atheism being bound to theism, religion...
> 
> Religions are real, gods are real, they are the production of our brain (just like other real thoughts we have) and a specific setup in our brain too. But this same specific setup also produce the atheistic view.
> 
> As a result, you either produce your christianity, islam, buddhism,... or atheism. Atheism is your own production just like the other views in religion. Your religious view is an atheistic one. You don't believe in gods, nor supernatural being, but some other things that make the universe as we know it, if you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void.  What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief.  It only tells us what is not there.
> 
> If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I _*am*_ wearing.  I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.
> 
> And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed.  _*That's the whole point in dismissing it*_.
Click to expand...


So atheists come to the conclusion of atheism by how?

Just waiting in the "void" and it comes to them?

Of course not. They use the same neurons, and in fact, they fire it the same way the religious people do, when they come up with their religious views.

Every idea, even the idea of rejecting an idea is a production. Otherwise you would not be rejecting it, you would simply, ignore it or dismiss it, but you don't. You reject it. You go through some process to get to that point. You produce your atheism, your religious views, in the same factory as all the other human being does produce their own views of religion.


----------



## Pogo

alpine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void.  What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief.  It only tells us what is not there.
> 
> If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I _*am*_ wearing.  I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.
> 
> And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed.  _*That's the whole point in dismissing it*_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So atheists come to the conclusion of atheism by how?
> 
> Just waiting in the "void" and it comes to them?
> 
> Of course not. They use the same neurons, and in fact, they fire it the same way the religious people do, when they come up with their religious views.
> 
> Every idea, even the idea of rejecting an idea is a production. Otherwise you would not be rejecting it, you would simply, ignore it or dismiss it, but you don't. You reject it. You go through some process to get to that point. You produce your atheism, your religious views, in the same factory as all the other human being does produce their own views of religion.
Click to expand...


Your argument here is that atheism is a *thought process*.  Of course it is -- every thought is.  It's a consideration of a specific theory and a conclusion that that theory is not worthy of belief.  Nobody argues with that.

But a thought process obviously does not constitute a "religion".  And dismissing the idea of the Easter Bunny does not in any way "bind" you to the Easter Bunny.  That's absurd.



> Otherwise you would not be rejecting it, you would simply, ignore it or dismiss it, but you don't. You reject it


What distinction exactly are you trying to make between "reject" and "dismiss"?


----------



## Carla_Danger

Pogo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I add to this? Atheism isn't an alternative to religion anymore than magic is to physics. Have to agree with the OP here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Mary!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You two agreeing means nothing other than that you're both wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've already admitted (finally) that atheism is not a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I haven't.  I said that an atheist does not have to be religious.  YOU misstated what I said to make your claim.  What you're doing here is similar to the liberal's tactic of repeating a lie until it appears to be the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, your making up this canard about atheism being a "religion" is what started this thread.  Its Big Bang so to speak.  And you've been repeating it over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it's not a lie.  I can direct you to the websites of several Atheist churches.  Atheism is a religion available to all.  That you choose not to be religious does not change that FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The definition of Church is a building used for public Christian worship. If they're calling it a church, that's incorrect. It's nothing more than a community center, because they worship no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By his logic the "Pennsylvania Dutch" would have to move to Holland to start interbreeding; the band 10,000 Maniacs would need a massive stage; and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a place where everybody gets a vote and the People run the joint.  Also you'd have to completely change the entire ingredient list of Grape Nuts.
Click to expand...



And Fox News is neither fair, or balanced.  

.


----------



## alpine

Pogo said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void.  What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief.  It only tells us what is not there.
> 
> If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I _*am*_ wearing.  I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.
> 
> And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed.  _*That's the whole point in dismissing it*_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So atheists come to the conclusion of atheism by how?
> 
> Just waiting in the "void" and it comes to them?
> 
> Of course not. They use the same neurons, and in fact, they fire it the same way the religious people do, when they come up with their religious views.
> 
> Every idea, even the idea of rejecting an idea is a production. Otherwise you would not be rejecting it, you would simply, ignore it or dismiss it, but you don't. You reject it. You go through some process to get to that point. You produce your atheism, your religious views, in the same factory as all the other human being does produce their own views of religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument here is that atheism is a *thought process*.  Of course it is -- every thought is.  It's a consideration of a specific theory and a conclusion that that theory is not worthy of belief.  Nobody argues with that.
> 
> But a thought process obviously does not constitute a "religion".  And dismissing the idea of the Easter Bunny does not in any way "bind" you to the Easter Bunny.  That's absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Otherwise you would not be rejecting it, you would simply, ignore it or dismiss it, but you don't. You reject it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What distinction exactly are you trying to make between "reject" and "dismiss"?
Click to expand...


If we go back to your "Volvo" suggestion; all the cars are produced in a car factory, but not only cars are produced in a car factory. No matter how opposite your atheism is to theism, it is the production of the same assembly line, and that alone is enough to categorize them all as one.

Therefore categorizing atheism as a religious view is not something you can "dismiss", but something you could reject, of course after the process of thinking and considering and argumenting about it.

dismiss: treat as unworthy of serious consideration


----------



## Uncensored2008

Carla_Danger said:


> Is "something" a religion?



Do Atheists proselytize to win converts? Do Atheists use the power of the state to silence competing faiths? 

Since both of these are overwhelmingly "yes," then Atheism is a religion.

Agnostics don't care what others believe. It makes no difference to me if my neighbor worships no god, or twenty gods.

But Atheists are driven to convert others, to crush faith systems other than there own, mostly using the implied violence of the state to crush competing faiths.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not worshipping a god, thats obvious.
> 
> But everything human beings express is as result of "belief", just like our emotions, actions, thoughts and religious views, atheism being an extension to that...
> 
> Think about this; if there was no perception of "god", the theistic view, there would not be a perception of "no god", a-theist view. When you define yourself an "atheist", you do this do define yourself in the "religious" framework.
> 
> Therefore, calling "atheism" a religion is not that wrong afterall...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  If I say I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, I "define" myself within the framework of the concept of the Easter Bunny --- that doesn't make me a mythologist.  _How is it possible to negate a concept without any reference to it?_
> This logic would require an atheist to declare, "I don't believe in something.  I can't tell you what it is I don't believe in, but trust me but it ain't there".  No one would know what you're talking about.
> 
> Obviously, religion means something more specific than "belief".  I can "believe" it's going to rain this afternoon; that doesn't make my weather observation a "religion".
> 
> And on the other side of that coin and perhaps more to your point, a religion does not need a "god" to be a religion; _*theism* _does_._  So at best you can say when you define yourself as an atheist, you define yourself within the framework of _theism _-- but not that of religion, _of which theism is a subset_.  But clearly it doesn't make you a theist by taking its opposite _view_.  It *still *means nothing deeper than, among "that group of people that believe in theism", the atheist is not among them.  That's all there is to it.  *Zero is still not "one" and will never be.*
> 
> Theism is a _modality_ in *some *religions; not a mandatory one in all.  If I do not believe in the Volvo specifically as a mode of transport, it doesn't mean I'm against cars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree religion doesn't need a "god" in definition, but if you look at the definition up above in the OP:
> 
> "the belief in and *worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."*
> 
> Am I reading this wrong?
> 
> So when you are defining yourself in the framework of "theism" as an a(nti)-theist, and the religion is defined as theism(as in the OP), than atheism becomes a religion itself. Innit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I don't see how that follows.
> 
> How can you reject a theory without referencing the theory you're rejecting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can not, therefore, you are bound to it, like atheism being bound to theism, religion...
> 
> Religions are real, gods are real, they are the production of our brain (just like other real thoughts we have) and a specific setup in our brain too. But this same specific setup also produce the atheistic view.
> 
> As a result, you either produce your christianity, islam, buddhism,... or atheism. Atheism is your own production just like the other views in religion. Your religious view is an atheistic one. You don't believe in gods, nor supernatural being, but some other things that make the universe as we know it, if you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void.  What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief.  It only tells us one theory that is *not *present.
> 
> If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I _*am*_ wearing.  I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.
> 
> And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed.  _*That's the whole point in dismissing it*_.
Click to expand...

 
This is from one of Carla's first posts:

"
Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):


Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
I'm a number 6."

There is no objective evidence to support this position.  A conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.  So the claim that Carla is just rejecting, that it is a "void", is just not true.  Which means that either, according to your definition, Carla is not an Atheist or your definition of Atheism is wrong. 

To use your analogy, what if when you are telling us you are not wearing a kimono you are standing in front of us wearing one?


----------



## Carla_Danger

Uncensored2008 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is "something" a religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do Atheists proselytize to win converts? Do Atheists use the power of the state to silence competing faiths?
> 
> Since both of these are overwhelmingly "yes," then Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Agnostics don't care what others believe. It makes no difference to me if my neighbor worships no god, or twenty gods.
> 
> But Atheists are driven to convert others, to crush faith systems other than there own, mostly using the implied violence of the state to crush competing faiths.
Click to expand...



Complete nonsense!


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  If I say I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, I "define" myself within the framework of the concept of the Easter Bunny --- that doesn't make me a mythologist.  _How is it possible to negate a concept without any reference to it?_
> This logic would require an atheist to declare, "I don't believe in something.  I can't tell you what it is I don't believe in, but trust me but it ain't there".  No one would know what you're talking about.
> 
> Obviously, religion means something more specific than "belief".  I can "believe" it's going to rain this afternoon; that doesn't make my weather observation a "religion".
> 
> And on the other side of that coin and perhaps more to your point, a religion does not need a "god" to be a religion; _*theism* _does_._  So at best you can say when you define yourself as an atheist, you define yourself within the framework of _theism _-- but not that of religion, _of which theism is a subset_.  But clearly it doesn't make you a theist by taking its opposite _view_.  It *still *means nothing deeper than, among "that group of people that believe in theism", the atheist is not among them.  That's all there is to it.  *Zero is still not "one" and will never be.*
> 
> Theism is a _modality_ in *some *religions; not a mandatory one in all.  If I do not believe in the Volvo specifically as a mode of transport, it doesn't mean I'm against cars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree religion doesn't need a "god" in definition, but if you look at the definition up above in the OP:
> 
> "the belief in and *worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."*
> 
> Am I reading this wrong?
> 
> So when you are defining yourself in the framework of "theism" as an a(nti)-theist, and the religion is defined as theism(as in the OP), than atheism becomes a religion itself. Innit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I don't see how that follows.
> 
> How can you reject a theory without referencing the theory you're rejecting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can not, therefore, you are bound to it, like atheism being bound to theism, religion...
> 
> Religions are real, gods are real, they are the production of our brain (just like other real thoughts we have) and a specific setup in our brain too. But this same specific setup also produce the atheistic view.
> 
> As a result, you either produce your christianity, islam, buddhism,... or atheism. Atheism is your own production just like the other views in religion. Your religious view is an atheistic one. You don't believe in gods, nor supernatural being, but some other things that make the universe as we know it, if you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void.  What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief.  It only tells us one theory that is *not *present.
> 
> If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I _*am*_ wearing.  I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.
> 
> And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed.  _*That's the whole point in dismissing it*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is from one of Carla's first posts:
> 
> "
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6."
> 
> There is no objective evidence to support this position.  A conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.  So the claim that Carla is just rejecting, that it is a "void", is just not true.  Which means that either, according to your definition, Carla is not an Atheist or your definition of Atheism is wrong.
> 
> To use your analogy, what if when you are telling us you are not wearing a kimono you are standing in front of us wearing one?
Click to expand...



But Carla is rejecting, due to lack of evidence. Carla gave up her belief, due to lack of evidence, and by doing that, Carla gave up her religion. Carla is no longer religious, nor is she affiliated with any religion/religious group.


----------



## Pogo

alpine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void.  What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief.  It only tells us what is not there.
> 
> If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I _*am*_ wearing.  I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.
> 
> And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed.  _*That's the whole point in dismissing it*_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So atheists come to the conclusion of atheism by how?
> 
> Just waiting in the "void" and it comes to them?
> 
> Of course not. They use the same neurons, and in fact, they fire it the same way the religious people do, when they come up with their religious views.
> 
> Every idea, even the idea of rejecting an idea is a production. Otherwise you would not be rejecting it, you would simply, ignore it or dismiss it, but you don't. You reject it. You go through some process to get to that point. You produce your atheism, your religious views, in the same factory as all the other human being does produce their own views of religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument here is that atheism is a *thought process*.  Of course it is -- every thought is.  It's a consideration of a specific theory and a conclusion that that theory is not worthy of belief.  Nobody argues with that.
> 
> But a thought process obviously does not constitute a "religion".  And dismissing the idea of the Easter Bunny does not in any way "bind" you to the Easter Bunny.  That's absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Otherwise you would not be rejecting it, you would simply, ignore it or dismiss it, but you don't. You reject it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What distinction exactly are you trying to make between "reject" and "dismiss"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we go back to your "Volvo" suggestion; all the cars are produced in a car factory, but not only cars are produced in a car factory. No matter how opposite your atheism is to theism, it is the production of the same assembly line, and that alone is enough to categorize them all as one.
> 
> Therefore categorizing atheism as a religious view is not something you can "dismiss", but something you could reject, of course after the process of thinking and considering and argumenting about it.
> 
> dismiss: treat as unworthy of serious consideration
Click to expand...


And once again you're still making the case that atheism is a thoght process.  Nobody disagrees with that.  Nor is it the question here.

Once again -- given the definition as a starting point:
___________________________________________________________
*religion* [ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1.
a set of beliefs *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*, *especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (Dictionary.com)
____________________________________________________________

Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all?  Where is a set of beliefs about anything?


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  If I say I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, I "define" myself within the framework of the concept of the Easter Bunny --- that doesn't make me a mythologist.  _How is it possible to negate a concept without any reference to it?_
> This logic would require an atheist to declare, "I don't believe in something.  I can't tell you what it is I don't believe in, but trust me but it ain't there".  No one would know what you're talking about.
> 
> Obviously, religion means something more specific than "belief".  I can "believe" it's going to rain this afternoon; that doesn't make my weather observation a "religion".
> 
> And on the other side of that coin and perhaps more to your point, a religion does not need a "god" to be a religion; _*theism* _does_._  So at best you can say when you define yourself as an atheist, you define yourself within the framework of _theism _-- but not that of religion, _of which theism is a subset_.  But clearly it doesn't make you a theist by taking its opposite _view_.  It *still *means nothing deeper than, among "that group of people that believe in theism", the atheist is not among them.  That's all there is to it.  *Zero is still not "one" and will never be.*
> 
> Theism is a _modality_ in *some *religions; not a mandatory one in all.  If I do not believe in the Volvo specifically as a mode of transport, it doesn't mean I'm against cars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree religion doesn't need a "god" in definition, but if you look at the definition up above in the OP:
> 
> "the belief in and *worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."*
> 
> Am I reading this wrong?
> 
> So when you are defining yourself in the framework of "theism" as an a(nti)-theist, and the religion is defined as theism(as in the OP), than atheism becomes a religion itself. Innit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I don't see how that follows.
> 
> How can you reject a theory without referencing the theory you're rejecting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can not, therefore, you are bound to it, like atheism being bound to theism, religion...
> 
> Religions are real, gods are real, they are the production of our brain (just like other real thoughts we have) and a specific setup in our brain too. But this same specific setup also produce the atheistic view.
> 
> As a result, you either produce your christianity, islam, buddhism,... or atheism. Atheism is your own production just like the other views in religion. Your religious view is an atheistic one. You don't believe in gods, nor supernatural being, but some other things that make the universe as we know it, if you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void.  What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief.  It only tells us one theory that is *not *present.
> 
> If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I _*am*_ wearing.  I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.
> 
> And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed.  _*That's the whole point in dismissing it*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is from one of Carla's first posts:
> 
> "
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6."
> 
> There is no objective evidence to support this position.  A conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.  So the claim that Carla is just rejecting, that it is a "void", is just not true.  Which means that either, according to your definition, Carla is not an Atheist or your definition of Atheism is wrong.
> 
> To use your analogy, what if when you are telling us you are not wearing a kimono you are standing in front of us wearing one?
Click to expand...


Sorry, that analogy is inoperative.  In order to see what I'm wearing, the cognate would require that we see into the atheist's mind to determine if his words match his thoughts.  Not only can't we do that, it's irrelevant.

And more to the point of the thread, _*none *_of this is an argument that "atheism is a religion".


----------



## Uncensored2008

Carla_Danger said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is "something" a religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do Atheists proselytize to win converts? Do Atheists use the power of the state to silence competing faiths?
> 
> Since both of these are overwhelmingly "yes," then Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Agnostics don't care what others believe. It makes no difference to me if my neighbor worships no god, or twenty gods.
> 
> But Atheists are driven to convert others, to crush faith systems other than there own, mostly using the implied violence of the state to crush competing faiths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Complete nonsense!
Click to expand...


Atheistic Outreach Disseminating Information and Dispelling Myths About Atheism

Perhaps the ONLY group more aggressive in trying to win converts than the Jehovah's Witnesses are the Atheists.

When I see the smug little fuckers drive up in their Prius with Dawkins literature under their arm, I turn the hose on them....


----------



## Carla_Danger

Uncensored2008 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is "something" a religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do Atheists proselytize to win converts? Do Atheists use the power of the state to silence competing faiths?
> 
> Since both of these are overwhelmingly "yes," then Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Agnostics don't care what others believe. It makes no difference to me if my neighbor worships no god, or twenty gods.
> 
> But Atheists are driven to convert others, to crush faith systems other than there own, mostly using the implied violence of the state to crush competing faiths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Complete nonsense!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheistic Outreach Disseminating Information and Dispelling Myths About Atheism
> 
> Perhaps the ONLY group more aggressive in trying to win converts than the Jehovah's Witnesses are the Atheists.
> 
> When I see the smug little fuckers drive up in their Prius with Dawkins literature under their arm, I turn the hose on them....
Click to expand...



More nonsense.  When you click on the link, the tab says "defending atheism," not converting.


----------



## alpine

Pogo said:


> Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all?  Where is a set of beliefs about anything?



It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.

Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense. 

Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".

You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.

*concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*


----------



## Uncensored2008

Carla_Danger said:


> More nonsense.  When you click on the link, the tab says "defending atheism," not converting.



Oh bullshit;

{The more interesting question is whether some people in modern society, people who are aware of the usual grounds for belief and disbelief and are acquainted to some degree with modern science, are yet rationally justified in accepting theism. Friendly atheism is a significant position only if it answers this question in the affirmative.[5]}

It's about how to win converts.

When Atheists see a little girl praying in front of a flag pole at school, then send men with guns to forcibly stop her, what is their purpose?

What is the purpose of Atheists burning books and outlawing information that is contrary to the goals of the ruling Atheist church?

{
Fox News – There is growing outrage among sailors and religious liberty advocates over a directive that calls for the removal of Bibles from lodges and hotels run on U.S. Navy bases. The directive comes after an atheist group filed a formal complaint earlier this year over the placement of Bibles in the rooms.

“The current direction is to remove all religious material from Navy Lodge guest rooms,” read an email to a Navy chaplain from The Navy Exchange Service Command (NEXCOM). “For those Navy Lodges with religious materials currently in guest rooms, the Navy Lodge General Manager will contact the Installation Chaplain’s office who will provide guidance on the removal procedure disposition of these materials.”}

Freedom From Religion Foundation 8211 How Far Will They Go In Their Attack On Christianity


----------



## Carla_Danger

alpine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all?  Where is a set of beliefs about anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.
> 
> Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".
> 
> You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.
> 
> *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*
Click to expand...



Oh my, you most certainly can reject religion.


----------



## alpine

Carla_Danger said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all?  Where is a set of beliefs about anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.
> 
> Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".
> 
> You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.
> 
> *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, you most certainly can reject religion.
Click to expand...



You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.

That would be silly, innit?


----------



## Carla_Danger

alpine said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all?  Where is a set of beliefs about anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.
> 
> Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".
> 
> You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.
> 
> *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, you most certainly can reject religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.
> 
> That would be silly, innit?
Click to expand...



Since 1812 there have been examples that Bigfoot lives. There are even books on that subject, providing evidence. I reject that evidence. I do not believe in Bigfoot.  Is that a religion?


----------



## Pogo

alpine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all?  Where is a set of beliefs about anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.
Click to expand...


It is not a "set of beliefs", it is a *single non-belief*.  The answer is the set of beliefs requested to qualify a religion --  simply _does not exist._  It is a zero.  Zero can never be "one".  It is the absence (i.e. non-presence) of the designated belief.

I don't believe in satyrs.  That doesn't make asatyrism a "religion".  Don't know what's so elusive about that.



alpine said:


> Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.



Good way to look at it.  As posted before you were here, let's reduce to a simple math:

The numerical value of theism in one theist: one
The numerical value of theism in one atheist: zero.
All that remains is to understand what "Zero" means. 



alpine said:


> Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".



No, it is not a religious view beyond a simple rejection of one religious modality out of many.  Buddhists and Taoists are atheists; that doesn't mean they're not _religious_.  You're trying to compare apples and oranges, apparently still conflating "theism" with "religion".  Once again -- atheism does not mean the absence of _religion_; it means the absence of _theism_.



alpine said:


> You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.
> 
> *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*



Every culture in every time and place has/has had religion of some kind.  Not every one has/has had _theism_.  If your logic depends on conflating the two, you haven't made an honest logical progression.


----------



## alpine

Carla_Danger said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all?  Where is a set of beliefs about anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.
> 
> Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".
> 
> You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.
> 
> *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, you most certainly can reject religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.
> 
> That would be silly, innit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since 1812 there have been examples that Bigfoot lives. I reject that evidence. I do not believe in Bigfoot.  Is that a religion?
Click to expand...


Have you ever seen a Bigfoot?

If you did, would you believe the reality of a Bigfoot?

Have you ever seen a "religious" person?..................



The evidence to religion, is the religious people you see all around you, every day, multiple times.

And you still have a problem accepting the reality of it.

Religion is real, and whatever it is, it is happening to all of us most likely. Because it is happening to 80% of us in a very clear way. The idea, the concept, the pattern of religion is in all of us, one way or another. "Religion" is what the old people called this phenomenon that happened to them; *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. *But they come up with different explanations to it. In the cave man times, they would search through the inside of the crust, abrahamic religion vice versa, to the sky, now you to the stars and galaxies.

This is what religion is.

"a set of beliefs *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*, *especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

I mean look at this description here. You can not tell me this doesn't apply to atheism, when you have "usually" that has the only part that you would make the argument "atheism doesnt fit into this" part. SO the only part Atheism will need to have is this section;

"a set of beliefs *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*, *especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies"
*
Ohhhh, yes it does. There is no contradiction to atheism in this right here.

Athiesm is in FACT a religion, as far as the definition is concerned, an unusual one, but still one.

Because ATHEISM;
*
1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
2. And especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*



So the conclusion; you may not be as much religious as other people are on this planet, but after all, you are religious by definition...


----------



## alpine

Pogo said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all?  Where is a set of beliefs about anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a "set of beliefs", it is a *single non-belief*.  The answer is the set of beliefs requested to qualify a religion --  simply _does not exist._  It is a zero.  Zero can never be "one".  It is the absence (i.e. non-presence) of the designated belief.
> 
> I don't believe in satyrs.  That doesn't make asatyrism a "religion".  Don't know what's so elusive about that.
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good way to look at it.  As posted before you were here, let's reduce to a simple math:
> 
> The numerical value of theism in one theist: one
> The numerical value of theism in one atheist: zero.
> All that remains is to understand what "Zero" means.
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not a religious view beyond a simple rejection of one religious modality out of many.  Buddhists and Taoists are atheists; that doesn't mean they're not _religious_.  You're trying to compare apples and oranges, apparently still conflating "theism" with "religion".  Once again -- atheism does not mean the absence of _religion_; it means the absence of _theism_.
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.
> 
> *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every culture in every time and place has/has had religion of some kind.  Not every one has/has had _theism_.  If your logic depends on conflating the two, you haven't made an honest logical progression.
Click to expand...



You are claiming atheism something to be that atheism is not.

I mean we could bring the definition of atheism on the table too, just to make sure.

"The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings."

This is official definition right?

But this is also wrong, just like how the definition of religion was when it was first put out here, according to you. Isn't it? You claimed the definition of religion was wrong, and did come up with a different definition, am I correct?

But the first definition was as official as your second one was, for some people at least, and a substancial amount, because that was the wiki definition.

So you see; human being can not come up with one solid definition to one single object.

And you are not alone, same thing happens to every one. And this is what religion is trying to define in its sense. And atheism is right at the heart of it, it is coming to the conclusion taking the same questions into consideration, and yet you claim it is outside of it.

Well, you can of course try... But even mathematically that would be a silly bet...


----------



## Pogo

alpine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all?  Where is a set of beliefs about anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a "set of beliefs", it is a *single non-belief*.  The answer is the set of beliefs requested to qualify a religion --  simply _does not exist._  It is a zero.  Zero can never be "one".  It is the absence (i.e. non-presence) of the designated belief.
> 
> I don't believe in satyrs.  That doesn't make asatyrism a "religion".  Don't know what's so elusive about that.
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good way to look at it.  As posted before you were here, let's reduce to a simple math:
> 
> The numerical value of theism in one theist: one
> The numerical value of theism in one atheist: zero.
> All that remains is to understand what "Zero" means.
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not a religious view beyond a simple rejection of one religious modality out of many.  Buddhists and Taoists are atheists; that doesn't mean they're not _religious_.  You're trying to compare apples and oranges, apparently still conflating "theism" with "religion".  Once again -- atheism does not mean the absence of _religion_; it means the absence of _theism_.
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.
> 
> *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every culture in every time and place has/has had religion of some kind.  Not every one has/has had _theism_.  If your logic depends on conflating the two, you haven't made an honest logical progression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are claiming atheism something to be that atheism is not.
> 
> I mean we could bring the definition of atheism on the table too, just to make sure.
> 
> "The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings."
> 
> This is official definition right?
> 
> But this is also wrong, just like how the definition of religion was when it was first put out here, according to you. Isn't it? You claimed the definition of religion was wrong, and did come up with a different definition, am I correct?
> 
> But the first definition was as official as your second one was, for some people at least, and a substancial amount, because that was the wiki definition.
> 
> So you see; human being can not come up with one solid definition to one single object.
> 
> And you are not alone, same thing happens to every one. And this is what religion is trying to define in its sense. And atheism is right at the heart of it, it is coming to the conclusion taking the same questions into consideration, and yet you claim it is outside of it.
> 
> Well, you can of course try... But even mathematically that would be a silly bet...
Click to expand...


Wait -- did you just declare Wikipedia to be infallible?   

The definition in the OP was unnecessarily limited to theistic religions.  "Theism" and "religion" continue not to be synonyms.  So I supplied a more inclusive definition that doesn't exclude nontheistic religions.  Unless you're about to tell us that Buddhism and Taoism are not "religions".  Good luck making that case, because here's Wiki again, apparently contradicting itself:

*Jainism* /ˈdʒeɪnɪz(ə)m/, traditionally known as Jaina Shasana or Jaina dharma (Sanskrit: जैन धर्म), is *a nontheistic Indian religion* that prescribes a path of ahimsa - nonviolence - towards all living beings, and emphasizes spiritual independence and equality between all forms of life.​


----------



## alpine

Pogo said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all?  Where is a set of beliefs about anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a "set of beliefs", it is a *single non-belief*.  The answer is the set of beliefs requested to qualify a religion --  simply _does not exist._  It is a zero.  Zero can never be "one".  It is the absence (i.e. non-presence) of the designated belief.
> 
> I don't believe in satyrs.  That doesn't make asatyrism a "religion".  Don't know what's so elusive about that.
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good way to look at it.  As posted before you were here, let's reduce to a simple math:
> 
> The numerical value of theism in one theist: one
> The numerical value of theism in one atheist: zero.
> All that remains is to understand what "Zero" means.
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not a religious view beyond a simple rejection of one religious modality out of many.  Buddhists and Taoists are atheists; that doesn't mean they're not _religious_.  You're trying to compare apples and oranges, apparently still conflating "theism" with "religion".  Once again -- atheism does not mean the absence of _religion_; it means the absence of _theism_.
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.
> 
> *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every culture in every time and place has/has had religion of some kind.  Not every one has/has had _theism_.  If your logic depends on conflating the two, you haven't made an honest logical progression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are claiming atheism something to be that atheism is not.
> 
> I mean we could bring the definition of atheism on the table too, just to make sure.
> 
> "The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings."
> 
> This is official definition right?
> 
> But this is also wrong, just like how the definition of religion was when it was first put out here, according to you. Isn't it? You claimed the definition of religion was wrong, and did come up with a different definition, am I correct?
> 
> But the first definition was as official as your second one was, for some people at least, and a substancial amount, because that was the wiki definition.
> 
> So you see; human being can not come up with one solid definition to one single object.
> 
> And you are not alone, same thing happens to every one. And this is what religion is trying to define in its sense. And atheism is right at the heart of it, it is coming to the conclusion taking the same questions into consideration, and yet you claim it is outside of it.
> 
> Well, you can of course try... But even mathematically that would be a silly bet...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait -- did you just declare Wikipedia to be infallible?
> 
> The definition in the OP was unnecessarily limited to theistic religions.  "Theism" and "religion" continue not to be synonyms.  So I supplied a more inclusive definition that doesn't exclude nontheistic religions.  Unless you're about to tell us that Buddhism and Taoism are not "religions".  Good luck making that case, because here's Wiki again, apparently contradicting itself:
> 
> *Jainism* /ˈdʒeɪnɪz(ə)m/, traditionally known as Jaina Shasana or Jaina dharma (Sanskrit: जैन धर्म), is *a nontheistic Indian religion* that prescribes a path of ahimsa - nonviolence - towards all living beings, and emphasizes spiritual independence and equality between all forms of life.​
Click to expand...



Hold on; I didn't say "infallible". To me, everything is fallible. The one who believes in "infallible"s, turns out to be you. You think your definition is infallible, innit?

I bet you do...


----------



## Carla_Danger

Uncensored2008 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> More nonsense.  When you click on the link, the tab says "defending atheism," not converting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh bullshit;
> 
> {The more interesting question is whether some people in modern society, people who are aware of the usual grounds for belief and disbelief and are acquainted to some degree with modern science, are yet rationally justified in accepting theism. Friendly atheism is a significant position only if it answers this question in the affirmative.[5]}
> 
> It's about how to win converts.
> 
> When Atheists see a little girl praying in front of a flag pole at school, then send men with guns to forcibly stop her, what is their purpose?
> 
> What is the purpose of Atheists burning books and outlawing information that is contrary to the goals of the ruling Atheist church?
> 
> {
> Fox News – There is growing outrage among sailors and religious liberty advocates over a directive that calls for the removal of Bibles from lodges and hotels run on U.S. Navy bases. The directive comes after an atheist group filed a formal complaint earlier this year over the placement of Bibles in the rooms.
> 
> “The current direction is to remove all religious material from Navy Lodge guest rooms,” read an email to a Navy chaplain from The Navy Exchange Service Command (NEXCOM). “For those Navy Lodges with religious materials currently in guest rooms, the Navy Lodge General Manager will contact the Installation Chaplain’s office who will provide guidance on the removal procedure disposition of these materials.”}
> 
> Freedom From Religion Foundation 8211 How Far Will They Go In Their Attack On Christianity
Click to expand...



Why do you hate our Constitution?  What part of "Separation of Church and State" do you not understand?

Here's the best thing Ronald Reagan ever did.....he had a son.


----------



## Moonglow

Uncensored2008 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is "something" a religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do Atheists proselytize to win converts? Do Atheists use the power of the state to silence competing faiths?
> 
> Since both of these are overwhelmingly "yes," then Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Agnostics don't care what others believe. It makes no difference to me if my neighbor worships no god, or twenty gods.
> 
> But Atheists are driven to convert others, to crush faith systems other than there own, mostly using the implied violence of the state to crush competing faiths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Complete nonsense!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheistic Outreach Disseminating Information and Dispelling Myths About Atheism
> 
> Perhaps the ONLY group more aggressive in trying to win converts than the Jehovah's Witnesses are the Atheists.
> 
> When I see the smug little fuckers drive up in their Prius with Dawkins literature under their arm, I turn the hose on them....
Click to expand...


Why is this  what I imagine with this post..??


----------



## Pogo

alpine said:


> Because ATHEISM;
> *
> 1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
> 2. And especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*
> 
> So the conclusion; you may not be as much religious as other people are on this planet, but after all, you are religious by definition...



You continue to conflate "religion" and "theism".  If you're asking about me personally, yes I am religious and no I am not a theist.  You have to understand the distinction first and stop ramming them into the same thing like a Certs breath mint.

This:
*1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*

Is still* not a set of beliefs*, which is essential to the definition.  You can't make a religion out of an adjectival phrase.  Can't do it.  Again, if you don't articulate a reference, no one knows what the hell you're talking about.  One cannot describe oneself as an "a-ican'tsaywhatitis-ist".


----------



## asaratis

PratchettFan said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a bird's nest would not be natural.  Nor would a wasp's nest or bee hive.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  That is their natural way of protecting and raising their young.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then help me out here.  If a bird uses natural material to make something, that is natural.  But if a human uses natural material to make something, that is not natural.  What is the difference?
Click to expand...

This is my opinion:

A bird's instinct to build a nest (peculiar to its own species) is natural.  A bird house with a pitched roof, a round doorway and a SEE ROCK CITY sign painted on top is not.

A bee hive or hornets nest are both natural.  A beekeepers box is not.

My earlier example of iron ore and knives is clear.  Iron ore exists in nature.  Knives do not.

Humans differ from birds and bees in that we possess very few if any natural instinctive behaviors.  (The natural drives to eat, drink and procreate are all that I know of.) We learn from our parents and others.  We learn from experience.  We progressed over thousands of years from being cave dwellers (living in nature's free shelter) to building enclosed, air conditioned, lighted homes with running water by way of invention and innovation.   All these homes we build do not occur naturally.  We have taught ourselves to build them.

Semantics can be confusing. My original contention that your original statement is false is correct.


----------



## Pogo

alpine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all?  Where is a set of beliefs about anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a "set of beliefs", it is a *single non-belief*.  The answer is the set of beliefs requested to qualify a religion --  simply _does not exist._  It is a zero.  Zero can never be "one".  It is the absence (i.e. non-presence) of the designated belief.
> 
> I don't believe in satyrs.  That doesn't make asatyrism a "religion".  Don't know what's so elusive about that.
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good way to look at it.  As posted before you were here, let's reduce to a simple math:
> 
> The numerical value of theism in one theist: one
> The numerical value of theism in one atheist: zero.
> All that remains is to understand what "Zero" means.
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not a religious view beyond a simple rejection of one religious modality out of many.  Buddhists and Taoists are atheists; that doesn't mean they're not _religious_.  You're trying to compare apples and oranges, apparently still conflating "theism" with "religion".  Once again -- atheism does not mean the absence of _religion_; it means the absence of _theism_.
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.
> 
> *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every culture in every time and place has/has had religion of some kind.  Not every one has/has had _theism_.  If your logic depends on conflating the two, you haven't made an honest logical progression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are claiming atheism something to be that atheism is not.
> 
> I mean we could bring the definition of atheism on the table too, just to make sure.
> 
> "The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings."
> 
> This is official definition right?
> 
> But this is also wrong, just like how the definition of religion was when it was first put out here, according to you. Isn't it? You claimed the definition of religion was wrong, and did come up with a different definition, am I correct?
> 
> But the first definition was as official as your second one was, for some people at least, and a substancial amount, because that was the wiki definition.
> 
> So you see; human being can not come up with one solid definition to one single object.
> 
> And you are not alone, same thing happens to every one. And this is what religion is trying to define in its sense. And atheism is right at the heart of it, it is coming to the conclusion taking the same questions into consideration, and yet you claim it is outside of it.
> 
> Well, you can of course try... But even mathematically that would be a silly bet...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait -- did you just declare Wikipedia to be infallible?
> 
> The definition in the OP was unnecessarily limited to theistic religions.  "Theism" and "religion" continue not to be synonyms.  So I supplied a more inclusive definition that doesn't exclude nontheistic religions.  Unless you're about to tell us that Buddhism and Taoism are not "religions".  Good luck making that case, because here's Wiki again, apparently contradicting itself:
> 
> *Jainism* /ˈdʒeɪnɪz(ə)m/, traditionally known as Jaina Shasana or Jaina dharma (Sanskrit: जैन धर्म), is *a nontheistic Indian religion* that prescribes a path of ahimsa - nonviolence - towards all living beings, and emphasizes spiritual independence and equality between all forms of life.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hold on; I didn't say "infallible". To me, everything is fallible. The one who believes in "infallible"s, turns out to be you. You think your definition is infallible, innit?
> 
> I bet you do...
Click to expand...


Meltdown in progress.

The OP definition was flawed, and I just proved it using Wiki itself.
Now how can there be nontheistic religions, if "religion" requires theism?  Answer: the premise is flawed, the flaw proved by the exceptions.

Can't have it both ways -- which Wiki are we to believe then?
Btw my definition came from Dictionary.com -- which not everybody gets to edit on a whim.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

asaratis said:


> Of course not.  It is man made.  Invented and constructed by man as opposed to occurring naturally.  Iron ore is natural.  Knives are not.



What is the intrinsic difference between a beaver dam and a dam made by man? What makes one natural, and the other unnatural? Defining natural in such a way that you exclude the works of human beings is, at best, simplistic.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Sallow said:


> Most Atheists aren't trying to convert anyone.
> 
> They just don't want to hear the bullshit. Keep it in your churches/temples/mosques and homes.
> 
> We fucking pay for it.



You don't want to convert people, you just want to shut them up because you disagree with them. I have only one thing to say to that, fuck you. Everyone has a fucking fright to say whatever the fuck they want, even you. The fact that someone has to take the time to explain that to the idiots, like you, shows just how wrong you are when you argue that atheism is not a religion. If you don't understand the reference I can refer you to a long history of various religions working to suppress the words of people that challenged their doctrines.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

asaratis said:


> ]Wrong.  That is their natural way of protecting and raising their young.



And a house is man's natural way of doing the exact same thing.


----------



## alpine

Pogo said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because ATHEISM;
> *
> 1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
> 2. And especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*
> 
> So the conclusion; you may not be as much religious as other people are on this planet, but after all, you are religious by definition...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to conflate "religion" and "theism".  If you're asking about me personally, yes I am religious and no I am not a theist.  You have to understand the distinction first and stop ramming them into the same thing like a Certs breath mint.
> 
> This:
> *1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*
> 
> Is still* not a set of beliefs*, which is essential to the definition.  You can't make a religion out of an adjectival phrase.  Can't do it.  Again, if you don't articulate a reference, no one knows what the hell you're talking about.  One cannot describe oneself as an "a-ican'tsaywhatitis-ist".
Click to expand...



This is your definition, you put it out here btw.

Atheism *Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.* Atheists are not bunch of people who just said "Meeeeh, I will just reject god today" one day out of nothing. They were *concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe and especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, *and they came to the conclusion of atheism. So you are defining atheism in here, just like any other religious person.

What is so hard here, I don't get....



Ahhhhhh, of course, how could I forget; religious people have beliefs, but yours are, what you call it, oh, right, FACTS.

Than let me apologize and make things straight; You are right, I am wrong. Atheism is not a religion.

But the only difference between a religion and atheism is; the naming of the perception.

Religious people have beliefs (what a disgusting word)

Atheists have FACTS (wohooo, look at the fanciness of this people, FACT!!! unfallible bitch...)




That makes ATHEISM the SMUG brother of the religion family.

...


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> [
> 
> This is from one of Carla's first posts:
> 
> "
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6."
> 
> There is no objective evidence to support this position.  A conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.  So the claim that Carla is just rejecting, that it is a "void", is just not true.  Which means that either, according to your definition, Carla is not an Atheist or your definition of Atheism is wrong.
> 
> To use your analogy, what if when you are telling us you are not wearing a kimono you are standing in front of us wearing one?


 

But Carla is rejecting, due to lack of evidence. Carla gave up her belief, due to lack of evidence, and by doing that, Carla gave up her religion. Carla is no longer religious, nor is she affiliated with any religion/religious group.[/QUOTE]

No.  Carla indicates she is number 6.  She thinks that God is very improbable.  There is no evidence to support that.  It is a belief.  She didn't give up beliefs, she changed beliefs.  So either she is not an Atheist or your definition is wrong.

Then let us take the number 7.  An Atheist who says they are 100% sure there is no God. Dawkins says this is not just an Atheist but a strong Atheist.  Anyone holding that position is operating on pure faith.  How does that fit into your definition?


----------



## PratchettFan

asaratis said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a bird's nest would not be natural.  Nor would a wasp's nest or bee hive.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  That is their natural way of protecting and raising their young.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then help me out here.  If a bird uses natural material to make something, that is natural.  But if a human uses natural material to make something, that is not natural.  What is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is my opinion:
> 
> A bird's instinct to build a nest (peculiar to its own species) is natural.  A bird house with a pitched roof, a round doorway and a SEE ROCK CITY sign painted on top is not.
> 
> A bee hive or hornets nest are both natural.  A beekeepers box is not.
> 
> My earlier example of iron ore and knives is clear.  Iron ore exists in nature.  Knives do not.
> 
> Humans differ from birds and bees in that we possess very few if any natural instinctive behaviors.  (The natural drives to eat, drink and procreate are all that I know of.) We learn from our parents and others.  We learn from experience.  We progressed over thousands of years from being cave dwellers (living in nature's free shelter) to building enclosed, air conditioned, lighted homes with running water by way of invention and innovation.   All these homes we build do not occur naturally.  We have taught ourselves to build them.
> 
> Semantics can be confusing. My original contention that your original statement is false is correct.
Click to expand...

 
Semantics can certainly be made to be confusing.  Human beings are natural and we do what is natural for us.  Anything we make is also natural.  It is not supernatural or unnatural.  Everything we use to make things are also entirely natural.  So your original contention the my original statement is false is false.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> No.  I don't see how that follows.
> 
> Again -- _how_ can you reject a theory without referencing the theory you're rejecting?
> 
> If I say "hand me that, please" -- what am I talking about?  "That" cup of coffee?   "That" pencil?  "That" piano?
> 
> "Religion" is a set of beliefs about the deeper universe (regardless whether those beliefs include theism or not).  Atheism *has no such beliefs* in itself; it simply rejects one of many theories.  Therefore it does not qualify, having no doctrinal framework that makes a religion a religion.  An atheist may hold any number of beliefs in that area, even directly contradictory to those of another atheist.  Because atheism doesn't dictate any particular belief at all.  It tells us absolutely nothing about what the subject believes.



There you go painting yourself into a corner again.

Active atheists, like you, define the universe by saying that god does not exist. That, like it or not, is a belief. Every single time you try to claim you don't believe that you end up arguing that very fact, and always end up looking like an idiot.

If you truly did not define the universe as being without god it would not matter to you if someone else insisted that god is the foundation of the universe, you would care as little as you do when someone tells their child about the Easter Bunny.


----------



## Pogo

> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> This is from one of Carla's first posts:
> 
> "
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6."
> 
> There is no objective evidence to support this position.  A conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.  So the claim that Carla is just rejecting, that it is a "void", is just not true.  Which means that either, according to your definition, Carla is not an Atheist or your definition of Atheism is wrong.
> 
> To use your analogy, what if when you are telling us you are not wearing a kimono you are standing in front of us wearing one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Carla is rejecting, due to lack of evidence. Carla gave up her belief, due to lack of evidence, and by doing that, Carla gave up her religion. Carla is no longer religious, nor is she affiliated with any religion/religious group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Carla indicates she is number 6.  She thinks that God is very improbable.  There is no evidence to support that.  It is a belief.  She didn't give up beliefs, she changed beliefs.  So either she is not an Atheist or your definition is wrong.
> 
> Then let us take the number 7.  An Atheist who says they are 100% sure there is no God. Dawkins says this is not just an Atheist but a strong Atheist.  Anyone holding that position is operating on pure faith.  How does that fit into your definition?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




As we said back at the beginning, there's no evidence that a number 7 actually exists; at least not in this thread. I think that's put there simply to establish the abstract extreme. Obviously one cannot "prove" a negative, but then we speak of beliefs, not facts.

Dude, you have got to clean these up.  I don't know who quoted what at this point so I'm putting the entire thing in a quote box.


----------



## Carla_Danger

alpine said:


> Have you ever seen a Bigfoot?
> 
> If you did, would you believe the reality of a Bigfoot?
> 
> Have you ever seen a "religious" person?..................
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence to religion, is the religious people you see all around you, every day, multiple times.




Now that's some serious indoctrination going on. I only have the strength to address your post in small doses.

First, to answer your first two questions...

1.  No, I have never seen Bigfoot

2. If I were to see Bigfoot, yes, I would believe in Bigfoot, but only if I knew for certain that my mind was in tact. For example, If I had been drinking wine, I would question my sobriety. If I dropped a hit of acid, I would probably blame it on the acid. See what I'm saying?

I think both of us know I'm never going to actually see Bigfoot, and just because others say it's so, doesn't make it so.  

Now your next question and statement is totally mind boggling to me. It appears that you base your religious beliefs on mob mentality.

3. Yes, I've seen religious people, and yes, I do believe religious people do exist. 

That doesn't automatically mean that I have to believe in their religion.

There are over one billion people in this world who believe in Allah. Does that make you a Muslim? Does that mean they are correct, just because they are out there, with billions of examples?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Carla_Danger said:


> Why do you hate our Constitution?



By "your constitution" I assume you mean that of the constitution of the Khmer Rouge, correct?



> What part of "Separation of Church and State" do you not understand?



Ah, so you think Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Church is the Constitution?

You voted for Obama, dinja?



> Here's the best thing Ronald Reagan ever did.....he had a son.



You cannot formulate a cogent argument, can you?


----------



## Pogo

alpine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because ATHEISM;
> *
> 1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
> 2. And especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*
> 
> So the conclusion; you may not be as much religious as other people are on this planet, but after all, you are religious by definition...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to conflate "religion" and "theism".  If you're asking about me personally, yes I am religious and no I am not a theist.  You have to understand the distinction first and stop ramming them into the same thing like a Certs breath mint.
> 
> This:
> *1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*
> 
> Is still* not a set of beliefs*, which is essential to the definition.  You can't make a religion out of an adjectival phrase.  Can't do it.  Again, if you don't articulate a reference, no one knows what the hell you're talking about.  One cannot describe oneself as an "a-ican'tsaywhatitis-ist".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is your definition, you put it out here btw.
> 
> Atheism *Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.* Atheists are not bunch of people who just said "Meeeeh, I will just reject god today" one day out of nothing. They were *concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe and especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, *and they came to the conclusion of atheism. So you are defining atheism in here, just like any other religious person.
> 
> What is so hard here, I don't get....
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhhhh, of course, how could I forget; religious people have beliefs, but yours are, what you call it, oh, right, FACTS.
> 
> Than let me apologize and make things straight; You are right, I am wrong. Atheism is not a religion.
> 
> But the only difference between a religion and atheism is; the naming of the perception.
> 
> Religious people have beliefs (what a disgusting word)
> 
> Atheists have FACTS (wohooo, look at the fanciness of this people, FACT!!! unfallible bitch...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes ATHEISM the SMUG brother of the religion family.
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


Emotional meltdown continues...

(a) You argue that the Creator is the Flying Spaghetti Monster;
(b) I consider your theory and decide it is without merit.
(c) the end.

Nothing "smug", "disgusting", "fancy", "bitchy" or "infallible" about it --- in fact no emotion present at all.  Premise presented; premise rejected.  Not rocket surgery.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Moonglow said:


> Why is this  what I imagine with this post..??



Because you have the IQ of a lamp post.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree religion doesn't need a "god" in definition, but if you look at the definition up above in the OP:
> 
> "the belief in and *worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."*
> 
> Am I reading this wrong?
> 
> So when you are defining yourself in the framework of "theism" as an a(nti)-theist, and the religion is defined as theism(as in the OP), than atheism becomes a religion itself. Innit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I don't see how that follows.
> 
> How can you reject a theory without referencing the theory you're rejecting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can not, therefore, you are bound to it, like atheism being bound to theism, religion...
> 
> Religions are real, gods are real, they are the production of our brain (just like other real thoughts we have) and a specific setup in our brain too. But this same specific setup also produce the atheistic view.
> 
> As a result, you either produce your christianity, islam, buddhism,... or atheism. Atheism is your own production just like the other views in religion. Your religious view is an atheistic one. You don't believe in gods, nor supernatural being, but some other things that make the universe as we know it, if you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void.  What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief.  It only tells us one theory that is *not *present.
> 
> If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I _*am*_ wearing.  I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.
> 
> And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed.  _*That's the whole point in dismissing it*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is from one of Carla's first posts:
> 
> "
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6."
> 
> There is no objective evidence to support this position.  A conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.  So the claim that Carla is just rejecting, that it is a "void", is just not true.  Which means that either, according to your definition, Carla is not an Atheist or your definition of Atheism is wrong.
> 
> To use your analogy, what if when you are telling us you are not wearing a kimono you are standing in front of us wearing one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that analogy is inoperative.  In order to see what I'm wearing, the cognate would require that we see into the atheist's mind to determine if his words match his thoughts.  Not only can't we do that, it's irrelevant.
> 
> And more to the point of the thread, _*none *_of this is an argument that "atheism is a religion".
Click to expand...

 
If the analogy is inappropriate you shouldn't have used it.

I stated earlier that religion is not just a word, it is action.  I identified attributes of religion and I saw no disputes to those attributes.  One of those attributes is that religion is based in belief.  I think the question of whether belief is involved in Atheism is certainly pertinent.


----------



## Pogo

Carla_Danger said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever seen a Bigfoot?
> 
> If you did, would you believe the reality of a Bigfoot?
> 
> Have you ever seen a "religious" person?..................
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence to religion, is the religious people you see all around you, every day, multiple times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's some serious indoctrination going on. I only have the strength to address your post in small doses.
> 
> First, to answer your first two questions...
> 
> 1.  No, I have never seen Bigfoot
> 
> 2. If I were to see Bigfoot, yes, I would believe in Bigfoot, but only if I knew for certain that my mind was in tact. For example, If I had been drinking wine, I would question my sobriety. If I dropped a hit of acid, I would probably blame it on the acid. See what I'm saying?
> 
> I think both of us know I'm never going to actually see Bigfoot, and just because others say it's so, doesn't make it so.
> 
> Now your next question and statement is totally mind boggling to me. It appears that you base your religious beliefs on mob mentality.
> 
> 3. Yes, I've seen religious people, and yes, I do believe religious people do exist.
> 
> That doesn't automatically mean that I have to believe in their religion.
> 
> There are over one billion people in this world who believe in Allah. Does that make you a Muslim? Does that mean they are correct, just because they are out there, with billions of examples?
Click to expand...


Wait, you just wrote "Allah".  That makes you "bound to Islam".
According to the same logic...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> The generic god that most people on USMB argue for, it really doesn't matter if there is or isn't a god.



The only people that argue for a generic god are the atheists who have to define god their way so that no one else can offer any evidence that such a god can exist. Most believers believe in a god that is very much the opposite of generic.



sealybobo said:


> So really the only god that I argue against is the one you say will send me to hell if I don't believe in him or the Muslim one that says kill anyone who isn't a muslim.  And I'm sure you have to be a Mormon or Jehova to go to heaven right?



Then why the fuck do you keep arguing with me? I have actually pointed out that Hell isn't real, yet you insist the god I think might be real does not exist. Perhaps you have had your head up your ass, or perhaps you are a lying sack of shit. Either way, you end up looking like a fool.



sealybobo said:


> All other gods are harmless.



Ever here of Shiva? Pretty sure the nickname the Destroyer isn't an indication of harmlessness. Then we have gods like Ares and Guan Yu, neither of which are noted for being harmless.



sealybobo said:


> So if not believing in YOUR GOD is a religion, where do I join?



In your ignorant excuse for a brain, where else?



sealybobo said:


> If I'm obsessed about your god it's because your stories are so god damn stupid and you were clearly brainwashed to believe such stupid stories.  The more I hear the less I believe.  The other day am radio they were talking about ancient revelations that came true.  First off, so fucking what and second off, prove it?  Or show me a new proficy fulfilled.  Tell me one that has yet to be fullfilled and that is coming up, besides the end of the world.  The mark of the beast?  You freaking kooks crack me up.



You really should study some comparative mythology.

Better yet, read all those fairy tales you think are suitable for children in their original forms.


----------



## Carla_Danger

alpine said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all?  Where is a set of beliefs about anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.
> 
> Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".
> 
> You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.
> 
> *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, you most certainly can reject religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.
> 
> That would be silly, innit?
Click to expand...




More mob mentality...


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I don't see how that follows.
> 
> How can you reject a theory without referencing the theory you're rejecting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can not, therefore, you are bound to it, like atheism being bound to theism, religion...
> 
> Religions are real, gods are real, they are the production of our brain (just like other real thoughts we have) and a specific setup in our brain too. But this same specific setup also produce the atheistic view.
> 
> As a result, you either produce your christianity, islam, buddhism,... or atheism. Atheism is your own production just like the other views in religion. Your religious view is an atheistic one. You don't believe in gods, nor supernatural being, but some other things that make the universe as we know it, if you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void.  What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief.  It only tells us one theory that is *not *present.
> 
> If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I _*am*_ wearing.  I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.
> 
> And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed.  _*That's the whole point in dismissing it*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is from one of Carla's first posts:
> 
> "
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6."
> 
> There is no objective evidence to support this position.  A conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.  So the claim that Carla is just rejecting, that it is a "void", is just not true.  Which means that either, according to your definition, Carla is not an Atheist or your definition of Atheism is wrong.
> 
> To use your analogy, what if when you are telling us you are not wearing a kimono you are standing in front of us wearing one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that analogy is inoperative.  In order to see what I'm wearing, the cognate would require that we see into the atheist's mind to determine if his words match his thoughts.  Not only can't we do that, it's irrelevant.
> 
> And more to the point of the thread, _*none *_of this is an argument that "atheism is a religion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the analogy is inappropriate you shouldn't have used it.
> 
> I stated earlier that religion is not just a word, it is action.  I identified attributes of religion and I saw no disputes to those attributes.  One of those attributes is that religion is based in belief.  I think the question of whether belief is involved in Atheism is certainly pertinent.
Click to expand...


No, it is the _opposite_ of action.  Only the thought process is an action.  You're conflating thought process with action just as the other poster was conflating _theism _with _religion_.

And you're moving goalposts here -- the question is not, and never has been, whether atheism refers to beliefs; of course it does.  The point is it does not _*espouse*_ any beliefs.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all?  Where is a set of beliefs about anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a "set of beliefs", it is a *single non-belief*.  The answer is the set of beliefs requested to qualify a religion --  simply _does not exist._  It is a zero.  Zero can never be "one".  It is the absence (i.e. non-presence) of the designated belief.
> 
> I don't believe in satyrs.  That doesn't make asatyrism a "religion".  Don't know what's so elusive about that.
Click to expand...

 
Ok.  I just want to point out that you just made up a word.  Kind of brought a tear to my eye.


----------



## alpine

Carla_Danger said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever seen a Bigfoot?
> 
> If you did, would you believe the reality of a Bigfoot?
> 
> Have you ever seen a "religious" person?..................
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence to religion, is the religious people you see all around you, every day, multiple times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's some serious indoctrination going on. I only have the strength to address your post in small doses.
> 
> First, to answer your first two questions...
> 
> 1.  No, I have never seen Bigfoot
> 
> 2. If I were to see Bigfoot, yes, I would believe in Bigfoot, but only if I knew for certain that my mind was in tact. For example, If I had been drinking wine, I would question my sobriety. If I dropped a hit of acid, I would probably blame it on the acid. See what I'm saying?
> 
> I think both of us know I'm never going to actually see Bigfoot, and just because others say it's so, doesn't make it so.
> 
> Now your next question and statement is totally mind boggling to me. It appears that you base your religious beliefs on mob mentality.
> 
> 3. Yes, I've seen religious people, and yes, I do believe religious people do exist.
> 
> That doesn't automatically mean that I have to believe in their religion.
> 
> There are over one billion people in this world who believe in Allah. Does that make you a Muslim? Does that mean they are correct, just because they are out there, with billions of examples?
Click to expand...


I didn't say "in their religion", I said "in religion". 

If religious people do exist, guess what also exists alongside; "religion". Because these people have one! Maybe you do not, but statistically, you most likely have one, in a different shape, like atheism...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> The definition of Church is a building used for public Christian worship. If they're calling it a church, that's incorrect. It's nothing more than a community center, because they worship no one.
> 
> .



Not according to the IRS. The reason for that is pretty simple, for intelligent people, to grasp. Defining a church as being exclusively Christian would create a state recognized religion.


----------



## Pogo

alpine said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever seen a Bigfoot?
> 
> If you did, would you believe the reality of a Bigfoot?
> 
> Have you ever seen a "religious" person?..................
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence to religion, is the religious people you see all around you, every day, multiple times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's some serious indoctrination going on. I only have the strength to address your post in small doses.
> 
> First, to answer your first two questions...
> 
> 1.  No, I have never seen Bigfoot
> 
> 2. If I were to see Bigfoot, yes, I would believe in Bigfoot, but only if I knew for certain that my mind was in tact. For example, If I had been drinking wine, I would question my sobriety. If I dropped a hit of acid, I would probably blame it on the acid. See what I'm saying?
> 
> I think both of us know I'm never going to actually see Bigfoot, and just because others say it's so, doesn't make it so.
> 
> Now your next question and statement is totally mind boggling to me. It appears that you base your religious beliefs on mob mentality.
> 
> 3. Yes, I've seen religious people, and yes, I do believe religious people do exist.
> 
> That doesn't automatically mean that I have to believe in their religion.
> 
> There are over one billion people in this world who believe in Allah. Does that make you a Muslim? Does that mean they are correct, just because they are out there, with billions of examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say "in their religion", I said "in religion".
> 
> If religious people do exist, guess what also exists alongside; "religion". Because these people have one! Maybe you do not, but statistically, you most likely have one, in a different shape, like atheism...
Click to expand...


This just in: Atheism is not a religion.  Breaking news.  
Buddhists and Jainists and Taoists are all atheists; yet they are all different religions.  And that's _three _religions --- not four.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Atheists aren't trying to convert anyone.
> 
> They just don't want to hear the bullshit. Keep it in your churches/temples/mosques and homes.
> 
> We fucking pay for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to convert people, you just want to shut them up because you disagree with them. I have only one thing to say to that, fuck you. Everyone has a fucking fright to say whatever the fuck they want, even you. The fact that someone has to take the time to explain that to the idiots, like you, shows just how wrong you are when you argue that atheism is not a religion. If you don't understand the reference I can refer you to a long history of various religions working to suppress the words of people that challenged their doctrines.
Click to expand...



I agree.  Everyone has a fucking fright.


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all?  Where is a set of beliefs about anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a "set of beliefs", it is a *single non-belief*.  The answer is the set of beliefs requested to qualify a religion --  simply _does not exist._  It is a zero.  Zero can never be "one".  It is the absence (i.e. non-presence) of the designated belief.
> 
> I don't believe in satyrs.  That doesn't make asatyrism a "religion".  Don't know what's so elusive about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  I just want to point out that you just made up a word.  Kind of brought a tear to my eye.
Click to expand...



I was born on a Satyrday too.


----------



## asaratis

Quantum Windbag said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  It is man made.  Invented and constructed by man as opposed to occurring naturally.  Iron ore is natural.  Knives are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the intrinsic difference between a beaver dam and a dam made by man? What makes one natural, and the other unnatural? Defining natural in such a way that you exclude the works of human beings is, at best, simplistic.
Click to expand...

Beavers build dams instinctively.  Men learned to build dams from seeing the results of what beavers did naturally (by instinct).   Concrete dams do not exist in nature.  They are man made after a learning process.



Quantum Windbag said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]Wrong.  That is their natural way of protecting and raising their young.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And a house is man's natural way of doing the exact same thing.
Click to expand...

Huts and houses did not occur until man learned to build them.  The first humans had no houses.  Many lived in caves.  Many learned that getting under a tree of a pile of leaves gave them some shelter. Man's building of homes was a learned practice, not a natural instinct.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Seems like it.  Since they won't answer the question, that will have to do.
> 
> And it makes logical sense; in other words once it's been pointed out that they've painted themselves into a corner, they want company in that corner, presumably to save face.  So they start insisting, "hey, you're standing in the corner too" --- to people who aren't even in the _room_.



Hate to point out the obvious, but rationality and reason are the very foundations of all religious thought since the days of Plato. By arguing that your reason trumps that of others you are arguing in favor of your religious viewpoints, even if you don't know that. I am pretty sure Maher is educated enough to understand what he is saying, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Pogo

Carla_Danger said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all?  Where is a set of beliefs about anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.
> 
> Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".
> 
> You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.
> 
> *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, you most certainly can reject religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.
> 
> That would be silly, innit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More mob mentality...
Click to expand...


As they used to tell me in elementary school, "if everybody else jumped in the lake would you jump in too?"  -- always in response to a kid that explained his reasoning that he did something "because everybody else did it".

I have to thank the for teaching that fallacy early on.  In a Catholic school.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void.  What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief.  It only tells us one theory that is *not *present.
> 
> If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I _*am*_ wearing.  I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.
> 
> And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed.  _*That's the whole point in dismissing it*_.



Yet you make it into a production by using the philosophy behind religion to make your point.

Interesting.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can not, therefore, you are bound to it, like atheism being bound to theism, religion...
> 
> Religions are real, gods are real, they are the production of our brain (just like other real thoughts we have) and a specific setup in our brain too. But this same specific setup also produce the atheistic view.
> 
> As a result, you either produce your christianity, islam, buddhism,... or atheism. Atheism is your own production just like the other views in religion. Your religious view is an atheistic one. You don't believe in gods, nor supernatural being, but some other things that make the universe as we know it, if you are an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void.  What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief.  It only tells us one theory that is *not *present.
> 
> If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I _*am*_ wearing.  I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.
> 
> And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed.  _*That's the whole point in dismissing it*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is from one of Carla's first posts:
> 
> "
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6."
> 
> There is no objective evidence to support this position.  A conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.  So the claim that Carla is just rejecting, that it is a "void", is just not true.  Which means that either, according to your definition, Carla is not an Atheist or your definition of Atheism is wrong.
> 
> To use your analogy, what if when you are telling us you are not wearing a kimono you are standing in front of us wearing one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that analogy is inoperative.  In order to see what I'm wearing, the cognate would require that we see into the atheist's mind to determine if his words match his thoughts.  Not only can't we do that, it's irrelevant.
> 
> And more to the point of the thread, _*none *_of this is an argument that "atheism is a religion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the analogy is inappropriate you shouldn't have used it.
> 
> I stated earlier that religion is not just a word, it is action.  I identified attributes of religion and I saw no disputes to those attributes.  One of those attributes is that religion is based in belief.  I think the question of whether belief is involved in Atheism is certainly pertinent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is the _opposite_ of action.  Only the thought process is an action.  You're conflating thought process with action just as the other poster was conflating _theism _with _religion_.
> 
> And you're moving goalposts here -- the question is not, and never has been, whether atheism refers to beliefs; of course it does.  The point is it does not _*espouse*_ any beliefs.
Click to expand...

 
No, it not the opposite of action.  Belief is entirely a thought process, but how we act based upon that belief is action.  Religion is action arising from belief.  It need not arise at all, but if it does it arises from belief.  That is its nature. 

Atheists obviously espouse beliefs.  What the heck was Carla doing when she said she thinks God is improbable if not espousing a belief?  If you are not espousing your belief, what are you doing here?


----------



## alpine

Pogo said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because ATHEISM;
> *
> 1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
> 2. And especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*
> 
> So the conclusion; you may not be as much religious as other people are on this planet, but after all, you are religious by definition...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to conflate "religion" and "theism".  If you're asking about me personally, yes I am religious and no I am not a theist.  You have to understand the distinction first and stop ramming them into the same thing like a Certs breath mint.
> 
> This:
> *1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*
> 
> Is still* not a set of beliefs*, which is essential to the definition.  You can't make a religion out of an adjectival phrase.  Can't do it.  Again, if you don't articulate a reference, no one knows what the hell you're talking about.  One cannot describe oneself as an "a-ican'tsaywhatitis-ist".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is your definition, you put it out here btw.
> 
> Atheism *Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.* Atheists are not bunch of people who just said "Meeeeh, I will just reject god today" one day out of nothing. They were *concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe and especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, *and they came to the conclusion of atheism. So you are defining atheism in here, just like any other religious person.
> 
> What is so hard here, I don't get....
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhhhh, of course, how could I forget; religious people have beliefs, but yours are, what you call it, oh, right, FACTS.
> 
> Than let me apologize and make things straight; You are right, I am wrong. Atheism is not a religion.
> 
> But the only difference between a religion and atheism is; the naming of the perception.
> 
> Religious people have beliefs (what a disgusting word)
> 
> Atheists have FACTS (wohooo, look at the fanciness of this people, FACT!!! unfallible bitch...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes ATHEISM the SMUG brother of the religion family.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emotional meltdown continues...
> 
> (a) You argue that the Creator is the Flying Spaghetti Monster;
> (b) I consider your theory and decide it is without merit.
> (c) the end.
> 
> Nothing "smug", "disgusting", "fancy", "bitchy" or "infallible" about it --- in fact no emotion present at all.  Premise presented; premise rejected.  Not rocket surgery.
Click to expand...



Why would I melt down? Because I don't have smilies like you have in my messages? 

Anyways, the FACT you are missing is, not all people come to the conclusion on religion like: "Premise presented; premise rejected". Ignorant and close minded people would find this process very convenient, but for the people who came up with the idea of "atheism", it was not.

The only reason they were atheists were because they were emotional on this subject. Otherwise they would do the same as the rest of the closed minded people who were many on their time; "Premise presented; premise rejected."

So actually the dictionary.com definition you put up here was a very correct and beautiful one comparing to the OP used. And I said I liked your definition better before. But now you are just rejecting your own definition.

Atheist people very well suits the definition you put up here. And that is a very good thing I believe. I don't understand any atheist trying to differentiate themselves from religious people. 

Up in the brain, we are all the same and atheists should know this better than anyone, rather than being SMUG about it...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> I'm afraid that definition is faultily limited.  It's a definition of _theistic _religion.
> 
> More inclusive for this purpose, brought forth from earlier:
> 
> *religion* [ri-lij-uh n]
> noun
> 1.
> a set of beliefs *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*, *especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (Dictionary.com)



Funny, that sounds a lot like science to me. Does that mean you think science is a religion, or does it actually mean that your proffered definition is faulty? Personally, I vote for the latter, but you are probably stupid enough that you will argue that science is a religion.


----------



## Pogo

Carla_Danger said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Atheists aren't trying to convert anyone.
> 
> They just don't want to hear the bullshit. Keep it in your churches/temples/mosques and homes.
> 
> We fucking pay for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to convert people, you just want to shut them up because you disagree with them. I have only one thing to say to that, fuck you. Everyone has a fucking fright to say whatever the fuck they want, even you. The fact that someone has to take the time to explain that to the idiots, like you, shows just how wrong you are when you argue that atheism is not a religion. If you don't understand the reference I can refer you to a long history of various religions working to suppress the words of people that challenged their doctrines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  Everyone has a fucking fright.
Click to expand...


I understand we're all born with a fear of falling...


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void.  What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief.  It only tells us one theory that is *not *present.
> 
> If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I _*am*_ wearing.  I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.
> 
> And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed.  _*That's the whole point in dismissing it*_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is from one of Carla's first posts:
> 
> "
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6."
> 
> There is no objective evidence to support this position.  A conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.  So the claim that Carla is just rejecting, that it is a "void", is just not true.  Which means that either, according to your definition, Carla is not an Atheist or your definition of Atheism is wrong.
> 
> To use your analogy, what if when you are telling us you are not wearing a kimono you are standing in front of us wearing one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that analogy is inoperative.  In order to see what I'm wearing, the cognate would require that we see into the atheist's mind to determine if his words match his thoughts.  Not only can't we do that, it's irrelevant.
> 
> And more to the point of the thread, _*none *_of this is an argument that "atheism is a religion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the analogy is inappropriate you shouldn't have used it.
> 
> I stated earlier that religion is not just a word, it is action.  I identified attributes of religion and I saw no disputes to those attributes.  One of those attributes is that religion is based in belief.  I think the question of whether belief is involved in Atheism is certainly pertinent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is the _opposite_ of action.  Only the thought process is an action.  You're conflating thought process with action just as the other poster was conflating _theism _with _religion_.
> 
> And you're moving goalposts here -- the question is not, and never has been, whether atheism refers to beliefs; of course it does.  The point is it does not _*espouse*_ any beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it not the opposite of action.  Belief is entirely a thought process, but how we act based upon that belief is action.  Religion is action arising from belief.  It need not arise at all, but if it does it arises from belief.  That is its nature.
> 
> Atheists obviously espouse beliefs.  What the heck was Carla doing when she said she thinks God is improbable if not espousing a belief?  If you are not espousing your belief, what are you doing here?
Click to expand...


Describing a thought process.

This post describes a thought process, as does yours.  Doesn't qualify either as "religions".

Again, you cannot have a "religion" until you espouse some set of beliefs or philosophy.  Those are absent, ergo religion not qualified.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Quantum Windbag said:


> Funny, that sounds a lot like science to me. Does that mean you think science is a religion, or does it actually mean that your proffered definition is faulty? Personally, I vote for the latter, but you are probably stupid enough that you will argue that science is a religion.



Science is not a religion. Science is a process, a methodology for discovery. Science postulates nothing, it merely offers the tools for people to test what they postulate.


----------



## Carla_Danger

alpine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because ATHEISM;
> *
> 1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
> 2. And especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*
> 
> So the conclusion; you may not be as much religious as other people are on this planet, but after all, you are religious by definition...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to conflate "religion" and "theism".  If you're asking about me personally, yes I am religious and no I am not a theist.  You have to understand the distinction first and stop ramming them into the same thing like a Certs breath mint.
> 
> This:
> *1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*
> 
> Is still* not a set of beliefs*, which is essential to the definition.  You can't make a religion out of an adjectival phrase.  Can't do it.  Again, if you don't articulate a reference, no one knows what the hell you're talking about.  One cannot describe oneself as an "a-ican'tsaywhatitis-ist".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is your definition, you put it out here btw.
> 
> Atheism *Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.* Atheists are not bunch of people who just said "Meeeeh, I will just reject god today" one day out of nothing. They were *concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe and especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, *and they came to the conclusion of atheism. So you are defining atheism in here, just like any other religious person.
> 
> What is so hard here, I don't get....
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhhhh, of course, how could I forget; religious people have beliefs, but yours are, what you call it, oh, right, FACTS.
> 
> Than let me apologize and make things straight; You are right, I am wrong. Atheism is not a religion.
> 
> But the only difference between a religion and atheism is; the naming of the perception.
> 
> Religious people have beliefs (what a disgusting word)
> 
> Atheists have FACTS (wohooo, look at the fanciness of this people, FACT!!! unfallible bitch...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes ATHEISM the SMUG brother of the religion family.
> 
> ...
Click to expand...



No, you don't get to put your un-reason on the same shelf as my reason.  (thank you, Bill Maher)


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> Since 1812 there have been examples that Bigfoot lives. There are even books on that subject, providing evidence. I reject that evidence. I do not believe in Bigfoot.  Is that a religion?



There has been no evidence that Bigfoot lives. There is, however, abundant evidence that religions are real.


----------



## alpine

Pogo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all?  Where is a set of beliefs about anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.
> 
> Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".
> 
> You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.
> 
> *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, you most certainly can reject religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.
> 
> That would be silly, innit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More mob mentality...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As they used to tell me in elementary school, "if everybody else jumped in the lake would you jump in too?"  -- always in response to a kid that explained his reasoning that he did something "because everybody else did it".
> 
> I have to thank the for teaching that fallacy early on.  In a Catholic school.
Click to expand...



Change "religion" with "love", you will see how your arguments not make sense at all.

Religion is a feeling, a very real one. Claiming otherwise is 1. would be silly, 2. against science and human evolutional psychology as we know it today...

I am just saying, you don;t have to believe me. You can go check it out and come back.


----------



## PratchettFan

[/QUOTE]

As we said back at the beginning, there's no evidence that a number 7 actually exists; at least not in this thread. I think that's put there simply to establish the abstract extreme. Obviously one cannot "prove" a negative, but then we speak of beliefs, not facts.

Dude, you have got to clean these up.  I don't know who quoted what at this point so I'm putting the entire thing in a quote box.[/QUOTE]

We don't need an example, we have Dawkins saying that a strong Atheist is 100% certain.  Was Dawkins wrong?  Because either he is wrong or you are.

I do try to clean it up but it seems every time I think I've figured it out the damn thing changes.


----------



## Pogo

alpine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because ATHEISM;
> *
> 1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
> 2. And especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*
> 
> So the conclusion; you may not be as much religious as other people are on this planet, but after all, you are religious by definition...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to conflate "religion" and "theism".  If you're asking about me personally, yes I am religious and no I am not a theist.  You have to understand the distinction first and stop ramming them into the same thing like a Certs breath mint.
> 
> This:
> *1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*
> 
> Is still* not a set of beliefs*, which is essential to the definition.  You can't make a religion out of an adjectival phrase.  Can't do it.  Again, if you don't articulate a reference, no one knows what the hell you're talking about.  One cannot describe oneself as an "a-ican'tsaywhatitis-ist".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is your definition, you put it out here btw.
> 
> Atheism *Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.* Atheists are not bunch of people who just said "Meeeeh, I will just reject god today" one day out of nothing. They were *concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe and especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, *and they came to the conclusion of atheism. So you are defining atheism in here, just like any other religious person.
> 
> What is so hard here, I don't get....
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhhhh, of course, how could I forget; religious people have beliefs, but yours are, what you call it, oh, right, FACTS.
> 
> Than let me apologize and make things straight; You are right, I am wrong. Atheism is not a religion.
> 
> But the only difference between a religion and atheism is; the naming of the perception.
> 
> Religious people have beliefs (what a disgusting word)
> 
> Atheists have FACTS (wohooo, look at the fanciness of this people, FACT!!! unfallible bitch...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes ATHEISM the SMUG brother of the religion family.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emotional meltdown continues...
> 
> (a) You argue that the Creator is the Flying Spaghetti Monster;
> (b) I consider your theory and decide it is without merit.
> (c) the end.
> 
> Nothing "smug", "disgusting", "fancy", "bitchy" or "infallible" about it --- in fact no emotion present at all.  Premise presented; premise rejected.  Not rocket surgery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I melt down? Because I don't have smilies like you have in my messages?
> 
> Anyways, the FACT you are missing is, not all people come to the conclusion on religion like: "Premise presented; premise rejected". Ignorant and close minded people would find this process very convenient, but for the people who came up with the idea of "atheism", it was not.
> 
> *The only reason they were atheists were because they were emotional on this subject*. Otherwise they would do the same as the rest of the closed minded people who were many on their time; "Premise presented; premise rejected."
> 
> So actually the dictionary.com definition you put up here was a very correct and beautiful one comparing to the OP used. And I said I liked your definition better before. But now you are just rejecting your own definition.
> 
> Atheist people very well suits the definition you put up here. And that is a very good thing I believe. I don't understand any atheist trying to differentiate themselves from religious people.
> 
> Up in the brain, we are all the same and atheists should know this better than anyone, rather than being SMUG about it...
Click to expand...


Once again, "smug" is your own plug-in, as is your implied history above.  Strawman.  There is no emotion in a simple cold logical conclusion.

And no I'm in no way "rejecting my own definition".   On the contrary it's crucial.


----------



## Pogo

alpine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.
> 
> Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".
> 
> You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.
> 
> *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, you most certainly can reject religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.
> 
> That would be silly, innit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More mob mentality...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As they used to tell me in elementary school, "if everybody else jumped in the lake would you jump in too?"  -- always in response to a kid that explained his reasoning that he did something "because everybody else did it".
> 
> I have to thank the for teaching that fallacy early on.  In a Catholic school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Change "religion" with "love", you will see how your arguments not make sense at all.
> 
> Religion is a feeling, a very real one. Claiming otherwise is 1. would be silly, 2. against science and human evolutional psychology as we know it today...
> 
> I am just saying, you don;t have to believe me. You can go check it out and come back.
Click to expand...


That doesn't make any sense.  I didn't even use the word "religion" there.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Wait -- did you just declare Wikipedia to be infallible?
> 
> The definition in the OP was unnecessarily limited to theistic religions.  "Theism" and "religion" continue not to be synonyms.  So I supplied a more inclusive definition that doesn't exclude nontheistic religions.  Unless you're about to tell us that Buddhism and Taoism are not "religions".  Good luck making that case, because here's Wiki again, apparently contradicting itself:
> 
> *Jainism* /ˈdʒeɪnɪz(ə)m/, traditionally known as Jaina Shasana or Jaina dharma (Sanskrit: जैन धर्म), is *a nontheistic Indian religion* that prescribes a path of ahimsa - nonviolence - towards all living beings, and emphasizes spiritual independence and equality between all forms of life.​



Interesting.

Jainists make no attempt to define the purpose of the universe, therefore it is not a religion if your preferred definition is right. 

On the other hand, if religion does not have to concern itself with things like you insist are the elements of religion, then atheism can be a religion.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The generic god that most people on USMB argue for, it really doesn't matter if there is or isn't a god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only people that argue for a generic god are the atheists who have to define god their way so that no one else can offer any evidence that such a god can exist. Most believers believe in a god that is very much the opposite of generic.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So really the only god that I argue against is the one you say will send me to hell if I don't believe in him or the Muslim one that says kill anyone who isn't a muslim.  And I'm sure you have to be a Mormon or Jehova to go to heaven right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why the fuck do you keep arguing with me? I have actually pointed out that Hell isn't real, yet you insist the god I think might be real does not exist. Perhaps you have had your head up your ass, or perhaps you are a lying sack of shit. Either way, you end up looking like a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> All other gods are harmless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever here of Shiva? Pretty sure the nickname the Destroyer isn't an indication of harmlessness. Then we have gods like Ares and Guan Yu, neither of which are noted for being harmless.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if not believing in YOUR GOD is a religion, where do I join?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your ignorant excuse for a brain, where else?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm obsessed about your god it's because your stories are so god damn stupid and you were clearly brainwashed to believe such stupid stories.  The more I hear the less I believe.  The other day am radio they were talking about ancient revelations that came true.  First off, so fucking what and second off, prove it?  Or show me a new proficy fulfilled.  Tell me one that has yet to be fullfilled and that is coming up, besides the end of the world.  The mark of the beast?  You freaking kooks crack me up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really should study some comparative mythology.
> 
> Better yet, read all those fairy tales you think are suitable for children in their original forms.
Click to expand...


Why not instead I should just call that preacher on my tv and give him my credit card so he can bless me after 10 easy payments of $77.  

Do you argue with boss?  He believes in a generic god.  Oh,and so do you if you don't believe in hell.

Now I'm confused.  Are you a christian?  Which sect?  Presby, Luteran, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Jehova, Born again, non denom, greek orthodox, etc?

Now you have to tell us if you take the Adam, Moses & Noah stories literally or are they just allegories?  And if they are, maybe the Jesus miracles didn't happen either.  I mean those stories were all written 80 years or more after the fact.  

Truth?  I don't think so.


----------



## PratchettFan

As we said back at the beginning, there's no evidence that a number 7 actually exists; at least not in this thread. I think that's put there simply to establish the abstract extreme. Obviously one cannot "prove" a negative, but then we speak of beliefs, not facts.

Dude, you have got to clean these up.  I don't know who quoted what at this point so I'm putting the entire thing in a quote box.[/QUOTE]

We don't need an example, we have Dawkins saying that a strong Atheist is 100% certain.  Was Dawkins wrong?  Because either he is wrong or you are.

I do try to clean it up but it seems every time I think I've figured it out the damn thing changes.[/QUOTE]

Ok....  I just give up.  If anyone wants to talk with me they are just going to have to accept I'm incompetent and cut me some slack.


----------



## alpine

Carla_Danger said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because ATHEISM;
> *
> 1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
> 2. And especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies*
> 
> So the conclusion; you may not be as much religious as other people are on this planet, but after all, you are religious by definition...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to conflate "religion" and "theism".  If you're asking about me personally, yes I am religious and no I am not a theist.  You have to understand the distinction first and stop ramming them into the same thing like a Certs breath mint.
> 
> This:
> *1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*
> 
> Is still* not a set of beliefs*, which is essential to the definition.  You can't make a religion out of an adjectival phrase.  Can't do it.  Again, if you don't articulate a reference, no one knows what the hell you're talking about.  One cannot describe oneself as an "a-ican'tsaywhatitis-ist".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is your definition, you put it out here btw.
> 
> Atheism *Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.* Atheists are not bunch of people who just said "Meeeeh, I will just reject god today" one day out of nothing. They were *concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe and especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, *and they came to the conclusion of atheism. So you are defining atheism in here, just like any other religious person.
> 
> What is so hard here, I don't get....
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhhhh, of course, how could I forget; religious people have beliefs, but yours are, what you call it, oh, right, FACTS.
> 
> Than let me apologize and make things straight; You are right, I am wrong. Atheism is not a religion.
> 
> But the only difference between a religion and atheism is; the naming of the perception.
> 
> Religious people have beliefs (what a disgusting word)
> 
> Atheists have FACTS (wohooo, look at the fanciness of this people, FACT!!! unfallible bitch...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes ATHEISM the SMUG brother of the religion family.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't get to put your un-reason on the same shelf as my reason.  (thank you, Bill Maher)
Click to expand...


I am not saying they are the same. They are no where close being the same. But something being retared doesnt qualify you to ignore it, regret it, claim to be any less retarded when it comes to being retarded.

Just be real. Yes, I am an atheist. I have my beliefs that I call facts, because, I spent more time on them to understand.

Just say this, rather than to be a smug about it. Thats all I am saying. Because at the end, nothing is FACT when it comes to our perception of the world, no matter how educated it is....


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> Why do you hate our Constitution?  What part of "Separation of Church and State" do you not understand?



The part you think exist but really doesn't.

AKA, the part where you have the right to tell other people what they can say.


----------



## Pogo

As we said back at the beginning, there's no evidence that a number 7 actually exists; at least not in this thread. I think that's put there simply to establish the abstract extreme. Obviously one cannot "prove" a negative, but then we speak of beliefs, not facts.

Dude, you have got to clean these up.  I don't know who quoted what at this point so I'm putting the entire thing in a quote box.[/QUOTE]

We don't need an example, we have Dawkins saying that a strong Atheist is 100% certain.  Was Dawkins wrong?  Because either he is wrong or you are..[/QUOTE]

Where does it say a "strong atheist" actually exists in the real world?


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever seen a Bigfoot?
> 
> If you did, would you believe the reality of a Bigfoot?
> 
> Have you ever seen a "religious" person?..................
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence to religion, is the religious people you see all around you, every day, multiple times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's some serious indoctrination going on. I only have the strength to address your post in small doses.
> 
> First, to answer your first two questions...
> 
> 1.  No, I have never seen Bigfoot
> 
> 2. If I were to see Bigfoot, yes, I would believe in Bigfoot, but only if I knew for certain that my mind was in tact. For example, If I had been drinking wine, I would question my sobriety. If I dropped a hit of acid, I would probably blame it on the acid. See what I'm saying?
> 
> I think both of us know I'm never going to actually see Bigfoot, and just because others say it's so, doesn't make it so.
> 
> Now your next question and statement is totally mind boggling to me. It appears that you base your religious beliefs on mob mentality.
> 
> 3. Yes, I've seen religious people, and yes, I do believe religious people do exist.
> 
> That doesn't automatically mean that I have to believe in their religion.
> 
> There are over one billion people in this world who believe in Allah. Does that make you a Muslim? Does that mean they are correct, just because they are out there, with billions of examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say "in their religion", I said "in religion".
> 
> If religious people do exist, guess what also exists alongside; "religion". Because these people have one! Maybe you do not, but statistically, you most likely have one, in a different shape, like atheism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This just in: Atheism is not a religion.  Breaking news.
> Buddhists and Jainists and Taoists are all atheists; yet they are all different religions.  And that's _three _religions --- not four.
Click to expand...

 
Speaking as a Buddhist, you have that one wrong.  I'm not a Jainist or Taoist so I don't feel I should speak for them.  But aren't you just arguing that you can not believe in gods and still be in a religion?


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I don't see how that follows.
> 
> How can you reject a theory without referencing the theory you're rejecting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can not, therefore, you are bound to it, like atheism being bound to theism, religion...
> 
> Religions are real, gods are real, they are the production of our brain (just like other real thoughts we have) and a specific setup in our brain too. But this same specific setup also produce the atheistic view.
> 
> As a result, you either produce your christianity, islam, buddhism,... or atheism. Atheism is your own production just like the other views in religion. Your religious view is an atheistic one. You don't believe in gods, nor supernatural being, but some other things that make the universe as we know it, if you are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void.  What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief.  It only tells us one theory that is *not *present.
> 
> If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I _*am*_ wearing.  I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.
> 
> And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed.  _*That's the whole point in dismissing it*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is from one of Carla's first posts:
> 
> "
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6."
> 
> There is no objective evidence to support this position.  A conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.  So the claim that Carla is just rejecting, that it is a "void", is just not true.  Which means that either, according to your definition, Carla is not an Atheist or your definition of Atheism is wrong.
> 
> To use your analogy, what if when you are telling us you are not wearing a kimono you are standing in front of us wearing one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that analogy is inoperative.  In order to see what I'm wearing, the cognate would require that we see into the atheist's mind to determine if his words match his thoughts.  Not only can't we do that, it's irrelevant.
> 
> And more to the point of the thread, _*none *_of this is an argument that "atheism is a religion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the analogy is inappropriate you shouldn't have used it.
> 
> I stated earlier that religion is not just a word, it is action.  I identified attributes of religion and I saw no disputes to those attributes.  One of those attributes is that religion is based in belief.  I think the question of whether belief is involved in Atheism is certainly pertinent.
Click to expand...


Let me get this straight.  You say an imaginary man rules us and will send us to hell if we don't believe.  We don't believe you and you want to claim our doubt in your story is a belief?  

I could tell you 100 fake stories.  If you doubt each one, does that mean your doubt in my stories are your "beliefs"?  

For me to believe that, I would have to put a lot of importance on my stories, much like you theists do your stories.  But you need to realize, we don't.  

I say I'm a god.  If you don't believe that, is this your new faith?


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> As we said back at the beginning, there's no evidence that a number 7 actually exists; at least not in this thread. I think that's put there simply to establish the abstract extreme. Obviously one cannot "prove" a negative, but then we speak of beliefs, not facts.
> 
> Dude, you have got to clean these up.  I don't know who quoted what at this point so I'm putting the entire thing in a quote box.


 
We don't need an example, we have Dawkins saying that a strong Atheist is 100% certain.  Was Dawkins wrong?  Because either he is wrong or you are..[/QUOTE]

Where does it say a "strong atheist" actually exists in the real world?[/QUOTE]

Where does it way any of them exist?  What has that got to do with it?  Dawkins says someone who is 100% certain there is no God is an Atheist.  Is he wrong or not?


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can not, therefore, you are bound to it, like atheism being bound to theism, religion...
> 
> Religions are real, gods are real, they are the production of our brain (just like other real thoughts we have) and a specific setup in our brain too. But this same specific setup also produce the atheistic view.
> 
> As a result, you either produce your christianity, islam, buddhism,... or atheism. Atheism is your own production just like the other views in religion. Your religious view is an atheistic one. You don't believe in gods, nor supernatural being, but some other things that make the universe as we know it, if you are an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void.  What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief.  It only tells us one theory that is *not *present.
> 
> If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I _*am*_ wearing.  I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.
> 
> And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed.  _*That's the whole point in dismissing it*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is from one of Carla's first posts:
> 
> "
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6."
> 
> There is no objective evidence to support this position.  A conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.  So the claim that Carla is just rejecting, that it is a "void", is just not true.  Which means that either, according to your definition, Carla is not an Atheist or your definition of Atheism is wrong.
> 
> To use your analogy, what if when you are telling us you are not wearing a kimono you are standing in front of us wearing one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that analogy is inoperative.  In order to see what I'm wearing, the cognate would require that we see into the atheist's mind to determine if his words match his thoughts.  Not only can't we do that, it's irrelevant.
> 
> And more to the point of the thread, _*none *_of this is an argument that "atheism is a religion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the analogy is inappropriate you shouldn't have used it.
> 
> I stated earlier that religion is not just a word, it is action.  I identified attributes of religion and I saw no disputes to those attributes.  One of those attributes is that religion is based in belief.  I think the question of whether belief is involved in Atheism is certainly pertinent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight.  You say an imaginary man rules us and will send us to hell if we don't believe.  We don't believe you and you want to claim our doubt in your story is a belief?
> 
> I could tell you 100 fake stories.  If you doubt each one, does that mean your doubt in my stories are your "beliefs"?
> 
> For me to believe that, I would have to put a lot of importance on my stories, much like you theists do your stories.  But you need to realize, we don't.
> 
> I say I'm a god.  If you don't believe that, is this your new faith?
Click to expand...

 
No.  I never said that.  But thank you for playing.


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever seen a Bigfoot?
> 
> If you did, would you believe the reality of a Bigfoot?
> 
> Have you ever seen a "religious" person?..................
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence to religion, is the religious people you see all around you, every day, multiple times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's some serious indoctrination going on. I only have the strength to address your post in small doses.
> 
> First, to answer your first two questions...
> 
> 1.  No, I have never seen Bigfoot
> 
> 2. If I were to see Bigfoot, yes, I would believe in Bigfoot, but only if I knew for certain that my mind was in tact. For example, If I had been drinking wine, I would question my sobriety. If I dropped a hit of acid, I would probably blame it on the acid. See what I'm saying?
> 
> I think both of us know I'm never going to actually see Bigfoot, and just because others say it's so, doesn't make it so.
> 
> Now your next question and statement is totally mind boggling to me. It appears that you base your religious beliefs on mob mentality.
> 
> 3. Yes, I've seen religious people, and yes, I do believe religious people do exist.
> 
> That doesn't automatically mean that I have to believe in their religion.
> 
> There are over one billion people in this world who believe in Allah. Does that make you a Muslim? Does that mean they are correct, just because they are out there, with billions of examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say "in their religion", I said "in religion".
> 
> If religious people do exist, guess what also exists alongside; "religion". Because these people have one! Maybe you do not, but statistically, you most likely have one, in a different shape, like atheism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This just in: Atheism is not a religion.  Breaking news.
> Buddhists and Jainists and Taoists are all atheists; yet they are all different religions.  And that's _three _religions --- not four.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking as a Buddhist, you have that one wrong.  I'm not a Jainist or Taoist so I don't feel I should speak for them.  But aren't you just arguing that you can not believe in gods and still be in a religion?
Click to expand...


Speaking as a Taoist/Jainist, no I have that one right.
Poorly constructed but yes I am saying you can not-believe in gods (i.e. not subscribe to theism) and still be in a religion.

Just as you can not-believe (not subscribe to) the concept of reincarnation and still be in a religion.  Which does not make not-subscribing to reincarnation a "religion".

Same thing.

Are you actually suggesting that religion requires theism?


----------



## Carla_Danger

Pogo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all?  Where is a set of beliefs about anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.
> 
> Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".
> 
> You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.
> 
> *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, you most certainly can reject religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.
> 
> That would be silly, innit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More mob mentality...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As they used to tell me in elementary school, "if everybody else jumped in the lake would you jump in too?"  -- always in response to a kid that explained his reasoning that he did something "because everybody else did it".
> 
> I have to thank the for teaching that fallacy early on.  In a Catholic school.
Click to expand...




Well, I gotta say, I really, really, like the new Pope!


----------



## alpine

Pogo said:


> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, you most certainly can reject religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.
> 
> That would be silly, innit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More mob mentality...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As they used to tell me in elementary school, "if everybody else jumped in the lake would you jump in too?"  -- always in response to a kid that explained his reasoning that he did something "because everybody else did it".
> 
> I have to thank the for teaching that fallacy early on.  In a Catholic school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Change "religion" with "love", you will see how your arguments not make sense at all.
> 
> Religion is a feeling, a very real one. Claiming otherwise is 1. would be silly, 2. against science and human evolutional psychology as we know it today...
> 
> I am just saying, you don;t have to believe me. You can go check it out and come back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense.  I didn't even use the word "religion" there.
Click to expand...


"You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world."

This is what you quoted.

And claimed a lot of people feeling religion don't prove religion, right? Yes you did.

And I said religion and love, you can interchange, ad you will get a different conclusion.

A lot of people feeling love, well, magically proves it to be a reality, because, ah, right, it is not called religion..... Maybe even love is not real to you, you could be a hopeless one after all 

But anyways, anything human beings experience, is real, because it has a projection in the brain itself. It is very physical, it is very real, just like any other emotions, thoughts, ideas you have.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void.  What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief.  It only tells us one theory that is *not *present.
> 
> If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I _*am*_ wearing.  I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.
> 
> And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed.  _*That's the whole point in dismissing it*_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is from one of Carla's first posts:
> 
> "
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6."
> 
> There is no objective evidence to support this position.  A conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.  So the claim that Carla is just rejecting, that it is a "void", is just not true.  Which means that either, according to your definition, Carla is not an Atheist or your definition of Atheism is wrong.
> 
> To use your analogy, what if when you are telling us you are not wearing a kimono you are standing in front of us wearing one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, that analogy is inoperative.  In order to see what I'm wearing, the cognate would require that we see into the atheist's mind to determine if his words match his thoughts.  Not only can't we do that, it's irrelevant.
> 
> And more to the point of the thread, _*none *_of this is an argument that "atheism is a religion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the analogy is inappropriate you shouldn't have used it.
> 
> I stated earlier that religion is not just a word, it is action.  I identified attributes of religion and I saw no disputes to those attributes.  One of those attributes is that religion is based in belief.  I think the question of whether belief is involved in Atheism is certainly pertinent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight.  You say an imaginary man rules us and will send us to hell if we don't believe.  We don't believe you and you want to claim our doubt in your story is a belief?
> 
> I could tell you 100 fake stories.  If you doubt each one, does that mean your doubt in my stories are your "beliefs"?
> 
> For me to believe that, I would have to put a lot of importance on my stories, much like you theists do your stories.  But you need to realize, we don't.
> 
> I say I'm a god.  If you don't believe that, is this your new faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I never said that.  But thank you for playing.
Click to expand...


You said you "think the question of whether belief is involved in Atheism is certainly pertinent."

And I tried to explain to you belief has nothing to do with it.  We simply don't believe your fairy tales.  Takes no faith or belief.

And we don't "reject" your god.  That too has been explained.  If I told you to fly to Michigan and I have a perfect 10 millionaire woman waiting for you, are you rejecting her if you don't show up?  No.  You simply don't believe me.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever seen a Bigfoot?
> 
> If you did, would you believe the reality of a Bigfoot?
> 
> Have you ever seen a "religious" person?..................
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence to religion, is the religious people you see all around you, every day, multiple times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's some serious indoctrination going on. I only have the strength to address your post in small doses.
> 
> First, to answer your first two questions...
> 
> 1.  No, I have never seen Bigfoot
> 
> 2. If I were to see Bigfoot, yes, I would believe in Bigfoot, but only if I knew for certain that my mind was in tact. For example, If I had been drinking wine, I would question my sobriety. If I dropped a hit of acid, I would probably blame it on the acid. See what I'm saying?
> 
> I think both of us know I'm never going to actually see Bigfoot, and just because others say it's so, doesn't make it so.
> 
> Now your next question and statement is totally mind boggling to me. It appears that you base your religious beliefs on mob mentality.
> 
> 3. Yes, I've seen religious people, and yes, I do believe religious people do exist.
> 
> That doesn't automatically mean that I have to believe in their religion.
> 
> There are over one billion people in this world who believe in Allah. Does that make you a Muslim? Does that mean they are correct, just because they are out there, with billions of examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say "in their religion", I said "in religion".
> 
> If religious people do exist, guess what also exists alongside; "religion". Because these people have one! Maybe you do not, but statistically, you most likely have one, in a different shape, like atheism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This just in: Atheism is not a religion.  Breaking news.
> Buddhists and Jainists and Taoists are all atheists; yet they are all different religions.  And that's _three _religions --- not four.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking as a Buddhist, you have that one wrong.  I'm not a Jainist or Taoist so I don't feel I should speak for them.  But aren't you just arguing that you can not believe in gods and still be in a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking as a Taoist/Jainist, no I have that one right.
> Poorly constructed but yes I am saying you can not-believe in gods (i.e. not subscribe to theism) and still be in a religion.
> 
> Just as you can not-believe (not subscribe to) the concept of reincarnation and still be in a religion.  Which does not make not-subscribing to reincarnation a "religion".
> 
> Same thing.
Click to expand...

 
You have it wrong for Buddhism.  It is not Atheistic.

I am saying pretty much the same thing.  What you believe really doesn't matter.  What matters is how you believe and how you act.  Religion is an action.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is from one of Carla's first posts:
> 
> "
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6."
> 
> There is no objective evidence to support this position.  A conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.  So the claim that Carla is just rejecting, that it is a "void", is just not true.  Which means that either, according to your definition, Carla is not an Atheist or your definition of Atheism is wrong.
> 
> To use your analogy, what if when you are telling us you are not wearing a kimono you are standing in front of us wearing one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, that analogy is inoperative.  In order to see what I'm wearing, the cognate would require that we see into the atheist's mind to determine if his words match his thoughts.  Not only can't we do that, it's irrelevant.
> 
> And more to the point of the thread, _*none *_of this is an argument that "atheism is a religion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the analogy is inappropriate you shouldn't have used it.
> 
> I stated earlier that religion is not just a word, it is action.  I identified attributes of religion and I saw no disputes to those attributes.  One of those attributes is that religion is based in belief.  I think the question of whether belief is involved in Atheism is certainly pertinent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight.  You say an imaginary man rules us and will send us to hell if we don't believe.  We don't believe you and you want to claim our doubt in your story is a belief?
> 
> I could tell you 100 fake stories.  If you doubt each one, does that mean your doubt in my stories are your "beliefs"?
> 
> For me to believe that, I would have to put a lot of importance on my stories, much like you theists do your stories.  But you need to realize, we don't.
> 
> I say I'm a god.  If you don't believe that, is this your new faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I never said that.  But thank you for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said you "think the question of whether belief is involved in Atheism is certainly pertinent."
> 
> And I tried to explain to you belief has nothing to do with it.  We simply don't believe your fairy tales.  Takes no faith or belief.
> 
> And we don't "reject" your god.  That too has been explained.  If I told you to fly to Michigan and I have a perfect 10 millionaire woman waiting for you, are you rejecting her if you don't show up?  No.  You simply don't believe me.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, I did say what you quoted.  Thank you for demonstrating my point.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

asaratis said:


> Beavers build dams instinctively.  Men learned to build dams from seeing the results of what beavers did naturally (by instinct).   Concrete dams do not exist in nature.  They are man made after a learning process.



I learned to build dams by throwing rocks into the path of the rain water than ran down the hill behind the house I grew up in, I have never actually seen a beaver build a dam. I guess that makes you wrong, not to mention incredibly stupid.

How do you explain the existence of dams in places that have no beavers to teach humans about them, like China? Did they learn through ESP?



asaratis said:


> Huts and houses did not occur until man learned to build them.  The first humans had no houses.  Many lived in caves.  Many learned that getting under a tree of a pile of leaves gave them some shelter. Man's building of homes was a learned practice, not a natural instinct.



Seriously? How do you know that? After all, apes are known to build shelters, and we have a common ancestor. Is this another example of your incredible stupidity?


----------



## Carla_Danger

Pogo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever seen a Bigfoot?
> 
> If you did, would you believe the reality of a Bigfoot?
> 
> Have you ever seen a "religious" person?..................
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence to religion, is the religious people you see all around you, every day, multiple times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's some serious indoctrination going on. I only have the strength to address your post in small doses.
> 
> First, to answer your first two questions...
> 
> 1.  No, I have never seen Bigfoot
> 
> 2. If I were to see Bigfoot, yes, I would believe in Bigfoot, but only if I knew for certain that my mind was in tact. For example, If I had been drinking wine, I would question my sobriety. If I dropped a hit of acid, I would probably blame it on the acid. See what I'm saying?
> 
> I think both of us know I'm never going to actually see Bigfoot, and just because others say it's so, doesn't make it so.
> 
> Now your next question and statement is totally mind boggling to me. It appears that you base your religious beliefs on mob mentality.
> 
> 3. Yes, I've seen religious people, and yes, I do believe religious people do exist.
> 
> That doesn't automatically mean that I have to believe in their religion.
> 
> There are over one billion people in this world who believe in Allah. Does that make you a Muslim? Does that mean they are correct, just because they are out there, with billions of examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, you just wrote "Allah".  That makes you "bound to Islam".
> According to the same logic...
Click to expand...



I guess we all are!  LOL!

.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> [


 
Speaking as a Taoist/Jainist, no I have that one right.
Poorly constructed but yes I am saying you can not-believe in gods (i.e. not subscribe to theism) and still be in a religion.

Just as you can not-believe (not subscribe to) the concept of reincarnation and still be in a religion.  Which does not make not-subscribing to reincarnation a "religion".

Same thing.

Are you actually suggesting that religion requires theism?[/QUOTE]

Trying again, let's see what nightmare of formatting this creates.

Tell me about Jainism.  My ignorance is almost total.  Consider this a side bar.


----------



## sealybobo

Carla_Danger said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.
> 
> Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".
> 
> You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.
> 
> *concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, you most certainly can reject religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.
> 
> That would be silly, innit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More mob mentality...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As they used to tell me in elementary school, "if everybody else jumped in the lake would you jump in too?"  -- always in response to a kid that explained his reasoning that he did something "because everybody else did it".
> 
> I have to thank the for teaching that fallacy early on.  In a Catholic school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I gotta say, I really, really, like the new Pope!
Click to expand...


Which Popes didn't you like?  And why did you stay with the church through those times?  So it really doesn't matter if you like the pope or not, right?

There were some really evil Popes.  The Catholic church lost its way a long time ago.  Anyone who knows history knows we had corrupt popes.  So, knowing this to be true, why would anyone follow a church that sometimes is corrupt and has lost its way and sometimes is good?  If I'm going to put my faith into something, I want to believe it is always good and right.  Unfortunately if you are born at the wrong time you have to wait for an evil pope to die before you MIGHT get a good one.  

The 6 Most Awful Popes


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Uncensored2008 said:


> Science is not a religion. Science is a process, a methodology for discovery. Science postulates nothing, it merely offers the tools for people to test what they postulate.



I never said science is a religion, I pointed out that it fits the definition of religion that Pogo insists is the only possible definition because he is always right. I did so to point out that he is wrong.


----------



## alpine

Carla_Danger said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever seen a Bigfoot?
> 
> If you did, would you believe the reality of a Bigfoot?
> 
> Have you ever seen a "religious" person?..................
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence to religion, is the religious people you see all around you, every day, multiple times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's some serious indoctrination going on. I only have the strength to address your post in small doses.
> 
> First, to answer your first two questions...
> 
> 1.  No, I have never seen Bigfoot
> 
> 2. If I were to see Bigfoot, yes, I would believe in Bigfoot, but only if I knew for certain that my mind was in tact. For example, If I had been drinking wine, I would question my sobriety. If I dropped a hit of acid, I would probably blame it on the acid. See what I'm saying?
> 
> I think both of us know I'm never going to actually see Bigfoot, and just because others say it's so, doesn't make it so.
> 
> Now your next question and statement is totally mind boggling to me. It appears that you base your religious beliefs on mob mentality.
> 
> 3. Yes, I've seen religious people, and yes, I do believe religious people do exist.
> 
> That doesn't automatically mean that I have to believe in their religion.
> 
> There are over one billion people in this world who believe in Allah. Does that make you a Muslim? Does that mean they are correct, just because they are out there, with billions of examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, you just wrote "Allah".  That makes you "bound to Islam".
> According to the same logic...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we all are!  LOL!
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Apparently you didn't get the logic, at all


----------



## Carla_Danger

sealybobo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, you most certainly can reject religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.
> 
> That would be silly, innit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More mob mentality...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As they used to tell me in elementary school, "if everybody else jumped in the lake would you jump in too?"  -- always in response to a kid that explained his reasoning that he did something "because everybody else did it".
> 
> I have to thank the for teaching that fallacy early on.  In a Catholic school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I gotta say, I really, really, like the new Pope!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which Popes didn't you like?  And why did you stay with the church through those times?  So it really doesn't matter if you like the pope or not, right?
> 
> There were some really evil Popes.  The Catholic church lost its way a long time ago.  Anyone who knows history knows we had corrupt popes.  So, knowing this to be true, why would anyone follow a church that sometimes is corrupt and has lost its way and sometimes is good?  If I'm going to put my faith into something, I want to believe it is always good and right.  Unfortunately if you are born at the wrong time you have to wait for an evil pope to die before you MIGHT get a good one.
> 
> The 6 Most Awful Popes
Click to expand...



I'm not Catholic, although I did hang out with a group of Catholics in high school. (boy, they really knew how to party...wowza!)

I've attended a Catholic Church one time throughout my lifetime, so my knowledge of the Catholic religion is limited.  I do know that Mary being a virgin is serious business to Catholics.

I just like the new Pope because of his liberal views.

I was raised in a Church of Christ....the one without the piano.


----------



## sealybobo

alpine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.
> 
> That would be silly, innit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More mob mentality...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As they used to tell me in elementary school, "if everybody else jumped in the lake would you jump in too?"  -- always in response to a kid that explained his reasoning that he did something "because everybody else did it".
> 
> I have to thank the for teaching that fallacy early on.  In a Catholic school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Change "religion" with "love", you will see how your arguments not make sense at all.
> 
> Religion is a feeling, a very real one. Claiming otherwise is 1. would be silly, 2. against science and human evolutional psychology as we know it today...
> 
> I am just saying, you don;t have to believe me. You can go check it out and come back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense.  I didn't even use the word "religion" there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world."
> 
> This is what you quoted.
> 
> And claimed a lot of people feeling religion don't prove religion, right? Yes you did.
> 
> And I said religion and love, you can interchange, ad you will get a different conclusion.
> 
> A lot of people feeling love, well, magically proves it to be a reality, because, ah, right, it is not called religion..... Maybe even love is not real to you, you could be a hopeless one after all
> 
> But anyways, anything human beings experience, is real, because it has a projection in the brain itself. It is very physical, it is very real, just like any other emotions, thoughts, ideas you have.
Click to expand...


Number 17


*God is the universe/love/laws of physics.*
We already have names for these things. Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading
_So are you saying that Love came and talked to Adam & Eve, or Moses, or Noah?  Love sent Jesus to be crucified?  Love talked to Joseph Smith and told him all those crazy things?  Love visited Mohammad and told him to kill all non believers?_

_Love built heaven and hell?  _

_Seems the gig is up on the old lies about god visiting us and so now people are going to re define what god is.  Good luck.  _


----------



## sealybobo

Carla_Danger said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.
> 
> That would be silly, innit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More mob mentality...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As they used to tell me in elementary school, "if everybody else jumped in the lake would you jump in too?"  -- always in response to a kid that explained his reasoning that he did something "because everybody else did it".
> 
> I have to thank the for teaching that fallacy early on.  In a Catholic school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I gotta say, I really, really, like the new Pope!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which Popes didn't you like?  And why did you stay with the church through those times?  So it really doesn't matter if you like the pope or not, right?
> 
> There were some really evil Popes.  The Catholic church lost its way a long time ago.  Anyone who knows history knows we had corrupt popes.  So, knowing this to be true, why would anyone follow a church that sometimes is corrupt and has lost its way and sometimes is good?  If I'm going to put my faith into something, I want to believe it is always good and right.  Unfortunately if you are born at the wrong time you have to wait for an evil pope to die before you MIGHT get a good one.
> 
> The 6 Most Awful Popes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not Catholic, although I did hang out with a group of Catholics in high school. (boy, they really knew how to party...wowza!)
> 
> I've attended a Catholic Church one time throughout my lifetime, so my knowledge of the Catholic religion is limited.  I do know that Mary being a virgin is serious business to Catholics.
> 
> I just like the new Pope because of his liberal views.
> 
> I was raised in a Church of Christ....the one without the piano.
Click to expand...


I like the new pope too to be honest with you.  Maybe he's the start of a new beginning for Catholics.  Stop worrying and focusing on birth control and abortion and start helping the poor.

My favorite thing he said was:  

Just as the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say “thou shalt not” to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Why not instead I should just call that preacher on my tv and give him my credit card so he can bless me after 10 easy payments of $77.



If you don't like the preacher on TV don't watch him, I don't.



sealybobo said:


> Do you argue with boss?  He believes in a generic god.  Oh,and so do you if you don't believe in hell.



Does he really believe in a generic god? I seriously doubt it, and I see no reason to argue with him even if he does. You, on the other hand, have an obsessive need to argue with anyone who proclaims a belief in any god whatever, despite your claim that you only have a problem with people who believe in a generic god no one believes in but you.



sealybobo said:


> Now I'm confused.  Are you a christian?  Which sect?  Presby, Luteran, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Jehova, Born again, non denom, greek orthodox, etc?



What difference does that make? This thread is not about my beliefs, it is about the claim that atheism is not a religion. The fact that you need to define other people proves that, for you, it is a religion because only religious fanatics need to define other people.



sealybobo said:


> Now you have to tell us if you take the Adam, Moses & Noah stories literally or are they just allegories?  And if they are, maybe the Jesus miracles didn't happen either.  I mean those stories were all written 80 years or more after the fact.



Actually, I don't. 



sealybobo said:


> Truth?  I don't think so.



You are right, you don't think.


----------



## asaratis

Quantum Windbag said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beavers build dams instinctively.  Men learned to build dams from seeing the results of what beavers did naturally (by instinct).   Concrete dams do not exist in nature.  They are man made after a learning process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I learned to build dams by throwing rocks into the path of the rain water than ran down the hill behind the house I grew up in, I have never actually seen a beaver build a dam. I guess that makes you wrong, not to mention incredibly stupid.
> 
> How do you explain the existence of dams in places that have no beavers to teach humans about them, like China? Did they learn through ESP?
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huts and houses did not occur until man learned to build them.  The first humans had no houses.  Many lived in caves.  Many learned that getting under a tree of a pile of leaves gave them some shelter. Man's building of homes was a learned practice, not a natural instinct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously? How do you know that? After all, apes are known to build shelters, and we have a common ancestor. Is this another example of your incredible stupidity?
Click to expand...

Most of what I write here is my opinion, Mr. Asshole!   Given a loaded paint brush, an elephant can produce "modern art".


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> [
> Where does it say a "strong atheist" actually exists in the real world?



Sigh.

Let me google that for you

Any other stupid questions form the peanut gallery?


----------



## Carla_Danger

sealybobo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> More mob mentality...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As they used to tell me in elementary school, "if everybody else jumped in the lake would you jump in too?"  -- always in response to a kid that explained his reasoning that he did something "because everybody else did it".
> 
> I have to thank the for teaching that fallacy early on.  In a Catholic school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I gotta say, I really, really, like the new Pope!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which Popes didn't you like?  And why did you stay with the church through those times?  So it really doesn't matter if you like the pope or not, right?
> 
> There were some really evil Popes.  The Catholic church lost its way a long time ago.  Anyone who knows history knows we had corrupt popes.  So, knowing this to be true, why would anyone follow a church that sometimes is corrupt and has lost its way and sometimes is good?  If I'm going to put my faith into something, I want to believe it is always good and right.  Unfortunately if you are born at the wrong time you have to wait for an evil pope to die before you MIGHT get a good one.
> 
> The 6 Most Awful Popes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not Catholic, although I did hang out with a group of Catholics in high school. (boy, they really knew how to party...wowza!)
> 
> I've attended a Catholic Church one time throughout my lifetime, so my knowledge of the Catholic religion is limited.  I do know that Mary being a virgin is serious business to Catholics.
> 
> I just like the new Pope because of his liberal views.
> 
> I was raised in a Church of Christ....the one without the piano.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like the new pope too to be honest with you.  Maybe he's the start of a new beginning for Catholics.  Stop worrying and focusing on birth control and abortion and start helping the poor.
> 
> My favorite thing he said was:
> 
> Just as the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say “thou shalt not” to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.
Click to expand...



See...this new Pope rocks!


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Most of what I write here is my opinion, Mr. Asshole!   Given a loaded paint brush, an elephant can produce "modern art".




Spoken like a true Christian!  LOL!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

asaratis said:


> Most of what I write here is my opinion, Mr. Asshole!   Given a loaded paint brush, an elephant can produce "modern art".



Your opinions are not based on reality, which probably explains why you think elephants are artists.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beavers build dams instinctively.  Men learned to build dams from seeing the results of what beavers did naturally (by instinct).   Concrete dams do not exist in nature.  They are man made after a learning process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I learned to build dams by throwing rocks into the path of the rain water than ran down the hill behind the house I grew up in, I have never actually seen a beaver build a dam. I guess that makes you wrong, not to mention incredibly stupid.
> 
> How do you explain the existence of dams in places that have no beavers to teach humans about them, like China? Did they learn through ESP?
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huts and houses did not occur until man learned to build them.  The first humans had no houses.  Many lived in caves.  Many learned that getting under a tree of a pile of leaves gave them some shelter. Man's building of homes was a learned practice, not a natural instinct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously? How do you know that? After all, apes are known to build shelters, and we have a common ancestor. Is this another example of your incredible stupidity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of what I write here is my opinion, Mr. Asshole!   Given a loaded paint brush, an elephant can produce "modern art".
Click to expand...


A - you're wasting your time.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not instead I should just call that preacher on my tv and give him my credit card so he can bless me after 10 easy payments of $77.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like the preacher on TV don't watch him, I don't.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you argue with boss?  He believes in a generic god.  Oh,and so do you if you don't believe in hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does he really believe in a generic god? I seriously doubt it, and I see no reason to argue with him even if he does. You, on the other hand, have an obsessive need to argue with anyone who proclaims a belief in any god whatever, despite your claim that you only have a problem with people who believe in a generic god no one believes in but you.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I'm confused.  Are you a christian?  Which sect?  Presby, Luteran, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Jehova, Born again, non denom, greek orthodox, etc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What difference does that make? This thread is not about my beliefs, it is about the claim that atheism is not a religion. The fact that you need to define other people proves that, for you, it is a religion because only religious fanatics need to define other people.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you have to tell us if you take the Adam, Moses & Noah stories literally or are they just allegories?  And if they are, maybe the Jesus miracles didn't happen either.  I mean those stories were all written 80 years or more after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I don't.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth?  I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are right, you don't think.
Click to expand...


I love watching the lying preacher on tv lying to fools in America.  Its like being at the enemies meeting.  I get to listen in and see the foolishness without having to get up and drive in and sit in on one of those services.  What a riot.  

If they don't want me watching, take it off free tv.  LOL.

Anyways, if Christianity was real, they wouldn't have con artists and nuts like Billy Graham as their spokespeople.  

And you misunderstood me.  I said I don't believe in any god.  Boss believes in generic god.  He isn't a Christian or Muslim or Jew but he still believes in god.  He believes because humans have always believed that that is proof a god must exist.  Plus spiritual energy and all that.  He uses all these reasons why he believes, even though he admits that all the organized religions are fos. 

I don't hardly ever argue with people who are christians, especially the ones who believe that Noah built a boat and 2 of every animal came from all over the world.

And most so called "christians" that I talk to say they understand those are all just stories to teach right from wrong.

What they don't put together in their little brainwashed brains is that if noah, adam and moses are all stories, so too is the Jesus walking on water, turning water into wine, 10 loaves into 1000, virgin mother, rising from the dead.

One day they will realize even the Jesus stories are all lies.  So is the entire concept of god.

Do I believe in something greater than self?  I sure do.  It's called our society.  We the People.  Our constitution.  Science and the Universe.


----------



## Pogo

Carla_Danger said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.
> 
> That would be silly, innit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More mob mentality...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As they used to tell me in elementary school, "if everybody else jumped in the lake would you jump in too?"  -- always in response to a kid that explained his reasoning that he did something "because everybody else did it".
> 
> I have to thank the for teaching that fallacy early on.  In a Catholic school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I gotta say, I really, really, like the new Pope!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which Popes didn't you like?  And why did you stay with the church through those times?  So it really doesn't matter if you like the pope or not, right?
> 
> There were some really evil Popes.  The Catholic church lost its way a long time ago.  Anyone who knows history knows we had corrupt popes.  So, knowing this to be true, why would anyone follow a church that sometimes is corrupt and has lost its way and sometimes is good?  If I'm going to put my faith into something, I want to believe it is always good and right.  Unfortunately if you are born at the wrong time you have to wait for an evil pope to die before you MIGHT get a good one.
> 
> The 6 Most Awful Popes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not Catholic, although I did hang out with a group of Catholics in high school. (boy, they really knew how to party...wowza!)
> 
> I've attended a Catholic Church one time throughout my lifetime, so my knowledge of the Catholic religion is limited.  I do know that Mary being a virgin is serious business to Catholics.
> 
> I just like the new Pope because of his liberal views.
> 
> I was raised in a Church of Christ....the one without the piano.
Click to expand...


I dunno... a church without a piano, that's ... that's apianoism.  Doesn't sound good.

Posted from my piano


----------



## Pogo

alpine said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever seen a Bigfoot?
> 
> If you did, would you believe the reality of a Bigfoot?
> 
> Have you ever seen a "religious" person?..................
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence to religion, is the religious people you see all around you, every day, multiple times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's some serious indoctrination going on. I only have the strength to address your post in small doses.
> 
> First, to answer your first two questions...
> 
> 1.  No, I have never seen Bigfoot
> 
> 2. If I were to see Bigfoot, yes, I would believe in Bigfoot, but only if I knew for certain that my mind was in tact. For example, If I had been drinking wine, I would question my sobriety. If I dropped a hit of acid, I would probably blame it on the acid. See what I'm saying?
> 
> I think both of us know I'm never going to actually see Bigfoot, and just because others say it's so, doesn't make it so.
> 
> Now your next question and statement is totally mind boggling to me. It appears that you base your religious beliefs on mob mentality.
> 
> 3. Yes, I've seen religious people, and yes, I do believe religious people do exist.
> 
> That doesn't automatically mean that I have to believe in their religion.
> 
> There are over one billion people in this world who believe in Allah. Does that make you a Muslim? Does that mean they are correct, just because they are out there, with billions of examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, you just wrote "Allah".  That makes you "bound to Islam".
> According to the same logic...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we all are!  LOL!
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you didn't get the logic, at all
Click to expand...


Au contraire -- I followed it where it goes.  That's how you know what a dead end is.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I love watching the lying preacher on tv lying to fools in America.  Its like being at the enemies meeting.  I get to listen in and see the foolishness without having to get up and drive in and sit in on one of those services.  What a riot.
> 
> If they don't want me watching, take it off free tv.  LOL.
> 
> Anyways, if Christianity was real, they wouldn't have con artists and nuts like Billy Graham as their spokespeople.
> 
> And you misunderstood me.  I said I don't believe in any god.  Boss believes in generic god.  He isn't a Christian or Muslim or Jew but he still believes in god.  He believes because humans have always believed that that is proof a god must exist.  Plus spiritual energy and all that.  He uses all these reasons why he believes, even though he admits that all the organized religions are fos.
> 
> I don't hardly ever argue with people who are christians, especially the ones who believe that Noah built a boat and 2 of every animal came from all over the world.
> 
> And most so called "christians" that I talk to say they understand those are all just stories to teach right from wrong.
> 
> What they don't put together in their little brainwashed brains is that if noah, adam and moses are all stories, so too is the Jesus walking on water, turning water into wine, 10 loaves into 1000, virgin mother, rising from the dead.
> 
> One day they will realize even the Jesus stories are all lies.  So is the entire concept of god.
> 
> Do I believe in something greater than self?  I sure do.  It's called our society.  We the People.  Our constitution.  Science and the Universe.



Are you saying that anything that any con artist uses to make money is fake? 

I guess that means you believe in lots of things that aren't real.


----------



## Uncensored2008

asaratis said:


> Most of what I write here is my opinion, Mr. Asshole!   Given a loaded paint brush, an elephant can produce "modern art".



Yet Pogo, most definitely loaded, cannot produce logic...


----------



## sealybobo

asaratis said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  It is man made.  Invented and constructed by man as opposed to occurring naturally.  Iron ore is natural.  Knives are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the intrinsic difference between a beaver dam and a dam made by man? What makes one natural, and the other unnatural? Defining natural in such a way that you exclude the works of human beings is, at best, simplistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Beavers build dams instinctively.  Men learned to build dams from seeing the results of what beavers did naturally (by instinct).   Concrete dams do not exist in nature.  They are man made after a learning process.
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]Wrong.  That is their natural way of protecting and raising their young.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And a house is man's natural way of doing the exact same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huts and houses did not occur until man learned to build them.  The first humans had no houses.  Many lived in caves.  Many learned that getting under a tree of a pile of leaves gave them some shelter. Man's building of homes was a learned practice, not a natural instinct.
Click to expand...


Just want to point something out.  People like Boss brag that 95% of us believe in god.  So what?  If it weren't for the 5% of humans who invented huts, the rest of us would still be living in caves or under trees.  

I bet it was the 5% that came up with god to manipulate the 95%.  How else did King Tut get his slaves to build the pyramids.  He lied and told them he was a god.  

Would you know how to make a tv or gas engine?  How about a dam?  Would you know how to build a dam?  Most people would not.

Hell, most people can't make fire, wouldn't know how to make rope, don't know what is edible, would not know how to find or make steel products. 

Get where I'm going with this?  We brad about man's accoplishments but really if everything went away tomorrow, how many of us would know how to re invent anything?


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love watching the lying preacher on tv lying to fools in America.  Its like being at the enemies meeting.  I get to listen in and see the foolishness without having to get up and drive in and sit in on one of those services.  What a riot.
> 
> If they don't want me watching, take it off free tv.  LOL.
> 
> Anyways, if Christianity was real, they wouldn't have con artists and nuts like Billy Graham as their spokespeople.
> 
> And you misunderstood me.  I said I don't believe in any god.  Boss believes in generic god.  He isn't a Christian or Muslim or Jew but he still believes in god.  He believes because humans have always believed that that is proof a god must exist.  Plus spiritual energy and all that.  He uses all these reasons why he believes, even though he admits that all the organized religions are fos.
> 
> I don't hardly ever argue with people who are christians, especially the ones who believe that Noah built a boat and 2 of every animal came from all over the world.
> 
> And most so called "christians" that I talk to say they understand those are all just stories to teach right from wrong.
> 
> What they don't put together in their little brainwashed brains is that if noah, adam and moses are all stories, so too is the Jesus walking on water, turning water into wine, 10 loaves into 1000, virgin mother, rising from the dead.
> 
> One day they will realize even the Jesus stories are all lies.  So is the entire concept of god.
> 
> Do I believe in something greater than self?  I sure do.  It's called our society.  We the People.  Our constitution.  Science and the Universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that anything that any con artist uses to make money is fake?
> 
> I guess that means you believe in lots of things that aren't real.
Click to expand...


Why do good/real Christians put up with it?


----------



## asaratis

Quantum Windbag said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beavers build dams instinctively.  Men learned to build dams from seeing the results of what beavers did naturally (by instinct).   Concrete dams do not exist in nature.  They are man made after a learning process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I learned to build dams by throwing rocks into the path of the rain water than ran down the hill behind the house I grew up in, I have never actually seen a beaver build a dam. I guess that makes you wrong, not to mention incredibly stupid.
> 
> How do you explain the existence of dams in places that have no beavers to teach humans about them, like China? Did they learn through ESP?
Click to expand...

Your personal experience in dam building came after you knew what dams were and how they worked.  You did not discover dams on your own.  I built one in a sandbox once myself.  That doesn't mean that I discovered dams.

Who knows where the Chinese learned the effects of damming a stream of water?  It certainly is not an instinctive human trait....else we'd each have a dam somewhere.  

The only non-beaver dams that I know of that occurred in nature were the glacial ice dams that occasionally broke and caused the erosion of the scablands in Washington state.


----------



## Pogo

alpine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.
> 
> That would be silly, innit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More mob mentality...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As they used to tell me in elementary school, "if everybody else jumped in the lake would you jump in too?"  -- always in response to a kid that explained his reasoning that he did something "because everybody else did it".
> 
> I have to thank the for teaching that fallacy early on.  In a Catholic school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Change "religion" with "love", you will see how your arguments not make sense at all.
> 
> Religion is a feeling, a very real one. Claiming otherwise is 1. would be silly, 2. against science and human evolutional psychology as we know it today...
> 
> I am just saying, you don;t have to believe me. You can go check it out and come back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense.  I didn't even use the word "religion" there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world."
> 
> This is what you quoted.
> 
> And claimed a lot of people feeling religion don't prove religion, right? Yes you did.
Click to expand...



NO, I said no such thing.  Ever.

On the contrary I've said repeatedly here that every culture everywhere in every time has ha some kind of religion.  I don't know what orifice this is being fracked from.   I really don't.




alpine said:


> And I said religion and love, you can interchange, ad you will get a different conclusion.
> 
> A lot of people feeling love, well, magically proves it to be a reality, because, ah, right, it is not called religion..... Maybe even love is not real to you, you could be a hopeless one after all



Irrelevant.  Has nothing to do with anything I've posted at all.



alpine said:


> But anyways, anything human beings experience, is real, because it has a projection in the brain itself. It is very physical, it is very real, just like any other emotions, thoughts, ideas you have.



There's still no point expressed here.  It's a head scratcher.


----------



## Carla_Danger

alpine said:


> I am not saying they are the same. They are no where close being the same. But something being retared doesnt qualify you to ignore it, regret it, claim to be any less retarded when it comes to being retarded.
> 
> Just be real. Yes, I am an atheist. I have my beliefs that I call facts, because, I spent more time on them to understand.
> 
> Just say this, rather than to be a smug about it. Thats all I am saying. Because at the end, nothing is FACT when it comes to our perception of the world, no matter how educated it is....



I have never, not once, said that religion is retarded. I considered myself a Christian until I was 40. The truth is, I miss the comfort I felt from religion. There are times that I'm jealous of people that have strong faith, that there will be an afterlife filled with happiness. The fact that I'm not going to spend eternity with friends and family is sad, indeed.

But I can't force myself to believe. I simply outgrew religion, the same way that I outgrew the notion that I would someday marry a prince.

If you are sincere in your faith and try to do what's right, I say more power to you!


----------



## asaratis

sealybobo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  It is man made.  Invented and constructed by man as opposed to occurring naturally.  Iron ore is natural.  Knives are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the intrinsic difference between a beaver dam and a dam made by man? What makes one natural, and the other unnatural? Defining natural in such a way that you exclude the works of human beings is, at best, simplistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Beavers build dams instinctively.  Men learned to build dams from seeing the results of what beavers did naturally (by instinct).   Concrete dams do not exist in nature.  They are man made after a learning process.
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]Wrong.  That is their natural way of protecting and raising their young.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And a house is man's natural way of doing the exact same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huts and houses did not occur until man learned to build them.  The first humans had no houses.  Many lived in caves.  Many learned that getting under a tree of a pile of leaves gave them some shelter. Man's building of homes was a learned practice, not a natural instinct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just want to point something out.  People like Boss brag that 95% of us believe in god.  So what?  If it weren't for the 5% of humans who invented huts, the rest of us would still be living in caves or under trees.
> 
> I bet it was the 5% that came up with god to manipulate the 95%.  How else did King Tut get his slaves to build the pyramids.  He lied and told them he was a god.
> 
> Would you know how to make a tv or gas engine?  How about a dam?  Would you know how to build a dam?  Most people would not.
> 
> Hell, most people can't make fire, wouldn't know how to make rope, don't know what is edible, would not know how to find or make steel products.
> 
> Get where I'm going with this?  We brad about man's accoplishments but really if everything went away tomorrow, *how many of us would know how to re invent anything?*
Click to expand...

Those that watch HOW IT'S MADE on the Science Channel?


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's some serious indoctrination going on. I only have the strength to address your post in small doses.
> 
> First, to answer your first two questions...
> 
> 1.  No, I have never seen Bigfoot
> 
> 2. If I were to see Bigfoot, yes, I would believe in Bigfoot, but only if I knew for certain that my mind was in tact. For example, If I had been drinking wine, I would question my sobriety. If I dropped a hit of acid, I would probably blame it on the acid. See what I'm saying?
> 
> I think both of us know I'm never going to actually see Bigfoot, and just because others say it's so, doesn't make it so.
> 
> Now your next question and statement is totally mind boggling to me. It appears that you base your religious beliefs on mob mentality.
> 
> 3. Yes, I've seen religious people, and yes, I do believe religious people do exist.
> 
> That doesn't automatically mean that I have to believe in their religion.
> 
> There are over one billion people in this world who believe in Allah. Does that make you a Muslim? Does that mean they are correct, just because they are out there, with billions of examples?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say "in their religion", I said "in religion".
> 
> If religious people do exist, guess what also exists alongside; "religion". Because these people have one! Maybe you do not, but statistically, you most likely have one, in a different shape, like atheism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This just in: Atheism is not a religion.  Breaking news.
> Buddhists and Jainists and Taoists are all atheists; yet they are all different religions.  And that's _three _religions --- not four.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking as a Buddhist, you have that one wrong.  I'm not a Jainist or Taoist so I don't feel I should speak for them.  But aren't you just arguing that you can not believe in gods and still be in a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking as a Taoist/Jainist, no I have that one right.
> Poorly constructed but yes I am saying you can not-believe in gods (i.e. not subscribe to theism) and still be in a religion.
> 
> Just as you can not-believe (not subscribe to) the concept of reincarnation and still be in a religion.  Which does not make not-subscribing to reincarnation a "religion".
> 
> Same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it wrong for Buddhism.  It is not Atheistic.
Click to expand...



Really....
It's a tangent but do you want to name the Buddhist "god(s)"?
I'm not a Buddhist, I only know what I read and observe from Buddhist friends and roommates.  None of which indicates theism...




PratchettFan said:


> I am saying pretty much the same thing.  What you believe really doesn't matter.  What matters is how you believe and how you act.  Religion is an action.



I'd have to say _exercising_ a religion  is an action, but the religion itself is a philosophy.  A philosophy doesn't do anything; it just sits there until it's needed for a thought process.

Neither of which, to return to the topic, qualifies atheism as a "religion".  It has no philosophy and cannot be "exercised".   Any more than non-belief in the Easter Bunny can be "exercised"


----------



## asaratis

Quantum Windbag said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of what I write here is my opinion, Mr. Asshole!   Given a loaded paint brush, an elephant can produce "modern art".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinions are not based on reality, which probably explains why you think elephants are artists.
Click to expand...

Of course they are.  They may be incorrect, but they are certainly based on the reality I've been exposed to.

Your replies seem to be based on knee jerk reactions made before you analyze exactly what I say. Accidental art created by an elephant can easily be confused with modern art created by a real human artist.

Before you come back with some jerk off reply, know that this has already happened in the not too distant past.



Where to Buy Original Art Painted by Animals
This ^^^^^ is not my opinion...it's factual!
...and be sure to read about the elephants.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Pogo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not Catholic, although I did hang out with a group of Catholics in high school. (boy, they really knew how to party...wowza!)
> 
> I've attended a Catholic Church one time throughout my lifetime, so my knowledge of the Catholic religion is limited.  I do know that Mary being a virgin is serious business to Catholics.
> 
> I just like the new Pope because of his liberal views.
> 
> I was raised in a Church of Christ....the one without the piano.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno... a church without a piano, that's ... that's apianoism.  Doesn't sound good.
> 
> Posted from my piano
Click to expand...



Aha ha ha ha ha!

I was raised with some really bad singing.  I think that's why I hate karaoke.  LOL!

And it was all due to one verse in the Bible, about making a joyful noise unto the Lord. It wasn't joyful, it was painful.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love watching the lying preacher on tv lying to fools in America.  Its like being at the enemies meeting.  I get to listen in and see the foolishness without having to get up and drive in and sit in on one of those services.  What a riot.
> 
> If they don't want me watching, take it off free tv.  LOL.
> 
> Anyways, if Christianity was real, they wouldn't have con artists and nuts like Billy Graham as their spokespeople.
> 
> And you misunderstood me.  I said I don't believe in any god.  Boss believes in generic god.  He isn't a Christian or Muslim or Jew but he still believes in god.  He believes because humans have always believed that that is proof a god must exist.  Plus spiritual energy and all that.  He uses all these reasons why he believes, even though he admits that all the organized religions are fos.
> 
> I don't hardly ever argue with people who are christians, especially the ones who believe that Noah built a boat and 2 of every animal came from all over the world.
> 
> And most so called "christians" that I talk to say they understand those are all just stories to teach right from wrong.
> 
> What they don't put together in their little brainwashed brains is that if noah, adam and moses are all stories, so too is the Jesus walking on water, turning water into wine, 10 loaves into 1000, virgin mother, rising from the dead.
> 
> One day they will realize even the Jesus stories are all lies.  So is the entire concept of god.
> 
> Do I believe in something greater than self?  I sure do.  It's called our society.  We the People.  Our constitution.  Science and the Universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that anything that any con artist uses to make money is fake?
> 
> I guess that means you believe in lots of things that aren't real.
Click to expand...


What makes your story any more believable than the con artist christian?


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love watching the lying preacher on tv lying to fools in America.  Its like being at the enemies meeting.  I get to listen in and see the foolishness without having to get up and drive in and sit in on one of those services.  What a riot.
> 
> If they don't want me watching, take it off free tv.  LOL.
> 
> Anyways, if Christianity was real, they wouldn't have con artists and nuts like Billy Graham as their spokespeople.
> 
> And you misunderstood me.  I said I don't believe in any god.  Boss believes in generic god.  He isn't a Christian or Muslim or Jew but he still believes in god.  He believes because humans have always believed that that is proof a god must exist.  Plus spiritual energy and all that.  He uses all these reasons why he believes, even though he admits that all the organized religions are fos.
> 
> I don't hardly ever argue with people who are christians, especially the ones who believe that Noah built a boat and 2 of every animal came from all over the world.
> 
> And most so called "christians" that I talk to say they understand those are all just stories to teach right from wrong.
> 
> What they don't put together in their little brainwashed brains is that if noah, adam and moses are all stories, so too is the Jesus walking on water, turning water into wine, 10 loaves into 1000, virgin mother, rising from the dead.
> 
> One day they will realize even the Jesus stories are all lies.  So is the entire concept of god.
> 
> Do I believe in something greater than self?  I sure do.  It's called our society.  We the People.  Our constitution.  Science and the Universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that anything that any con artist uses to make money is fake?
> 
> I guess that means you believe in lots of things that aren't real.
Click to expand...


I'm saying religions are used to lie to people.

George Bush God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq World news The Guardian


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alpine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say "in their religion", I said "in religion".
> 
> If religious people do exist, guess what also exists alongside; "religion". Because these people have one! Maybe you do not, but statistically, you most likely have one, in a different shape, like atheism...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This just in: Atheism is not a religion.  Breaking news.
> Buddhists and Jainists and Taoists are all atheists; yet they are all different religions.  And that's _three _religions --- not four.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking as a Buddhist, you have that one wrong.  I'm not a Jainist or Taoist so I don't feel I should speak for them.  But aren't you just arguing that you can not believe in gods and still be in a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking as a Taoist/Jainist, no I have that one right.
> Poorly constructed but yes I am saying you can not-believe in gods (i.e. not subscribe to theism) and still be in a religion.
> 
> Just as you can not-believe (not subscribe to) the concept of reincarnation and still be in a religion.  Which does not make not-subscribing to reincarnation a "religion".
> 
> Same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it wrong for Buddhism.  It is not Atheistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really....
> It's a tangent but do you want to name the Buddhist "god(s)"?
> I'm not a Buddhist, I only know what I read and observe from Buddhist friends and roommates.  None of which indicates theism...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying pretty much the same thing.  What you believe really doesn't matter.  What matters is how you believe and how you act.  Religion is an action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to say _exercising_ a religion  is an action, but the religion itself is a philosophy.  A philosophy doesn't do anything; it just sits there until it's needed for a thought process.
> 
> Neither of which, to return to the topic, qualifies atheism as a "religion".  It has no philosophy and cannot be "exercised".   Any more than non-belief in the Easter Bunny can be "exercised"
Click to expand...


What makes you think gods need names?  But the answer is dependent upon who you are dealing with.

If you go to Thailand, where I did my stint in a monastery, you will notice that the cab drivers tend to sit kind of sideways, pushed up against the door.  This is because it is believed Buddha is sitting beside them and protecting them.  They don't want to crowd him.  In addition, it is Buddhist theology that existence is on many levels.  Buddha himself is said to have begun as an oxen in Hell.  Hell not being a place of punishment but simply another plane of existence to be experienced.  The gods are but one of the planes of existence and it is quite possible to be reborn as a god. 

Buddhism does not consider gods to be of any particular importance.  The philosophy is about self and eschews external assistance.  But it does not deny or reject gods.  One can follow the philosophy of Buddhism and be and Atheist, but it is not an Atheistic religion.

Religion is not a philosophy any more than politics is a philosophy.  Philosophy plays a role, but it is primarily a human endeavor and is all about action.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Just want to point something out.  People like Boss brag that 95% of us believe in god.  So what?  If it weren't for the 5% of humans who invented huts, the rest of us would still be living in caves or under trees.
> 
> I bet it was the 5% that came up with god to manipulate the 95%.  How else did King Tut get his slaves to build the pyramids.  He lied and told them he was a god.
> 
> Would you know how to make a tv or gas engine?  How about a dam?  Would you know how to build a dam?  Most people would not.
> 
> Hell, most people can't make fire, wouldn't know how to make rope, don't know what is edible, would not know how to find or make steel products.
> 
> Get where I'm going with this?  We brad about man's accoplishments but really if everything went away tomorrow, how many of us would know how to re invent anything?



Another display of the idiotic rambling that only atheists have the ability to think, and he demonstrates this by the inability to put up a coherent argument against anything.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Why do good/real Christians put up with it?



Because they don't believe in killing people for apostasy? Perhaps you prefer Muslims that don't put up with anyone who disagrees with them. If so, feel free to move to any part of the world dominated by ISIL.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

asaratis said:


> Your personal experience in dam building came after you knew what dams were and how they worked.  You did not discover dams on your own.  I built one in a sandbox once myself.  That doesn't mean that I discovered dams.
> 
> Who knows where the Chinese learned the effects of damming a stream of water?  It certainly is not an instinctive human trait....else we'd each have a dam somewhere.
> 
> The only non-beaver dams that I know of that occurred in nature were the glacial ice dams that occasionally broke and caused the erosion of the scablands in Washington state.



Dayam, I was really smart when I was 3 years old. 

Seriously dude, if you want to butter someone up I suggest you target someone that will fall for it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> I'd have to say _exercising_ a religion  is an action, but the religion itself is a philosophy.  A philosophy doesn't do anything; it just sits there until it's needed for a thought process.
> 
> Neither of which, to return to the topic, qualifies atheism as a "religion".  It has no philosophy and cannot be "exercised".   Any more than non-belief in the Easter Bunny can be "exercised"



Atheism doesn't have a philosophy? Since when?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

asaratis said:


> Of course they are.  They may be incorrect, but they are certainly based on the reality I've been exposed to.



Can you explain what reality exists anywhere where humans do not have instincts?

Didn't think so, which means you have not been exposed to reality if you think your opinions are based on it.



asaratis said:


> Your replies seem to be based on knee jerk reactions made before you analyze exactly what I say. Accidental art created by an elephant can easily be confused with modern art created by a real human artist.



They seem that way to you because that is how you think. In the real world, my replies are based on absolute astonishment that anyone could type the words you do without laughing out loud at how ridiculous they are. 

For example, you "reality based opinion" that men learned to build dams after watching beavers. The major problem with that statement is that there are dams throughout the know world, even in places where people never saw a beaver. You never bothered to explain how people who lived in areas beavers do not exist managed to build those dams. Come to think of it, it doesn't even explain how man developed irrigation systems. Do you think they learned by watching aliens build one?



asaratis said:


> Before you come back with some jerk off reply, know that this has already happened in the not too distant past.



People treated you like a jerk? Really?

I can't imagine why. Could it be that you assume you know everything because you form uniformed opinions based on delusions, and then try to pass them off as authoritative?



asaratis said:


> Where to Buy Original Art Painted by Animals
> This ^^^^^ is not my opinion...it's factual!
> ...and be sure to read about the elephants.



Just because you can find charlatans that pass random markings made by animals off as art does not mean it is really art. 

Don't worry though, I am sure you fooled someone.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do good/real Christians put up with it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they don't believe in killing people for apostasy? Perhaps you prefer Muslims that don't put up with anyone who disagrees with them. If so, feel free to move to any part of the world dominated by ISIL.
Click to expand...


Don't Christians want to turn America into the Christian version of ISIS?  

I love it that our founding fathers were smart enough to keep religion away from government.

Oh, and I think I'm a Buddhist after reading this:  "Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time). Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations). Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., Miracles occured)  Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything by mere suppositions. Do not accept anything by mere inference. Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons. Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I'm saying religions are used to lie to people.
> 
> George Bush God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq World news The Guardian



So is everything else in the world, do you have an actual point or are you just exhibiting your bigotry?


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd have to say _exercising_ a religion  is an action, but the religion itself is a philosophy.  A philosophy doesn't do anything; it just sits there until it's needed for a thought process.
> 
> Neither of which, to return to the topic, qualifies atheism as a "religion".  It has no philosophy and cannot be "exercised".   Any more than non-belief in the Easter Bunny can be "exercised"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism doesn't have a philosophy? Since when?
Click to expand...


What is our phylosophy?


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying religions are used to lie to people.
> 
> George Bush God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq World news The Guardian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is everything else in the world, do you have an actual point or are you just exhibiting your bigotry?
Click to expand...


Did Bush really talk to god or is he delusional?

This is also a great example of how believing in god isn't always necessarily a good thing.  Look at what god told bush to do.  Now look where we're at.  Fucking idiots.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Don't Christians want to turn America into the Christian version of ISIS?



I don't know, lets see what the famous atheist Bill Maher thinks about that.


Damn, I guess that makes you an idiot.

Why am I not surprised?



sealybobo said:


> I love it that our founding fathers were smart enough to keep religion away from government.



Why are you working so hard to undue their work then?



sealybobo said:


> Oh, and I think I'm a Buddhist after reading this:  "Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time). Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations). Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., Miracles occured)  Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything by mere suppositions. Do not accept anything by mere inference. Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons. Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable.



Your basic problem is you think you think. 

Anyone that converts to a religion based on hearsay, like you just said you do, is an idiot.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Did Bush really talk to god or is he delusional?
> 
> This is also a great example of how believing in god isn't always necessarily a good thing.  Look at what god told bush to do.  Now look where we're at.  Fucking idiots.



Now when I talk to god you know he understands, says stick by me I'll be your guiding hand.

But don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to...

Oh well.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> What is our phylosophy?



Do you have a mouse in your pocket, or are you listening to the voices in your head again?

Your personal philosophy appears to be that you are an idiot that refuses to admit that anyone might know more than he does. That in no way applies to every atheist in the world, despite your personal delusions otherwise.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't Christians want to turn America into the Christian version of ISIS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, lets see what the famous atheist Bill Maher thinks about that.
> 
> 
> Damn, I guess that makes you an idiot.
> 
> Why am I not surprised?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it that our founding fathers were smart enough to keep religion away from government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you working so hard to undue their work then?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and I think I'm a Buddhist after reading this:  "Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time). Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations). Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., Miracles occured)  Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything by mere suppositions. Do not accept anything by mere inference. Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons. Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your basic problem is you think you think.
> 
> Anyone that converts to a religion based on hearsay, like you just said you do, is an idiot.
Click to expand...


I will agree that Islam is about 200 years behind Christianity as far as being civilized.  Same goes for the people.

So what?  If I had to pick one I'd pick Christianity but it is still just the lesser of 1000 evils.  

Actually I'd be a Buddhist because they say:   "Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time). Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations). Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., by believing what others say without any investigation). Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything by mere suppositions. Do not accept anything by mere inference. Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons. Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable -- (i.e., thinking that as the speaker seems to be a good person his words should be accepted). Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us (therefore it is right to accept his word). 

Because that's exactly what Christians do.  They accept lies and impossible stories because they are told if you have faith in them you'll go to la la land forever when you die.

George Carlin was right.  Religion is the greatest bullshit story ever told.  youtube it and see why if you are a christian, it is you who's the fool or idiot.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Quantum Windbag said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  It is man made.  Invented and constructed by man as opposed to occurring naturally.  Iron ore is natural.  Knives are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the intrinsic difference between a beaver dam and a dam made by man? What makes one natural, and the other unnatural? Defining natural in such a way that you exclude the works of human beings is, at best, simplistic.
Click to expand...

to be fair, if you untangle a beaver's dam you still have recognizable sticks......if you unravel cotton fabric you still have natural fibers.....if you unravel rayon, you have plastic.....


----------



## Carla_Danger

sealybobo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying religions are used to lie to people.
> 
> George Bush God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq World news The Guardian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is everything else in the world, do you have an actual point or are you just exhibiting your bigotry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Bush really talk to god or is he delusional?
> 
> This is also a great example of how believing in god isn't always necessarily a good thing.  Look at what god told bush to do.  Now look where we're at.  Fucking idiots.
Click to expand...



He certainly should have spent more time educating himself, instead of talking to his imaginary friend.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I will agree that Islam is about 200 years behind Christianity as far as being civilized.  Same goes for the people.
> 
> So what?  If I had to pick one I'd pick Christianity but it is still just the lesser of 1000 evils.
> 
> Actually I'd be a Buddhist because they say:   "Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time). Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations). Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., by believing what others say without any investigation). Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything by mere suppositions. Do not accept anything by mere inference. Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons. Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable -- (i.e., thinking that as the speaker seems to be a good person his words should be accepted). Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us (therefore it is right to accept his word).
> 
> Because that's exactly what Christians do.  They accept lies and impossible stories because they are told if you have faith in them you'll go to la la land forever when you die.
> 
> George Carlin was right.  Religion is the greatest bullshit story ever told.  youtube it and see why if you are a christian, it is you who's the fool or idiot.



I love it when people tell me why I believe even less than I do when they tell me what I believe.

Until you sit down and talk to people that actually understand their beliefs you are a fool who thinks he knows everything.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PostmodernProph said:


> to be fair, if you untangle a beaver's dam you still have recognizable sticks......if you unravel cotton fabric you still have natural fibers.....if you unravel rayon, you have plastic.....



if you unravel the plastic you have genetic material, which is 100% natural.


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This just in: Atheism is not a religion.  Breaking news.
> Buddhists and Jainists and Taoists are all atheists; yet they are all different religions.  And that's _three _religions --- not four.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as a Buddhist, you have that one wrong.  I'm not a Jainist or Taoist so I don't feel I should speak for them.  But aren't you just arguing that you can not believe in gods and still be in a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking as a Taoist/Jainist, no I have that one right.
> Poorly constructed but yes I am saying you can not-believe in gods (i.e. not subscribe to theism) and still be in a religion.
> 
> Just as you can not-believe (not subscribe to) the concept of reincarnation and still be in a religion.  Which does not make not-subscribing to reincarnation a "religion".
> 
> Same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it wrong for Buddhism.  It is not Atheistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really....
> It's a tangent but do you want to name the Buddhist "god(s)"?
> I'm not a Buddhist, I only know what I read and observe from Buddhist friends and roommates.  None of which indicates theism...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying pretty much the same thing.  What you believe really doesn't matter.  What matters is how you believe and how you act.  Religion is an action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to say _exercising_ a religion  is an action, but the religion itself is a philosophy.  A philosophy doesn't do anything; it just sits there until it's needed for a thought process.
> 
> Neither of which, to return to the topic, qualifies atheism as a "religion".  It has no philosophy and cannot be "exercised".   Any more than non-belief in the Easter Bunny can be "exercised"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think gods need names?  But the answer is dependent upon who you are dealing with.
> 
> If you go to Thailand, where I did my stint in a monastery, you will notice that the cab drivers tend to sit kind of sideways, pushed up against the door.  This is because it is believed Buddha is sitting beside them and protecting them.  They don't want to crowd him.  In addition, it is Buddhist theology that existence is on many levels.  Buddha himself is said to have begun as an oxen in Hell.  Hell not being a place of punishment but simply another plane of existence to be experienced.  The gods are but one of the planes of existence and it is quite possible to be reborn as a god.
> 
> Buddhism does not consider gods to be of any particular importance.  The philosophy is about self and eschews external assistance.  But it does not deny or reject gods.  One can follow the philosophy of Buddhism and be and Atheist, but it is not an Atheistic religion.
> 
> Religion is not a philosophy any more than politics is a philosophy.  Philosophy plays a role, but it is primarily a human endeavor and is all about action.
Click to expand...


It doesn't sound like you've described "gods" here.  I don't think Buddha is considered a "god" in our Western sense.
But we touched earlier on the failure of our e word to adequately grok those energies.  (Shinto?)  It's a moot point; the greater point was that theism is not necessarily a component in religion; it's optional at extra cost. 

I can't agree religion is "all about action" -- if anything it's the opposite.  Where is the "action" in meditation?


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will agree that Islam is about 200 years behind Christianity as far as being civilized.  Same goes for the people.
> 
> So what?  If I had to pick one I'd pick Christianity but it is still just the lesser of 1000 evils.
> 
> Actually I'd be a Buddhist because they say:   "Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time). Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations). Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., by believing what others say without any investigation). Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything by mere suppositions. Do not accept anything by mere inference. Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons. Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable -- (i.e., thinking that as the speaker seems to be a good person his words should be accepted). Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us (therefore it is right to accept his word).
> 
> Because that's exactly what Christians do.  They accept lies and impossible stories because they are told if you have faith in them you'll go to la la land forever when you die.
> 
> George Carlin was right.  Religion is the greatest bullshit story ever told.  youtube it and see why if you are a christian, it is you who's the fool or idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when people tell me why I believe even less than I do when they tell me what I believe.
> 
> Until you sit down and talk to people that actually understand their beliefs you are a fool who thinks he knows everything.
Click to expand...


Ironic post of the day.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as a Buddhist, you have that one wrong.  I'm not a Jainist or Taoist so I don't feel I should speak for them.  But aren't you just arguing that you can not believe in gods and still be in a religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as a Taoist/Jainist, no I have that one right.
> Poorly constructed but yes I am saying you can not-believe in gods (i.e. not subscribe to theism) and still be in a religion.
> 
> Just as you can not-believe (not subscribe to) the concept of reincarnation and still be in a religion.  Which does not make not-subscribing to reincarnation a "religion".
> 
> Same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it wrong for Buddhism.  It is not Atheistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really....
> It's a tangent but do you want to name the Buddhist "god(s)"?
> I'm not a Buddhist, I only know what I read and observe from Buddhist friends and roommates.  None of which indicates theism...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying pretty much the same thing.  What you believe really doesn't matter.  What matters is how you believe and how you act.  Religion is an action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to say _exercising_ a religion  is an action, but the religion itself is a philosophy.  A philosophy doesn't do anything; it just sits there until it's needed for a thought process.
> 
> Neither of which, to return to the topic, qualifies atheism as a "religion".  It has no philosophy and cannot be "exercised".   Any more than non-belief in the Easter Bunny can be "exercised"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think gods need names?  But the answer is dependent upon who you are dealing with.
> 
> If you go to Thailand, where I did my stint in a monastery, you will notice that the cab drivers tend to sit kind of sideways, pushed up against the door.  This is because it is believed Buddha is sitting beside them and protecting them.  They don't want to crowd him.  In addition, it is Buddhist theology that existence is on many levels.  Buddha himself is said to have begun as an oxen in Hell.  Hell not being a place of punishment but simply another plane of existence to be experienced.  The gods are but one of the planes of existence and it is quite possible to be reborn as a god.
> 
> Buddhism does not consider gods to be of any particular importance.  The philosophy is about self and eschews external assistance.  But it does not deny or reject gods.  One can follow the philosophy of Buddhism and be and Atheist, but it is not an Atheistic religion.
> 
> Religion is not a philosophy any more than politics is a philosophy.  Philosophy plays a role, but it is primarily a human endeavor and is all about action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't sound like you've described "gods" here.  I don't think Buddha is considered a "god" in our Western sense.
> But we touched earlier on the failure of our e word to adequately grok those energies.  (Shinto?)  It's a moot point; the greater point was that theism is not necessarily a component in religion; it's optional at extra cost.
> 
> I can't agree religion is "all about action" -- if anything it's the opposite.  Where is the "action" in meditation?
Click to expand...


Western religion is not the only religion.  I see no reason why I should consider it the standard by which others are measured.  I have already agreed that theism is not necessary for religion.  Neither is meditation.  In fact, if done properly meditation has nothing at all to do with religion.

Religion is a group interaction.  I have already said this.  It requires a group identity.  "We are Atheists" is a group identity.  That is an action.  It is based upon belief, and that is an action.  It adheres to dogma, and that is an action.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as a Buddhist, you have that one wrong.  I'm not a Jainist or Taoist so I don't feel I should speak for them.  But aren't you just arguing that you can not believe in gods and still be in a religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as a Taoist/Jainist, no I have that one right.
> Poorly constructed but yes I am saying you can not-believe in gods (i.e. not subscribe to theism) and still be in a religion.
> 
> Just as you can not-believe (not subscribe to) the concept of reincarnation and still be in a religion.  Which does not make not-subscribing to reincarnation a "religion".
> 
> Same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it wrong for Buddhism.  It is not Atheistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really....
> It's a tangent but do you want to name the Buddhist "god(s)"?
> I'm not a Buddhist, I only know what I read and observe from Buddhist friends and roommates.  None of which indicates theism...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying pretty much the same thing.  What you believe really doesn't matter.  What matters is how you believe and how you act.  Religion is an action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to say _exercising_ a religion  is an action, but the religion itself is a philosophy.  A philosophy doesn't do anything; it just sits there until it's needed for a thought process.
> 
> Neither of which, to return to the topic, qualifies atheism as a "religion".  It has no philosophy and cannot be "exercised".   Any more than non-belief in the Easter Bunny can be "exercised"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think gods need names?  But the answer is dependent upon who you are dealing with.
> 
> If you go to Thailand, where I did my stint in a monastery, you will notice that the cab drivers tend to sit kind of sideways, pushed up against the door.  This is because it is believed Buddha is sitting beside them and protecting them.  They don't want to crowd him.  In addition, it is Buddhist theology that existence is on many levels.  Buddha himself is said to have begun as an oxen in Hell.  Hell not being a place of punishment but simply another plane of existence to be experienced.  The gods are but one of the planes of existence and it is quite possible to be reborn as a god.
> 
> Buddhism does not consider gods to be of any particular importance.  The philosophy is about self and eschews external assistance.  But it does not deny or reject gods.  One can follow the philosophy of Buddhism and be and Atheist, but it is not an Atheistic religion.
> 
> Religion is not a philosophy any more than politics is a philosophy.  Philosophy plays a role, but it is primarily a human endeavor and is all about action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't sound like you've described "gods" here.  I don't think Buddha is considered a "god" in our Western sense.
> But we touched earlier on the failure of our e word to adequately grok those energies.  (Shinto?)  It's a moot point; the greater point was that theism is not necessarily a component in religion; it's optional at extra cost.
> 
> I can't agree religion is "all about action" -- if anything it's the opposite.  Where is the "action" in meditation?
Click to expand...


BTW.  If it doesn't sound like I am describing gods it can only mean that you already have an image in your mind of what gods are.  But there is no evidence regarding gods available.  So that image can only be belief.  It really is hard to escape our nature.


----------



## asaratis

Quantum Windbag said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal experience in dam building came after you knew what dams were and how they worked.  You did not discover dams on your own.  I built one in a sandbox once myself.  That doesn't mean that I discovered dams.
> 
> Who knows where the Chinese learned the effects of damming a stream of water?  It certainly is not an instinctive human trait....else we'd each have a dam somewhere.
> 
> The only non-beaver dams that I know of that occurred in nature were the glacial ice dams that occasionally broke and caused the erosion of the scablands in Washington state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayam, I was really smart when I was 3 years old.
> 
> Seriously dude, if you want to butter someone up I suggest you target someone that will fall for it.
Click to expand...

What the fuck makes you think I'm trying to butter anyone up?  You are a demented fuckstick!


----------



## asaratis

Quantum Windbag said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are.  They may be incorrect, but they are certainly based on the reality I've been exposed to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain what reality exists anywhere where humans do not have instincts?
> 
> Didn't think so, which means you have not been exposed to reality if you think your opinions are based on it.
Click to expand...

 Strawman argument.  I did not say that humans do not have instincts.  Read the thread again, Bozo.



			
				QW said:
			
		

> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your replies seem to be based on knee jerk reactions made before you analyze exactly what I say. Accidental art created by an elephant can easily be confused with modern art created by a real human artist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They seem that way to you because that is how you think. In the real world, my replies are based on absolute astonishment that anyone could type the words you do without laughing out loud at how ridiculous they are.
Click to expand...

Cute, but not worthy of a cigar.


			
				QW said:
			
		

> For example, you "reality based opinion" that men learned to build dams after watching beavers. The major problem with that statement is that there are dams throughout the know world, even in places where people never saw a beaver. You never bothered to explain how people who lived in areas beavers do not exist managed to build those dams. Come to think of it, it doesn't even explain how man developed irrigation systems. Do you think they learned by watching aliens build one?


You rant does not negate the FACT the mankind discovered the  benefits of dams while beavers built dams instinctively.  The Chinese built dams before Christ was born.  Their discovery of the benefits came by observation of the simply truth that water will level itself no matter how contained.  It is quite logical to suppose that some people became aware of how dams worked by seeing the results of beaver dams.



			
				QW said:
			
		

> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before you come back with some jerk off reply, know that this has already happened in the not too distant past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People treated you like a jerk? Really?
> 
> I can't imagine why. Could it be that you assume you know everything because you form uniformed opinions based on delusions, and then try to pass them off as authoritative?
Click to expand...

You totally missed the reference to "jerk off".  YOU are the jerk!



			
				QW said:
			
		

> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where to Buy Original Art Painted by Animals
> This ^^^^^ is not my opinion...it's factual!
> ...and be sure to read about the elephants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you can find charlatans that pass random markings made by animals off as art does not mean it is really art.
> 
> Don't worry though, I am sure you fooled someone.
Click to expand...

Apparently you did not read the link.  This is to be expected of fools such as you and Pogo.  You'd rather let your ass shine in public than admit you do not understand.


----------



## asaratis

PostmodernProph said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  It is man made.  Invented and constructed by man as opposed to occurring naturally.  Iron ore is natural.  Knives are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the intrinsic difference between a beaver dam and a dam made by man? What makes one natural, and the other unnatural? Defining natural in such a way that you exclude the works of human beings is, at best, simplistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to be fair, if you untangle a beaver's dam you still have recognizable sticks......if you unravel cotton fabric you still have natural fibers.....if you unravel rayon, you have plastic.....
Click to expand...

Woven cotton does not exist in nature.  Neither does plastic.  Both are man made.


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as a Taoist/Jainist, no I have that one right.
> Poorly constructed but yes I am saying you can not-believe in gods (i.e. not subscribe to theism) and still be in a religion.
> 
> Just as you can not-believe (not subscribe to) the concept of reincarnation and still be in a religion.  Which does not make not-subscribing to reincarnation a "religion".
> 
> Same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have it wrong for Buddhism.  It is not Atheistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really....
> It's a tangent but do you want to name the Buddhist "god(s)"?
> I'm not a Buddhist, I only know what I read and observe from Buddhist friends and roommates.  None of which indicates theism...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying pretty much the same thing.  What you believe really doesn't matter.  What matters is how you believe and how you act.  Religion is an action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to say _exercising_ a religion  is an action, but the religion itself is a philosophy.  A philosophy doesn't do anything; it just sits there until it's needed for a thought process.
> 
> Neither of which, to return to the topic, qualifies atheism as a "religion".  It has no philosophy and cannot be "exercised".   Any more than non-belief in the Easter Bunny can be "exercised"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think gods need names?  But the answer is dependent upon who you are dealing with.
> 
> If you go to Thailand, where I did my stint in a monastery, you will notice that the cab drivers tend to sit kind of sideways, pushed up against the door.  This is because it is believed Buddha is sitting beside them and protecting them.  They don't want to crowd him.  In addition, it is Buddhist theology that existence is on many levels.  Buddha himself is said to have begun as an oxen in Hell.  Hell not being a place of punishment but simply another plane of existence to be experienced.  The gods are but one of the planes of existence and it is quite possible to be reborn as a god.
> 
> Buddhism does not consider gods to be of any particular importance.  The philosophy is about self and eschews external assistance.  But it does not deny or reject gods.  One can follow the philosophy of Buddhism and be and Atheist, but it is not an Atheistic religion.
> 
> Religion is not a philosophy any more than politics is a philosophy.  Philosophy plays a role, but it is primarily a human endeavor and is all about action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't sound like you've described "gods" here.  I don't think Buddha is considered a "god" in our Western sense.
> But we touched earlier on the failure of our e word to adequately grok those energies.  (Shinto?)  It's a moot point; the greater point was that theism is not necessarily a component in religion; it's optional at extra cost.
> 
> I can't agree religion is "all about action" -- if anything it's the opposite.  Where is the "action" in meditation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW.  If it doesn't sound like I am describing gods it can only mean that you already have an image in your mind of what gods are.  But there is no evidence regarding gods available.  So that image can only be belief.  It really is hard to escape our nature.
Click to expand...


Did you completely miss my earlier posts on the nature of what constitutes "gods" and the inadequacies of the term?
I said above, "in a Western sense".

Again, doesn't matter about specifics of Buddhism because again the greater point is that religion doesn't need theism to be religion.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are.  They may be incorrect, but they are certainly based on the reality I've been exposed to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain what reality exists anywhere where humans do not have instincts?
> 
> Didn't think so, which means you have not been exposed to reality if you think your opinions are based on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman argument.  I did not say that humans do not have instincts.  Read the thread again, Bozo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your replies seem to be based on knee jerk reactions made before you analyze exactly what I say. Accidental art created by an elephant can easily be confused with modern art created by a real human artist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They seem that way to you because that is how you think. In the real world, my replies are based on absolute astonishment that anyone could type the words you do without laughing out loud at how ridiculous they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cute, but not worthy of a cigar.
> 
> 
> 
> QW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, you "reality based opinion" that men learned to build dams after watching beavers. The major problem with that statement is that there are dams throughout the know world, even in places where people never saw a beaver. You never bothered to explain how people who lived in areas beavers do not exist managed to build those dams. Come to think of it, it doesn't even explain how man developed irrigation systems. Do you think they learned by watching aliens build one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You rant does not negate the FACT the mankind discovered the  benefits of dams while beavers built dams instinctively.  The Chinese built dams before Christ was born.  Their discovery of the benefits came by observation of the simply truth that water will level itself no matter how contained.  It is quite logical to suppose that some people became aware of how dams worked by seeing the results of beaver dams.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before you come back with some jerk off reply, know that this has already happened in the not too distant past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People treated you like a jerk? Really?
> 
> I can't imagine why. Could it be that you assume you know everything because you form uniformed opinions based on delusions, and then try to pass them off as authoritative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You totally missed the reference to "jerk off".  YOU are the jerk!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where to Buy Original Art Painted by Animals
> This ^^^^^ is not my opinion...it's factual!
> ...and be sure to read about the elephants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you can find charlatans that pass random markings made by animals off as art does not mean it is really art.
> 
> Don't worry though, I am sure you fooled someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you did not read the link.  This is to be expected of fools such as you and Pogo.  You'd rather let your ass shine in public than admit you do not understand.
Click to expand...


Why taketh you my name in vain?  I wasn't part of that exchange at all.  I don't even read QuackumDickbag's posts.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Quantum Windbag said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> to be fair, if you untangle a beaver's dam you still have recognizable sticks......if you unravel cotton fabric you still have natural fibers.....if you unravel rayon, you have plastic.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you unravel the plastic you have genetic material, which is 100% natural.
Click to expand...

not really......you would have to convert the plastic back into its molecular components.......not necessary for the beaver's sticks......


----------



## PostmodernProph

asaratis said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  It is man made.  Invented and constructed by man as opposed to occurring naturally.  Iron ore is natural.  Knives are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the intrinsic difference between a beaver dam and a dam made by man? What makes one natural, and the other unnatural? Defining natural in such a way that you exclude the works of human beings is, at best, simplistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to be fair, if you untangle a beaver's dam you still have recognizable sticks......if you unravel cotton fabric you still have natural fibers.....if you unravel rayon, you have plastic.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Woven cotton does not exist in nature.  Neither does plastic.  Both are man made.
Click to expand...

cotten fibers are not manmade, plastic fibers are......woven plastic fibers and woven cotton fibers and woven beaver's dams are all constructed


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Ironic post of the day.



Because Pogo thinks that me pointing out that his words are contradictory to his claims means I am telling him what he believes.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

asaratis said:


> What the fuck makes you think I'm trying to butter anyone up?  You are a demented fuckstick!



Why else would you try to paint me as a 3 year old child as being able to understand engineering principles?

Wait, I forgot, you can always fall back on outright ignorance and stupidity.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

asaratis said:


> Strawman argument.  I did not say that humans do not have instincts.  Read the thread again, Bozo.



Seriously? Did your account get hacked?



asaratis said:


> *Humans differ from birds and bees in that we possess very few if any natural instinctive behaviors.  (The natural drives to eat, drink and procreate are all that I know of.)* We learn from our parents and others.  We learn from experience.  We progressed over thousands of years from being cave dwellers (living in nature's free shelter) to building enclosed, air conditioned, lighted homes with running water by way of invention and innovation.   All these homes we build do not occur naturally.  We have taught ourselves to build them.



You should take some time to educate yourself o the various things that people that actually know what they are talking about consider to be instincts of humans. Or would learning that humans have multiple instincts related to eating itself upset your delusion that you know what you are talking about?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

asaratis said:


> Woven cotton does not exist in nature.  Neither does plastic.  Both are man made.



Good point, if we ignore the fact that rocks actually contain plastic.

Plastic Garbage Is Turning Into a New Kind of Rock in Hawaii - weather.com


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Why taketh you my name in vain?  I wasn't part of that exchange at all.  I don't even read QuackumDickbag's posts.



Yet you continue to reply to them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PostmodernProph said:


> not really......you would have to convert the plastic back into its molecular components.......not necessary for the beaver's sticks......



Sigh.

Petroleum is organic, so are sticks,  there is no more need to convert either to molecular components to make them organic. 

Geochemistry Research - Organic Origins of Petroleum USGS Energy Resources Program


----------



## HUGGY

PostmodernProph said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  It is man made.  Invented and constructed by man as opposed to occurring naturally.  Iron ore is natural.  Knives are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the intrinsic difference between a beaver dam and a dam made by man? What makes one natural, and the other unnatural? Defining natural in such a way that you exclude the works of human beings is, at best, simplistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to be fair, if you untangle a beaver's dam you still have recognizable sticks......if you unravel cotton fabric you still have natural fibers.....if you unravel rayon, you have plastic.....
Click to expand...

 
Beavers have been building dams much longer, tens of millions of years, than human beings have been building dwellings.

I wouldn't be surprised if man learned about the fort or moat concept from the beaver...and possibly the concept of changing one's environment to promote the growth of food...AKA farming.

Strangely enough I believe the best evidense that man was placed here on earth by some outside entity...god..etc...
is that man seems so obviously ill equiped physically to survive compared to just about any other animal form.  We, our ancient ancestors,  were slower, reproduced less often, gestated 9 months compared to most life forms dangerously much longer and had numerous other inherent dangerous dissabilities. 

Looking back honestly our probability to survive was improbable...very unlikely.

It seems we must have needed some help not obvious.

Man has been making excuses and blaming or crediting unseen forces for a very long time....much longer than the existance of any organized societies. 

Still all this making shit up and not a scrap of evidense to support much less prove any truth to all the mumbo jumbo.

I don't know about any god/s but why all the hulabaloo for all these millennia? 

Even those old sketches on the walls of caves...what was the point? 

One would think that way back then there would be no time whatsoever to do anything that wasn't directly applicable to survival.

Maybe all the wall paintings were done by women ..pregnant women.  They were probably the only humans that were not forced to do anything desperately needed for the tribes to survive after the woman got real big.

Personally I think that the concept of "other" beings like gods or any number of made up beings came from the toxins in plants and animals that were meant originally to kill predators by poisoning them.  Taken in smaller doses by experimentation or accidentally by curiosity these toxins can make an animal like a human believe they see all kinds of strange manifestations.

If you want to "see" god you need to go no further than a hit of LSD.  The human mind under the influence of a drug like "acid" can and will cause one to "witness" and see amazing hallucinations that could easily be attributed to the will of a god showing itself.


----------



## newpolitics

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.



No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.


----------



## Pogo

newpolitics said:


> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.
Click to expand...


Just for a point of clarification, the posit was that atheism is not a "religion".  That poster -- from like 800 posts ago -- misstated it as "faith".


----------



## newpolitics

Pogo said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just for a point of clarification, the posit was that atheism is not a "religion".  That poster -- from like 800 posts ago -- misstated it as "faith".
Click to expand...


That's even easier to show, and I'm pretty sure you already did it by simply posting the definition of a religion in the OP. Can't believe this thread has gone on so long.


----------



## Tom Sweetnam

newpolitics said:


> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection* of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.*
Click to expand...


Whose unsubstantiated and insufficient claims? Mine? You have no idea whether I do or do not believe in God. But please, don't put the onus off on me, go ahead and give me your substantiated and sufficient arguments proving God doesn't exist. I'm waiting...twiddling my thumbs...listening to my dogs snore.


----------



## Pogo

newpolitics said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just for a point of clarification, the posit was that atheism is not a "religion".  That poster -- from like 800 posts ago -- misstated it as "faith".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's even easier to show, and I'm pretty sure you already did it by simply posting the definition of a religion in the OP. Can't believe this thread has gone on so long.
Click to expand...


I know, right?  We did so demonstrate a thousand ways from Sunday, pun intended, yet the denialists persist.

No one knows _why_ they persist.  They won't answer that question.


----------



## Pogo

Tom Sweetnam said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection* of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whose unsubstantiated and insufficient claims? Mine? You have no idea whether I do or do not believe in God. But please, don't put the onus off on me, go ahead and give me your substantiated and sufficient arguments proving God doesn't exist. I'm waiting...twiddling my thumbs...listening to my dogs snore.
Click to expand...


As will we all, as this thread never was about "whether God exists".  It's about the mythology that atheism constitutes a "religion".  Try paying attention to the words, willya?


----------



## Tom Sweetnam

Pogo said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just for a point of clarification, the posit was that atheism is not a "religion".  That poster -- from like 800 posts ago -- misstated it as "faith".
Click to expand...


If it isn't a religion, it's certainly evangelical. Atheists never shut the hell up about their anti-theism, especially Marxists. Even in true communist states, something has to supplant God. There has to be something above and beyond the proletariat, so "the party" becomes God.


----------



## Tom Sweetnam

Pogo said:


> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection* of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whose unsubstantiated and insufficient claims? Mine? You have no idea whether I do or do not believe in God. But please, don't put the onus off on me, go ahead and give me your substantiated and sufficient arguments proving God doesn't exist. I'm waiting...twiddling my thumbs...listening to my dogs snore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As will we all, as this thread never was about "whether God exists".  It's about the mythology that atheism constitutes a "religion".  Try paying attention to the words, willya?
Click to expand...


Sounds like a weasel making an exit. Bye bye wimp.


----------



## newpolitics

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just for a point of clarification, the posit was that atheism is not a "religion".  That poster -- from like 800 posts ago -- misstated it as "faith".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it isn't a religion, it's certainly evangelical. Atheists never shut the hell up about their anti-theism, especially Marxists. Even in true communist states, something has to supplant God. There has to be something above and beyond the proletariat, so "the party" becomes God.
Click to expand...


What does the deification of the state in the context of communism, have to do with more generic atheism (not affiliated with a communist movement) being evangelical? I don't think you have much of an argument here. You don't even have an argument within the context of historic communist states. They didn't evangelize. They held people at gunpoint. There's a difference, and that's not a comment on atheism, but on totalitarianism. It is incidental that it happened to be atheistic regimes doing it, since their aims were political, not religious.


----------



## Pogo

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection* of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whose unsubstantiated and insufficient claims? Mine? You have no idea whether I do or do not believe in God. But please, don't put the onus off on me, go ahead and give me your substantiated and sufficient arguments proving God doesn't exist. I'm waiting...twiddling my thumbs...listening to my dogs snore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As will we all, as this thread never was about "whether God exists".  It's about the mythology that atheism constitutes a "religion".  Try paying attention to the words, willya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like a weasel making an exit. Bye bye wimp.
Click to expand...


Sounds like a concession from an Einstein who misstated the topic eight hundred posts ago, then finally came back and misstated it again.


----------



## Pogo

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just for a point of clarification, the posit was that atheism is not a "religion".  That poster -- from like 800 posts ago -- misstated it as "faith".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it isn't a religion, it's certainly evangelical. Atheists never shut the hell up about their anti-theism, especially Marxists. Even in true communist states, something has to supplant God. There has to be something above and beyond the proletariat, so "the party" becomes God.
Click to expand...


Strawman.  Covered at least seven hundred posts ago.  Political red herring.

Off topic too.

Other than that -- hey great post.


Wimp.


----------



## newpolitics

Tom Sweetnam said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection* of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whose unsubstantiated and insufficient claims? Mine? You have no idea whether I do or do not believe in God. But please, don't put the onus off on me, go ahead and give me your substantiated and sufficient arguments proving God doesn't exist. I'm waiting...twiddling my thumbs...listening to my dogs snore.
Click to expand...



I don't care what you believe, just what you attempt to argue, so don't act like a POSSIBLE assumption of mine about your theological disposition makes my counter-argument any less valid. It is only rational to assume you are theistic when you insult atheists, unless you are a theological non-cognitivist. Are you demanding a counter-argument to claims you don't actually make? That makes no sense. You are a theist who can't support his own claims, and so passes your burden of proof onto atheists, arrogantly presuming that your belief is true in the process without showing it. We are back to square one. You have no arguments for god.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is."

 Actually this is ludicrous, as it fails as an argument from ignorance fallacy. That no one has proven 'god' as perceived by theists doesn't exist doesn't mean it does, nor does it 'prove' being free from faith is a 'religion.'

Moreover, those free from faith don't 'browbeat' anyone into anything, as that fails as a hasty generalization fallacy.

It's also telling the desperation of some theists as they seek to propagate the lie that to be free from faith is a 'religion,' where some theists unwittingly attempt to portray those free from faith as being as irrational as they.
​


----------



## Tom Sweetnam

newpolitics said:


> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just for a point of clarification, the posit was that atheism is not a "religion".  That poster -- from like 800 posts ago -- misstated it as "faith".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it isn't a religion, it's certainly evangelical. Atheists never shut the hell up about their anti-theism, especially Marxists. Even in true communist states, something has to supplant God. There has to be something above and beyond the proletariat, so "the party" becomes God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does the deification of the state in the context of communism, have to do with more generic atheism (not affiliated with a communist movement) being evangelical? I don't think you have much of an argument here. You don't even have an argument within the context of historic communist states. They didn't evangelize. They held people at gunpoint. There's a difference, and that's not a comment on atheism, but on totalitarianism. It is incidental that it happened to be atheistic regimes doing it, since their aims were political, not religious.
Click to expand...


Ha! The evangelical nature of the communist party is a recurring theme in many of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's 
books. He talks of tens of thousands of communist party members, condemnened  to death by the party in various purges, marching dutifully to the executioner's chamber knowing that they were "dying for the party". How fucking sick is that? They couldn't rationalize death in terms of God, could they? 

'Ivan's War: 'Life and Death in the Red Army, 1939-1945' by British historian Catherine Merridale is interesting if for no other fact than that she addresses this phenomenon in "the first atheist army in Russian history". The party became God for the proles, since no other Gods were allowed.


----------



## Pogo

News flash: this is not a politics thread.

Who knew?

Oh wait, that's right -- everybody.


----------



## Tom Sweetnam

newpolitics said:


> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection* of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whose unsubstantiated and insufficient claims? Mine? You have no idea whether I do or do not believe in God. But please, don't put the onus off on me, go ahead and give me your substantiated and sufficient arguments proving God doesn't exist. I'm waiting...twiddling my thumbs...listening to my dogs snore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what you believe, just what you attempt to argue, so don't act like a POSSIBLE assumption of mine about your theological disposition makes my counter-argument any less valid. It is only rational to assume you are theistic when you insult atheists, unless you are a theological non-cognitivist. Are you demanding a counter-argument to claims you don't actually make? That makes no sense. You are a theist who can't support his own claims, and so passes your burden of proof onto atheists, arrogantly presuming that your belief is true in the process without showing it. We are back to square one. You have no arguments for god.
Click to expand...


"...you are a theological non-cognitivist" A what? A who?


----------



## PostmodernProph

Quantum Windbag said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> not really......you would have to convert the plastic back into its molecular components.......not necessary for the beaver's sticks......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Petroleum is organic, so are sticks,  there is no more need to convert either to molecular components to make them organic.
> 
> Geochemistry Research - Organic Origins of Petroleum USGS Energy Resources Program
Click to expand...

so you're argument is that "natural" simply means "organic"?........if a dog's turd on your lawn contains chemical preservatives from the food its been fed, does that make it unnatural?......


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have it wrong for Buddhism.  It is not Atheistic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really....
> It's a tangent but do you want to name the Buddhist "god(s)"?
> I'm not a Buddhist, I only know what I read and observe from Buddhist friends and roommates.  None of which indicates theism...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying pretty much the same thing.  What you believe really doesn't matter.  What matters is how you believe and how you act.  Religion is an action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd have to say _exercising_ a religion  is an action, but the religion itself is a philosophy.  A philosophy doesn't do anything; it just sits there until it's needed for a thought process.
> 
> Neither of which, to return to the topic, qualifies atheism as a "religion".  It has no philosophy and cannot be "exercised".   Any more than non-belief in the Easter Bunny can be "exercised"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think gods need names?  But the answer is dependent upon who you are dealing with.
> 
> If you go to Thailand, where I did my stint in a monastery, you will notice that the cab drivers tend to sit kind of sideways, pushed up against the door.  This is because it is believed Buddha is sitting beside them and protecting them.  They don't want to crowd him.  In addition, it is Buddhist theology that existence is on many levels.  Buddha himself is said to have begun as an oxen in Hell.  Hell not being a place of punishment but simply another plane of existence to be experienced.  The gods are but one of the planes of existence and it is quite possible to be reborn as a god.
> 
> Buddhism does not consider gods to be of any particular importance.  The philosophy is about self and eschews external assistance.  But it does not deny or reject gods.  One can follow the philosophy of Buddhism and be and Atheist, but it is not an Atheistic religion.
> 
> Religion is not a philosophy any more than politics is a philosophy.  Philosophy plays a role, but it is primarily a human endeavor and is all about action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't sound like you've described "gods" here.  I don't think Buddha is considered a "god" in our Western sense.
> But we touched earlier on the failure of our e word to adequately grok those energies.  (Shinto?)  It's a moot point; the greater point was that theism is not necessarily a component in religion; it's optional at extra cost.
> 
> I can't agree religion is "all about action" -- if anything it's the opposite.  Where is the "action" in meditation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW.  If it doesn't sound like I am describing gods it can only mean that you already have an image in your mind of what gods are.  But there is no evidence regarding gods available.  So that image can only be belief.  It really is hard to escape our nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you completely miss my earlier posts on the nature of what constitutes "gods" and the inadequacies of the term?
> I said above, "in a Western sense".
> 
> Again, doesn't matter about specifics of Buddhism because again the greater point is that religion doesn't need theism to be religion.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, I saw that.  I was pointing out the you have accepted that image, which is nothing but belief.  We have already agree religion does not require Theism.  Which is why Atheism can be a religion.


----------



## asaratis

Quantum Windbag said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck makes you think I'm trying to butter anyone up?  You are a demented fuckstick!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why else would you try to paint me as a 3 year old child as being able to understand engineering principles?
> 
> Wait, I forgot, you can always fall back on outright ignorance and stupidity.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I doubt that you remember anything in particular from when you were three years old.  Secondly, to observe that blocking a stream of water makes the water pool up does not require an understanding of engineering principles.  You merely observed the laws of physics in action.


----------



## asaratis

Quantum Windbag said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman argument.  I did not say that humans do not have instincts.  Read the thread again, Bozo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Did your account get hacked?
Click to expand...

Not that I know of.



asaratis said:


> *Humans differ from birds and bees in that we possess very few if any natural instinctive behaviors.  (The natural drives to eat, drink and procreate are all that I know of.)* We learn from our parents and others.  We learn from experience.  We progressed over thousands of years from being cave dwellers (living in nature's free shelter) to building enclosed, air conditioned, lighted homes with running water by way of invention and innovation.   All these homes we build do not occur naturally.  We have taught ourselves to build them.





			
				QW said:
			
		

> You should take some time to educate yourself o the various things that people that actually know what they are talking about consider to be instincts of humans. Or would learning that humans have multiple instincts related to eating itself upset your delusion that you know what you are talking about?


We don't instinctively build homes like the birds, bees and some other non-human species do.  If we did, all our homes would look alike and be made of the same material.  That was my point.  I realize that humans have more than the three instincts I mentioned.


----------



## asaratis

Quantum Windbag said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Woven cotton does not exist in nature.  Neither does plastic.  Both are man made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, if we ignore the fact that rocks actually contain plastic.
> 
> Plastic Garbage Is Turning Into a New Kind of Rock in Hawaii - weather.com
Click to expand...

Nice try, but no cigar!  Plastic does not occur in nature.  Your attempt to take man made articles and convert them to "natural" is actually not astounding....but rather expected of you.


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really....
> It's a tangent but do you want to name the Buddhist "god(s)"?
> I'm not a Buddhist, I only know what I read and observe from Buddhist friends and roommates.  None of which indicates theism...
> 
> 
> I'd have to say _exercising_ a religion  is an action, but the religion itself is a philosophy.  A philosophy doesn't do anything; it just sits there until it's needed for a thought process.
> 
> Neither of which, to return to the topic, qualifies atheism as a "religion".  It has no philosophy and cannot be "exercised".   Any more than non-belief in the Easter Bunny can be "exercised"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think gods need names?  But the answer is dependent upon who you are dealing with.
> 
> If you go to Thailand, where I did my stint in a monastery, you will notice that the cab drivers tend to sit kind of sideways, pushed up against the door.  This is because it is believed Buddha is sitting beside them and protecting them.  They don't want to crowd him.  In addition, it is Buddhist theology that existence is on many levels.  Buddha himself is said to have begun as an oxen in Hell.  Hell not being a place of punishment but simply another plane of existence to be experienced.  The gods are but one of the planes of existence and it is quite possible to be reborn as a god.
> 
> Buddhism does not consider gods to be of any particular importance.  The philosophy is about self and eschews external assistance.  But it does not deny or reject gods.  One can follow the philosophy of Buddhism and be and Atheist, but it is not an Atheistic religion.
> 
> Religion is not a philosophy any more than politics is a philosophy.  Philosophy plays a role, but it is primarily a human endeavor and is all about action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't sound like you've described "gods" here.  I don't think Buddha is considered a "god" in our Western sense.
> But we touched earlier on the failure of our e word to adequately grok those energies.  (Shinto?)  It's a moot point; the greater point was that theism is not necessarily a component in religion; it's optional at extra cost.
> 
> I can't agree religion is "all about action" -- if anything it's the opposite.  Where is the "action" in meditation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW.  If it doesn't sound like I am describing gods it can only mean that you already have an image in your mind of what gods are.  But there is no evidence regarding gods available.  So that image can only be belief.  It really is hard to escape our nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you completely miss my earlier posts on the nature of what constitutes "gods" and the inadequacies of the term?
> I said above, "in a Western sense".
> 
> Again, doesn't matter about specifics of Buddhism because again the greater point is that religion doesn't need theism to be religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I saw that.  I was pointing out the you have accepted that image, which is nothing but belief.  We have already agree religion does not require Theism.  *Which is why Atheism can be a religion*.
Click to expand...


Does not follow.  We already agree that theism may be present or absent as a *component *(modality) of a particular religion; that doesn't make theism _itself_ a religion.  In effect what you're saying is that a given religion may or may not include theism (i.e. does not by definition _exclude _atheism, which may be said component) -- which is restating what we just said.

But describing a single (and dependent) component of the whole still falls short of a definition of "religion".

Since we have asked for examples of "atheist doctrine" and received no answer (because none exist), and since atheists as a group may hold a vast diversity of doctrines they _do_ believe, even in conflict with each other, we can clearly see there is no common thread among them.  Hence, in no way a "religion".

Just as the group we call "smokers" need to acquire tobacco products in order to practice smoking, the group we call "non-smokers" ---which is nothing but a _conceptual term to exclude the first group_--- does not need to go out and purchase a "void of tobacco products".  They simply take no action at all.

A smoker needs to start using tobacco to be a smoker.  A non-smoker simply doesn't take that step.  A non-action; the _absence of_ action.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> Does not follow.  We already agree that theism may be present or absent as a *component *(modality) of a particular religion; that doesn't make theism _itself_ a religion.  In effect what you're saying is that a given religion may or may not include theism (i.e. does not by definition _exclude _atheism, which may be said component) -- which is restating what we just said.
> 
> But describing a single (and dependent) component of the whole still falls short of a definition of "religion".
> 
> Since we have asked for examples of "atheist doctrine" and received no answer (because none exist), and since atheists as a group may hold a vast diversity of doctrines they _do_ believe, even in conflict with each other, we can clearly see there is no common thread among them.  Hence, in no way a "religion".
> 
> Just as the group we call "smokers" need to acquire tobacco products in order to practice smoking, the group we call "non-smokers" ---which is nothing but a _conceptual term to exclude the first group_--- does not need to go out and purchase a "void of tobacco products".  They simply take no action at all.
> 
> A smoker needs to start using tobacco to be a smoker.  A non-smoker simply doesn't take that step.  A non-action; the _absence of_ action.



So Pogo;

You hiding under the bed, pissing yourself in fear of me, is me getting my ass kicked?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

HUGGY said:


> Beavers have been building dams much longer, tens of millions of years, than human beings have been building dwellings.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if man learned about the fort or moat concept from the beaver...and possibly the concept of changing one's environment to promote the growth of food...AKA farming.
> 
> Strangely enough I believe the best evidense that man was placed here on earth by some outside entity...god..etc...
> is that man seems so obviously ill equiped physically to survive compared to just about any other animal form.  We, our ancient ancestors,  were slower, reproduced less often, gestated 9 months compared to most life forms dangerously much longer and had numerous other inherent dangerous dissabilities.
> 
> Looking back honestly our probability to survive was improbable...very unlikely.
> 
> It seems we must have needed some help not obvious.
> 
> Man has been making excuses and blaming or crediting unseen forces for a very long time....much longer than the existance of any organized societies.
> 
> Still all this making shit up and not a scrap of evidense to support much less prove any truth to all the mumbo jumbo.
> 
> I don't know about any god/s but why all the hulabaloo for all these millennia?
> 
> Even those old sketches on the walls of caves...what was the point?
> 
> One would think that way back then there would be no time whatsoever to do anything that wasn't directly applicable to survival.
> 
> Maybe all the wall paintings were done by women ..pregnant women.  They were probably the only humans that were not forced to do anything desperately needed for the tribes to survive after the woman got real big.
> 
> Personally I think that the concept of "other" beings like gods or any number of made up beings came from the toxins in plants and animals that were meant originally to kill predators by poisoning them.  Taken in smaller doses by experimentation or accidentally by curiosity these toxins can make an animal like a human believe they see all kinds of strange manifestations.
> 
> If you want to "see" god you need to go no further than a hit of LSD.  The human mind under the influence of a drug like "acid" can and will cause one to "witness" and see amazing hallucinations that could easily be attributed to the will of a god showing itself.



Damn, another idiot that thinks he knows more than the scientists of the world.
FYI, there are two types of beavers, the North American beaver and the Eurasian beaver. Neither of thees beavers have ever been seen in Africa, yet there is solid evidence that mankind managed to build a civilization there without watching the beavers build things.

In other words, you are a complete moron who likes to pontificate on subjects he has no knowledge of.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

newpolitics said:


> No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.



You know this because you know everything ever argued by every single theist in history, right?

By the way, if you look up the word faith in a dictionary you might out that you don't know what the word actually means, and find yourself admitting that you don't understand the meaning of the word, and that the only people who believe things without evidence are the idiots that insist that the FDA keeps people safe from food borne illnesses.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

newpolitics said:


> That's even easier to show, and I'm pretty sure you already did it by simply posting the definition of a religion in the OP. Can't believe this thread has gone on so long.



The definition of religion in the OP is wrong. The fact that you do not understand that is the primary reason this thread has gone on so long, people keep insisting that they know more about English definitions than the dictionary.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> As will we all, as this thread never was about "whether God exists".  It's about the mythology that atheism constitutes a "religion".  Try paying attention to the words, willya?



And it has been conclusively proven that, under some circumstances, it does. The government recognizes this, and so do the atheists that gather together to form churches. Yet you, in your infinite stupidity, insist that only you can be right, and that all evidence that contradicts your position is bullshit.

Funny thing, that is the same approach used by religious fundamentalists and zealots.


----------



## Pogo

Troll shift clocks in, right on time.  We'll just wait it out.

​


----------



## Quantum Windbag

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is."
> 
> Actually this is ludicrous, as it fails as an argument from ignorance fallacy. That no one has proven 'god' as perceived by theists doesn't exist doesn't mean it does, nor does it 'prove' being free from faith is a 'religion.'
> 
> Moreover, those free from faith don't 'browbeat' anyone into anything, as that fails as a hasty generalization fallacy.
> 
> It's also telling the desperation of some theists as they seek to propagate the lie that to be free from faith is a 'religion,' where some theists unwittingly attempt to portray those free from faith as being as irrational as they.
> ​



You should stick to misrepresenting the law, at least you can fool the idiots that way.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> News flash: this is not a politics thread.
> 
> Who knew?
> 
> Oh wait, that's right -- everybody.



Newsflash, everything is politics.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tom Sweetnam said:


> "...you are a theological non-cognitivist" A what? A who?



Basically he is saying that he doesn't know how to think, so he has to pretend that everyone else is just as stupid by insisting that language is meaningless.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PostmodernProph said:


> so you're argument is that "natural" simply means "organic"?........if a dog's turd on your lawn contains chemical preservatives from the food its been fed, does that make it unnatural?......



No, my argument is that everything that exists is natural, even if it is made by man, because man is part of nature. If man somehow existed outside of nature, or was able to make things that exist outside the known universe, then you could say that we are able to make things that are not natural.

For example, this is natural.






So is this.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Does not follow.  We already agree that theism may be present or absent as a *component *(modality) of a particular religion; that doesn't make theism _itself_ a religion.  In effect what you're saying is that a given religion may or may not include theism (i.e. does not by definition _exclude _atheism, which may be said component) -- which is restating what we just said.
> 
> But describing a single (and dependent) component of the whole still falls short of a definition of "religion".
> 
> Since we have asked for examples of "atheist doctrine" and received no answer (because none exist), and since atheists as a group may hold a vast diversity of doctrines they _do_ believe, even in conflict with each other, we can clearly see there is no common thread among them.  Hence, in no way a "religion".
> 
> Just as the group we call "smokers" need to acquire tobacco products in order to practice smoking, the group we call "non-smokers" ---which is nothing but a _conceptual term to exclude the first group_--- does not need to go out and purchase a "void of tobacco products".  They simply take no action at all.
> 
> A smoker needs to start using tobacco to be a smoker.  A non-smoker simply doesn't take that step.  A non-action; the _absence of_ action.



Do you know what the word doctrine means?

Despite your ignorance, there have been examples of atheist propositions within this thread.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Pogo said:


> Troll shift clocks in, right on time.  We'll just wait it out.
> 
> ​



You bragged that you kicked my ass - yet all I see is you hiding under the bed pissing yourself.

Where is this "ass kicking?"

---------------

Stick to sucking off ISIS, you're no good at this debate thing....


----------



## Quantum Windbag

asaratis said:


> Firstly, I doubt that you remember anything in particular from when you were three years old.  Secondly, to observe that blocking a stream of water makes the water pool up does not require an understanding of engineering principles.  You merely observed the laws of physics in action.



Firstly, what evidence do you have that I don't remember my father? Since he died when I was 4, and I remember numerous things about him, I obviously remember things from when I was 3. I also remember our horse, and even the wringer washer that my mother used to use to wash clothes. I even remember being in the carnival and watching the marks stare at us. But, please, feel free to keep expounding on your ignorance.

Secondly, your claim was that I learned about building dams from watching beavers and figuring out how they managed to stop the water from flowing. Not an exact quote, but you obviously meant to imply I understood things a 3 year old cannot understand unless he is a genius. Like I told you then, if you want to butter someone up go try it on an idiot that will fall for it. To be honest, I still don't understand the engineering principles involved, I have no need to because the knowledge is instinctual. That is why, despite the fact that I never studied engineering, I can use dirt and rocks to guide runoff in a garden to where I want it to go.

And I have still never seen a beaver build a dam. In fact, I have never seen another human being build one either.

Want to say something else stupid because it is your opinion?


----------



## Pogo




----------



## Quantum Windbag

asaratis said:


> We don't instinctively build homes like the birds, bees and some other non-human species do.  If we did, all our homes would look alike and be made of the same material.  That was my point.  I realize that humans have more than the three instincts I mentioned.



We don't? Can you prove that, because I can provide hundreds of examples of humans building shelters, even if it is just a lean to intended to block the wind.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

asaratis said:


> Nice try, but no cigar!  Plastic does not occur in nature.  Your attempt to take man made articles and convert them to "natural" is actually not astounding....but rather expected of you.



Yet it does, because man put it there. Your problem is that you think that humans are not part of nature, a concept which I find mind boggling.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think gods need names?  But the answer is dependent upon who you are dealing with.
> 
> If you go to Thailand, where I did my stint in a monastery, you will notice that the cab drivers tend to sit kind of sideways, pushed up against the door.  This is because it is believed Buddha is sitting beside them and protecting them.  They don't want to crowd him.  In addition, it is Buddhist theology that existence is on many levels.  Buddha himself is said to have begun as an oxen in Hell.  Hell not being a place of punishment but simply another plane of existence to be experienced.  The gods are but one of the planes of existence and it is quite possible to be reborn as a god.
> 
> Buddhism does not consider gods to be of any particular importance.  The philosophy is about self and eschews external assistance.  But it does not deny or reject gods.  One can follow the philosophy of Buddhism and be and Atheist, but it is not an Atheistic religion.
> 
> Religion is not a philosophy any more than politics is a philosophy.  Philosophy plays a role, but it is primarily a human endeavor and is all about action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't sound like you've described "gods" here.  I don't think Buddha is considered a "god" in our Western sense.
> But we touched earlier on the failure of our e word to adequately grok those energies.  (Shinto?)  It's a moot point; the greater point was that theism is not necessarily a component in religion; it's optional at extra cost.
> 
> I can't agree religion is "all about action" -- if anything it's the opposite.  Where is the "action" in meditation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW.  If it doesn't sound like I am describing gods it can only mean that you already have an image in your mind of what gods are.  But there is no evidence regarding gods available.  So that image can only be belief.  It really is hard to escape our nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you completely miss my earlier posts on the nature of what constitutes "gods" and the inadequacies of the term?
> I said above, "in a Western sense".
> 
> Again, doesn't matter about specifics of Buddhism because again the greater point is that religion doesn't need theism to be religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I saw that.  I was pointing out the you have accepted that image, which is nothing but belief.  We have already agree religion does not require Theism.  *Which is why Atheism can be a religion*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does not follow.  We already agree that theism may be present or absent as a *component *(modality) of a particular religion; that doesn't make theism _itself_ a religion.  In effect what you're saying is that a given religion may or may not include theism (i.e. does not by definition _exclude _atheism, which may be said component) -- which is restating what we just said.
> 
> But describing a single (and dependent) component of the whole still falls short of a definition of "religion".
> 
> Since we have asked for examples of "atheist doctrine" and received no answer (because none exist), and since atheists as a group may hold a vast diversity of doctrines they _do_ believe, even in conflict with each other, we can clearly see there is no common thread among them.  Hence, in no way a "religion".
> 
> Just as the group we call "smokers" need to acquire tobacco products in order to practice smoking, the group we call "non-smokers" ---which is nothing but a _conceptual term to exclude the first group_--- does not need to go out and purchase a "void of tobacco products".  They simply take no action at all.
> 
> A smoker needs to start using tobacco to be a smoker.  A non-smoker simply doesn't take that step.  A non-action; the _absence of_ action.
Click to expand...


It would appear any answer I give you is simply going to be ignored.  So I will simply respond.... ok.


----------



## Tom Sweetnam

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...you are a theological non-cognitivist" A what? A who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically he is saying that he doesn't know how to think, so he has to pretend that everyone else is just as stupid by insisting that language is meaningless.
Click to expand...


He's probably young and vapid. Maybe one day he'll gain enough wisdom to realize that pretension always comes across as a defense mechanism for insecurity.


----------



## asaratis

Quantum Windbag said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, I doubt that you remember anything in particular from when you were three years old.  Secondly, to observe that blocking a stream of water makes the water pool up does not require an understanding of engineering principles.  You merely observed the laws of physics in action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, what evidence do you have that I don't remember my father? Since he died when I was 4, and I remember numerous things about him, I obviously remember things from when I was 3. I also remember our horse, and even the wringer washer that my mother used to use to wash clothes. I even remember being in the carnival and watching the marks stare at us. But, please, feel free to keep expounding on your ignorance.
> 
> Secondly, your claim was that I learned about building dams from watching beavers and figuring out how they managed to stop the water from flowing. Not an exact quote, but you obviously meant to imply I understood things a 3 year old cannot understand unless he is a genius. Like I told you then, if you want to butter someone up go try it on an idiot that will fall for it. To be honest, I still don't understand the engineering principles involved, I have no need to because the knowledge is instinctual. That is why, despite the fact that I never studied engineering, I can use dirt and rocks to guide runoff in a garden to where I want it to go.
> 
> And I have still never seen a beaver build a dam. In fact, I have never seen another human being build one either.
> 
> Want to say something else stupid because it is your opinion?
Click to expand...

Pay attention, please.  I did not say that YOU learned how to build dams by watching beavers.  I did not say that you don't remember your father.  I will concede that you may remember handcrafting a dam at the age of three.  I remember having a diaper pin come loose and stick me in the ass.  I remember who picked me up out of the crib.

Dam building is certainly no instinct-driven ability of mankind. It is for beavers.  It doesn't take a genius to observe and learn that if a stream of water is blocked in will pool up.  Learning that (by experience) has nothing to do understanding the laws of physics that make it happen.  Learning that does not mean that one understands the engineering principles behind dam building. 

I am relatively certain that you were NOT a 3 year old genius.


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't sound like you've described "gods" here.  I don't think Buddha is considered a "god" in our Western sense.
> But we touched earlier on the failure of our e word to adequately grok those energies.  (Shinto?)  It's a moot point; the greater point was that theism is not necessarily a component in religion; it's optional at extra cost.
> 
> I can't agree religion is "all about action" -- if anything it's the opposite.  Where is the "action" in meditation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW.  If it doesn't sound like I am describing gods it can only mean that you already have an image in your mind of what gods are.  But there is no evidence regarding gods available.  So that image can only be belief.  It really is hard to escape our nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you completely miss my earlier posts on the nature of what constitutes "gods" and the inadequacies of the term?
> I said above, "in a Western sense".
> 
> Again, doesn't matter about specifics of Buddhism because again the greater point is that religion doesn't need theism to be religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I saw that.  I was pointing out the you have accepted that image, which is nothing but belief.  We have already agree religion does not require Theism.  *Which is why Atheism can be a religion*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does not follow.  We already agree that theism may be present or absent as a *component *(modality) of a particular religion; that doesn't make theism _itself_ a religion.  In effect what you're saying is that a given religion may or may not include theism (i.e. does not by definition _exclude _atheism, which may be said component) -- which is restating what we just said.
> 
> But describing a single (and dependent) component of the whole still falls short of a definition of "religion".
> 
> Since we have asked for examples of "atheist doctrine" and received no answer (because none exist), and since atheists as a group may hold a vast diversity of doctrines they _do_ believe, even in conflict with each other, we can clearly see there is no common thread among them.  Hence, in no way a "religion".
> 
> Just as the group we call "smokers" need to acquire tobacco products in order to practice smoking, the group we call "non-smokers" ---which is nothing but a _conceptual term to exclude the first group_--- does not need to go out and purchase a "void of tobacco products".  They simply take no action at all.
> 
> A smoker needs to start using tobacco to be a smoker.  A non-smoker simply doesn't take that step.  A non-action; the _absence of_ action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would appear any answer I give you is simply going to be ignored.  So I will simply respond.... ok.
Click to expand...



I don't "ignore" you -- I was sitting out the troll storm.


----------



## asaratis

Quantum Windbag said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We don't instinctively build homes like the birds, bees and some other non-human species do*.  If we did, all our homes would look alike and be made of the same material.  That was my point.  I realize that humans have more than the three instincts I mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't? Can you prove that, because I can provide hundreds of examples of humans building shelters, even if it is just a lean to intended to block the wind.
Click to expand...

Again you change the meaning of my statement.  It doesn't take any creature very long to learn its best to get out of the rain.  Man is the only species I know of that has learned to build it, sell it, rent it, lease it, sell materials to make new ones...the housing industry is huge.  Man doesn't instinctively build a house.  Man instinctively seeks shelter in homes already built or he builds one of his own.



			
				QW said:
			
		

> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but no cigar! Plastic does not occur in nature. Your attempt to take man made articles and convert them to "natural" is actually not astounding....but rather expected of you.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet it does, because man put it there. Your problem is that you think that humans are not part of nature, a concept which I find mind boggling.
Click to expand...


Negative.  Man is certainly a part of nature...just a species among mammals.  Man is just another animal that occurs in nature. 

There is a distinction between man-made things and things that would have existed in nature whether mankind existed or not. In that regard, mankind cannot generate natural things...except for its own offspring.

So there are three categories of things:

Natural (which includes mankind)
Man-made
Supernatural


----------



## Quantum Windbag

asaratis said:


> Pay attention, please.  I did not say that YOU learned how to build dams by watching beavers.  I did not say that you don't remember your father.  I will concede that you may remember handcrafting a dam at the age of three.  I remember having a diaper pin come loose and stick me in the ass.  I remember who picked me up out of the crib.



I did pay attention.

Here is what you said.



asaratis said:


> Beavers build dams instinctively.  Men learned to build dams from seeing the results of what beavers did naturally (by instinct).





asaratis said:


> Your personal experience in dam building came after you knew what dams were and how they worked.



Unless you are suddenly claiming I am not human you just said that I either learned from watching beavers or that I someone was able to grasp what a dam was after seeing one. Unfortunately, for you, neither event actually happened outside your attempt to justify your lack of reality opinions.

Want to tell me to pay attention again? I really enjoy showing you that I am accurate remembering the stupendously stupid things you say.



asaratis said:


> Dam building is certainly no instinct-driven ability of mankind. It is for beavers.  It doesn't take a genius to observe and learn that if a stream of water is blocked in will pool up.  Learning that (by experience) has nothing to do understanding the laws of physics that make it happen.  Learning that does not mean that one understands the engineering principles behind dam building.



How do you know that dam building is not instinctual? The mere fact that we now use modern technology to accomplish something does not mean that the underlying process is not instinctual. If it worked that way, you wouldn't be able to say that eating is an instinct. Humans have been building dams since at least 3000 BCE. This occurred in what is known as the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East, despite the fact that there were no beavers in that area. How did they learn this when there were no beavers native to that area to teach them?



asaratis said:


> I am relatively certain that you were NOT a 3 year old genius.



I think I made that point myself. In fact, I made it to counter your claim that I managed to figure out dam building by seeing a dam I never saw.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

asaratis said:


> Again you change the meaning of my statement.  It doesn't take any creature very long to learn its best to get out of the rain.  Man is the only species I know of that has learned to build it, sell it, rent it, lease it, sell materials to make new ones...the housing industry is huge.  Man doesn't instinctively build a house.  Man instinctively seeks shelter in homes already built or he builds one of his own.



I changed the meaning of your statement? Can you explain how you saying that man does not build instinctively can be misinterpreted to mean that man does not build instinctively?



asaratis said:


> Negative.  Man is certainly a part of nature...just a species among mammals.  Man is just another animal that occurs in nature.



And, by definition, that makes him natural. And it also makes everything he does part of nature.



asaratis said:


> There is a distinction between man-made things and things that would have existed in nature whether mankind existed or not. In that regard, mankind cannot generate natural things...except for its own offspring.



That distinction is based on the arrogant assumption that man is able to surpass and control nature. Personally, I thought that educated people had learned to accept that man is not the the utmost of the utmost, but apparently some people still cling to that particular delusion.

By the way, if man cannot create anything that is natural except children, how do you explain the existence of corn?



asaratis said:


> So there are three categories of things:
> 
> Natural (which includes mankind)
> Man-made
> Supernatural



Arrogance is still arrogance.


----------



## asaratis

asaratis^^^^ said:
			
		

> So there are three categories of things:
> 
> Natural (which includes mankind)
> Man-made
> Supernatural



Given the above:

Would Atheism be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?

Would God be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> asaratis^^^^ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there are three categories of things:
> 
> Natural (which includes mankind)
> Man-made
> Supernatural
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the above:
> 
> Would Atheism be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?
> 
> Would God be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?
Click to expand...


Since both atheism and theism are concepts (thoughts), they're not _things_.  So the question is inoperative.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We don't instinctively build homes like the birds, bees and some other non-human species do*.  If we did, all our homes would look alike and be made of the same material.  That was my point.  I realize that humans have more than the three instincts I mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't? Can you prove that, because I can provide hundreds of examples of humans building shelters, even if it is just a lean to intended to block the wind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you change the meaning of my statement.  It doesn't take any creature very long to learn its best to get out of the rain.  Man is the only species I know of that has learned to build it, sell it, rent it, lease it, sell materials to make new ones...the housing industry is huge.  Man doesn't instinctively build a house.  Man instinctively seeks shelter in homes already built or he builds one of his own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but no cigar! Plastic does not occur in nature. Your attempt to take man made articles and convert them to "natural" is actually not astounding....but rather expected of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it does, because man put it there. Your problem is that you think that humans are not part of nature, a concept which I find mind boggling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Negative.  Man is certainly a part of nature...just a species among mammals.  Man is just another animal that occurs in nature.
> 
> There is a distinction between man-made things and things that would have existed in nature whether mankind existed or not. In that regard, mankind cannot generate natural things...except for its own offspring.
> 
> So there are three categories of things:
> 
> Natural (which includes mankind)
> Man-made
> Supernatural
Click to expand...

Your category of "supernatural" is contrived, absent demonstration and unsupportable. Unless of course, you can can identify something for us that is "un-natural". Shirley, you can identify for us something that can be shown to be clearly outside the bounds of natural laws or properties.


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis^^^^ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there are three categories of things:
> 
> Natural (which includes mankind)
> Man-made
> Supernatural
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the above:
> 
> Would Atheism be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?
> 
> Would God be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since both atheism and theism are concepts (thoughts), they're not _things_.  So the question is inoperative.
Click to expand...

Atheism is the doctrine that there is no god.  This is a man-made thing...not a tangible thing, but a thing nonetheless.

thing - definition of thing by The Free Dictionary
thing  (th
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




ng)_n._
*1. An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.
2. 
a. * The real or concrete substance of an entity.
*b. * An entity existing in space and time.
*c. * An inanimate object.
*3. * Something referred to by a word, a symbol, a sign, or an idea; a referent.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We don't instinctively build homes like the birds, bees and some other non-human species do*.  If we did, all our homes would look alike and be made of the same material.  That was my point.  I realize that humans have more than the three instincts I mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't? Can you prove that, because I can provide hundreds of examples of humans building shelters, even if it is just a lean to intended to block the wind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you change the meaning of my statement.  It doesn't take any creature very long to learn its best to get out of the rain.  Man is the only species I know of that has learned to build it, sell it, rent it, lease it, sell materials to make new ones...the housing industry is huge.  Man doesn't instinctively build a house.  Man instinctively seeks shelter in homes already built or he builds one of his own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but no cigar! Plastic does not occur in nature. Your attempt to take man made articles and convert them to "natural" is actually not astounding....but rather expected of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it does, because man put it there. Your problem is that you think that humans are not part of nature, a concept which I find mind boggling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Negative.  Man is certainly a part of nature...just a species among mammals.  Man is just another animal that occurs in nature.
> 
> There is a distinction between man-made things and things that would have existed in nature whether mankind existed or not. In that regard, mankind cannot generate natural things...except for its own offspring.
> 
> So there are three categories of things:
> 
> Natural (which includes mankind)
> Man-made
> Supernatural
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your category of "supernatural" is contrived, absent demonstration and unsupportable. Unless of course, you can can identify something for us that is "un-natural". Shirley, you can identify for us something that can be shown to be clearly outside the bounds of natural laws or properties.
Click to expand...

supernatural - Yahoo Dictionary Search Results


supernatural


*adj.adjective*
*Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
*
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.


Of or relating to a deity.


Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.


Of or relating to the miraculous.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

asaratis said:


> Given the above:
> 
> Would Atheism be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?
> 
> Would God be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?



Given the above, if God does exist, and was not created by man, He would be natural.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the above:
> 
> Would Atheism be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?
> 
> Would God be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the above, if God does exist, and was not created by man, He would be natural.
Click to expand...


Why "He"?
Who is the "She" that makes "him" a "He"?


----------



## Carla_Danger

newpolitics said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just for a point of clarification, the posit was that atheism is not a "religion".  That poster -- from like 800 posts ago -- misstated it as "faith".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's even easier to show, and I'm pretty sure you already did it by simply posting the definition of a religion in the OP. Can't believe this thread has gone on so long.
Click to expand...



I can't either.  LOL!


----------



## asaratis

Quantum Windbag said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the above:
> 
> Would Atheism be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?
> 
> Would God be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the above, if God does exist, and was not created by man, He would be natural.
Click to expand...

So, to you God is not supernatural?


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just for a point of clarification, the posit was that atheism is not a "religion".  That poster -- from like 800 posts ago -- misstated it as "faith".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's even easier to show, and I'm pretty sure you already did it by simply posting the definition of a religion in the OP. Can't believe this thread has gone on so long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't either.  LOL!
Click to expand...

I suppose you think the OP posit that Atheism is NOT a religion to have been proved.


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the above:
> 
> Would Atheism be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?
> 
> Would God be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the above, if God does exist, and was not created by man, He would be natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why "He"?
> Who is the "She" that makes "him" a "He"?
Click to expand...

We've already been over than...pages ago.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just for a point of clarification, the posit was that atheism is not a "religion".  That poster -- from like 800 posts ago -- misstated it as "faith".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's even easier to show, and I'm pretty sure you already did it by simply posting the definition of a religion in the OP. Can't believe this thread has gone on so long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't either.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose you think the OP posit that Atheism is NOT a religion to have been proved.
Click to expand...



I would say at least 700 posts ago.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the above:
> 
> Would Atheism be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?
> 
> Would God be considered natural, man-made or supernatural?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the above, if God does exist, and was not created by man, He would be natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why "He"?
> Who is the "She" that makes "him" a "He"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've already been over than...pages ago.
Click to expand...


I only put it to _you_, at which point you melted.
This time I'm putting it to troll-boy.  I like the pitter of his patter when he runs away from questions he can't handle.


----------



## Pogo

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just for a point of clarification, the posit was that atheism is not a "religion".  That poster -- from like 800 posts ago -- misstated it as "faith".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's even easier to show, and I'm pretty sure you already did it by simply posting the definition of a religion in the OP. Can't believe this thread has gone on so long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't either.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose you think the OP posit that Atheism is NOT a religion to have been proved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I would say at least 700 posts ago.
Click to expand...


Actually I thought we already had done that in the previous thread.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Pogo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just for a point of clarification, the posit was that atheism is not a "religion".  That poster -- from like 800 posts ago -- misstated it as "faith".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's even easier to show, and I'm pretty sure you already did it by simply posting the definition of a religion in the OP. Can't believe this thread has gone on so long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't either.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose you think the OP posit that Atheism is NOT a religion to have been proved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I would say at least 700 posts ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I thought already had done that in the previous thread.
Click to expand...



I was playing it safe.


----------



## Pogo

Carla_Danger said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's even easier to show, and I'm pretty sure you already did it by simply posting the definition of a religion in the OP. Can't believe this thread has gone on so long.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't either.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose you think the OP posit that Atheism is NOT a religion to have been proved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I would say at least 700 posts ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I thought already had done that in the previous thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was playing it safe.
Click to expand...


You're so.... conservative.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's even easier to show, and I'm pretty sure you already did it by simply posting the definition of a religion in the OP. Can't believe this thread has gone on so long.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't either.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose you think the OP posit that Atheism is NOT a religion to have been proved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I would say at least 700 posts ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I thought already had done that in the previous thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was playing it safe.
Click to expand...

Dream on! You've not proved it.  You've simply come up with umpteen asinine ways to deny the existence of Atheist churches, ministers and doctrine.


----------



## newpolitics

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just for a point of clarification, the posit was that atheism is not a "religion".  That poster -- from like 800 posts ago -- misstated it as "faith".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's even easier to show, and I'm pretty sure you already did it by simply posting the definition of a religion in the OP. Can't believe this thread has gone on so long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't either.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose you think the OP posit that Atheism is NOT a religion to have been proved.
Click to expand...

Atheism is not a religion. That is definitional fact.


----------



## newpolitics

Quantum Windbag said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's even easier to show, and I'm pretty sure you already did it by simply posting the definition of a religion in the OP. Can't believe this thread has gone on so long.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The definition of religion in the OP is wrong. The fact that you do not understand that is the primary reason this thread has gone on so long, people keep insisting that they know more about English definitions than the dictionary.
Click to expand...

The christians' need to peg atheism as a religion is the reason this thread has gone on so long, despite it being semantically unjustified.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't either.  LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose you think the OP posit that Atheism is NOT a religion to have been proved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I would say at least 700 posts ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I thought already had done that in the previous thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was playing it safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dream on! You've not proved it.  You've simply come up with umpteen asinine ways to deny the existence of Atheist churches, ministers and doctrine.
Click to expand...



What do they minister? They don't have a specific doctrine, and those so-called churches are really nothing more than community centers.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Why "He"?
> Who is the "She" that makes "him" a "He"?



Because English doesn't have gender neutral pronouns that can be used to refer to a single person, and my regular practice of using they and ignoring numbers would confuse the idiots, like you, that don't understand the basics of English grammar, oh he who thinks he is smarter than the average ant.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

asaratis said:


> So, to you God is not supernatural?



Did I say that? Why, no, I did not. I said that, given the above, if God exists, and He was created by man, He would be natural. If you need someone to parse that for you I suggest you ask an English teacher at your elementary school, I am not here to explain simple grammar to idiots.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why "He"?
> Who is the "She" that makes "him" a "He"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because English doesn't have gender neutral pronouns that can be used to refer to a single person, and my regular practice of using they and ignoring numbers would confuse the idiots, like you, that don't understand the basics of English grammar, oh he who thinks he is smarter than the average ant.
Click to expand...


Pays to increase your vocabulary.

It's a big word.  You're welcome.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> I only put it to _you_, at which point you melted.
> This time I'm putting it to troll-boy.  I like the pitter of his patter when he runs away from questions he can't handle.



Are you confusing me with the guy you see in the mirror again?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

newpolitics said:


> Atheism is not a religion. That is definitional fact.




Yet, according to the Supreme Court, and US tax law, atheism actually is a religion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

newpolitics said:


> The christians' need to peg atheism as a religion is the reason this thread has gone on so long, despite it being semantically unjustified.



I have no need to peg anything. 

I do, however, enjoy pointing out to idiots when they are wrong, which is why the fact that churches like the one in the link below are ignored by religious zealots. The question now is, are you a religious zealot that will deny facts in order to maintain the fiction that atheism is cannot be a religion?

Home First Church of Atheism


----------



## Pogo

I am starting to believe there may actually be a Church of the Composition Fallacy.
Apparently it does not include Confession.  But it has a nice creation myth. In the River DeNial.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> What do they minister? They don't have a specific doctrine, and those so-called churches are really nothing more than community centers.



That was funny.

Newsflash, the fact that you deliberately chose to ignore reality is not proof that something does not exist.

This is the doctrine of an atheist church.

“Nothing exists besides natural phenomena. Thought is merely a function of those natural phenomena. Death is complete, and irreversible. We have faith solely in humankind, nature, and the facts of science.”​FAQ First Church of Atheism

Damn, they even mention faith, what a surprise.

By the way, this also proves that Dawkins was right when he said that atheist that absolutely reject the existence of God do exist, and that everyone who claimed they do not is an idiot.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Pays to increase your vocabulary.
> 
> It's a big word.  You're welcome.



I guess you missed the part where I said single person.

Why am I not surprised?

Or, even more likely, you just cannot fucking read.

From your link, oh he who is always wrong.



> that one —used as subject or direct object or indirect object of a verb or object of a preposition usually *in reference to a lifeless thing*


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> I am starting to believe there may actually be a Church of the Composition Fallacy.
> Apparently it does not include Confession.  But it has a nice creation myth. In the River DeNial.



Aprently you cannnot read, what a surprise.

In order for you to make the argument that I am using a composition fallacy you would have to show that I claimed that atheism is a religion because some people treat it as one. Since my only point in this thread is that you are wrong when you claim it is cannot be a religion because you do not see it as one you would be the person that is actually guilty of using a composition fallacy.

Then again, you are always wrong, so you should be used to finding out, once again, that you are totally screwed up.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose you think the OP posit that Atheism is NOT a religion to have been proved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say at least 700 posts ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I thought already had done that in the previous thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was playing it safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dream on! You've not proved it.  You've simply come up with umpteen asinine ways to deny the existence of Atheist churches, ministers and doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do they minister? They don't have a specific doctrine, and those so-called churches are really nothing more than community centers.
Click to expand...

They have the doctrine that God does not exist.

*athe·ism*
_noun_ \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\

*Definition of ATHEISM*
1
_archaic_ *:* ungodliness, wickedness
2
_a_ *:*  a disbelief in the existence of deity

*b :  the doctrine that there is no deity*


The beliefs of atheists and agnostics are that there is or is not a God and ethics do not necessarily matter.


Religion definition of Religion in the Free Online Encyclopedia.
religion, a system of thought, feeling, and action that is shared by a group and that gives the members an object of devotion; a code of behavior by which individuals may judge the personal and social consequences of their actions; and a frame of reference by which individuals may relate to their group and their universe.

So, Carla, Atheism is a religion.  That you  choose as an individual not to be  religious, not to participate in the available churches (already shown to exist) and groups professing Atheism does not make the religion of Atheism disappear.


----------



## asaratis

Quantum Windbag said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a religion. That is definitional fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, according to the Supreme Court, and US tax law, atheism actually is a religion.
Click to expand...

Exactly so.

Atheism is a religion according to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## asaratis

Quantum Windbag said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, to you God is not supernatural?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say that? Why, no, I did not. I said that, given the above, if God exists, and He was created by man, He would be natural. If you need someone to parse that for you I suggest you ask an English teacher at your elementary school, I am not here to explain simple grammar to idiots.
Click to expand...

Partially correct. Indeed you didn't say that God is not supernatural. You said He would be man-made, if He exists.  Man cannot create a supernatural thing.  Therefore by your own statement, God is not supernatural (if He exists).  I am not here to explain logic to you. Take some lessons.


----------



## newpolitics

Quantum Windbag said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a religion. That is definitional fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, according to the Supreme Court, and US tax law, atheism actually is a religion.
Click to expand...

200 years ago, according to the surpreme court, slavery was moral. 

Since when does the Supreme court write dictionaries? Do they decide on every other word you use? No. They are not Miriam-Webster, and this constitues an appeal to improper authority, since their reasons for defining atheism "as a religion" are not purely of a semantic (or logical) consideration. So, who cares what the Supreme thinks about the definition this single word? Not to mention their reasons for considering atheism a religion are political and economic, and  an appeal to the consequences of calling it so (the political ease of throwing this segment of the population into a concise group for consensus purposes, rather than creating a whole new desriptor that no one else belongs to except atheists- which would cost money) rather than be a purely apt description of the word. 

What a hilarious cop-out to even try to appeal to the Supreme Court for the definition of the word that has no operational power within the context of LEGAL preceding in any possible court case. The weakness of your attempt belies your motives behind trying to define a segment of the population you disagree with: the need to make them seem as arbitrary as you. And pointing to ONE part of a dictionary definition that states "strong atheism" (the belief that there is no god) is simply cherry picking, when the definition before it defines atheism as "the disbelief in a god," which is simply, a lack of belief, and a lack of belief can not possibly constitute a religion.

Worse for you, and as someone has very aptly pointed out already, THEISM itself can not even be called a religion, as it denotes too little information for the word to be categorized in this way. If this is true, then on the flip side, atheism logically can not be called a religion either. 

From so many angles, you lose this battle: semantically, legally, counterfactually...


----------



## asaratis

newpolitics said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a religion. That is definitional fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, according to the Supreme Court, and US tax law, atheism actually is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 200 years ago, according to the surpreme court, slavery was moral.
> 
> Since when does the Supreme court write dictionaries? Do they decide on every other word you use? No. They are not Miriam-Webster, and this constitues an appeal to improper authority, since their reasons for defining atheism "as a religion" are not purely of a semantic (or logical) consideration. So, who cares what the Supreme thinks about the definition this single word? Not to mention their reasons for considering atheism a religion are political and economic, and  an appeal to the consequences of calling it so (the political ease of throwing this segment of the population into a concise group for consensus purposes, rather than creating a whole new desriptor that no one else belongs to except atheists- which would cost money) rather than be a purely apt description of the word.
> 
> What a hilarious cop-out to even try to appeal to the Supreme Court for the definition of the word that has no operational power within the context of LEGAL preceding in any possible court case. The weakness of your attempt belies your motives behind trying to define a segment of the population you disagree with: the need to make them seem as arbitrary as you. And pointing to ONE part of a dictionary definition that states "strong atheism" (the belief that there is no god) is simply cherry picking, when the definition before it defines atheism as "the disbelief in a god," which is simply, a lack of belief, and a lack of belief can not possibly constitute a religion.
> 
> Worse for you, and as someone has very aptly pointed out already, THEISM itself can not even be called a religion, as it denotes too little information for the word to be categorized in this way. If this is true, then on the flip side, atheism logically can not be called a religion either.
> 
> From so many angles, you lose this battle: semantically, legally, counterfactually...
Click to expand...


I doubt the atheists here will read this in its entirety...or if they do, will dismiss it based upon its source.

Is Atheism a religion - creation.com
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the _Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:_

“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”1
Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying that there is any overarching deity such as the Creator-God of the Bible. Atheism in the western sense excludes Buddhism, and adherents claim that it is not a religion. One Atheist said:

“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”2
However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang-ups people have about ‘religion’. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.

Atheism3 will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.

................

Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.

Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a ‘hairstyle’. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.

The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.

Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government.​


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a religion. That is definitional fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, according to the Supreme Court, and US tax law, atheism actually is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 200 years ago, according to the surpreme court, slavery was moral.
> 
> Since when does the Supreme court write dictionaries? Do they decide on every other word you use? No. They are not Miriam-Webster, and this constitues an appeal to improper authority, since their reasons for defining atheism "as a religion" are not purely of a semantic (or logical) consideration. So, who cares what the Supreme thinks about the definition this single word? Not to mention their reasons for considering atheism a religion are political and economic, and  an appeal to the consequences of calling it so (the political ease of throwing this segment of the population into a concise group for consensus purposes, rather than creating a whole new desriptor that no one else belongs to except atheists- which would cost money) rather than be a purely apt description of the word.
> 
> What a hilarious cop-out to even try to appeal to the Supreme Court for the definition of the word that has no operational power within the context of LEGAL preceding in any possible court case. The weakness of your attempt belies your motives behind trying to define a segment of the population you disagree with: the need to make them seem as arbitrary as you. And pointing to ONE part of a dictionary definition that states "strong atheism" (the belief that there is no god) is simply cherry picking, when the definition before it defines atheism as "the disbelief in a god," which is simply, a lack of belief, and a lack of belief can not possibly constitute a religion.
> 
> Worse for you, and as someone has very aptly pointed out already, THEISM itself can not even be called a religion, as it denotes too little information for the word to be categorized in this way. If this is true, then on the flip side, atheism logically can not be called a religion either.
> 
> From so many angles, you lose this battle: semantically, legally, counterfactually...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt the atheists here will read this in its entirety...or if they do, will dismiss it based upon its source.
> 
> Is Atheism a religion - creation.com
> Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the _Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:_
> 
> “Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”1
> Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying that there is any overarching deity such as the Creator-God of the Bible. Atheism in the western sense excludes Buddhism, and adherents claim that it is not a religion. One Atheist said:
> 
> “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”2
> However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang-ups people have about ‘religion’. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.
> 
> Atheism3 will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.
> 
> ................
> 
> Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.
> 
> Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a ‘hairstyle’. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.
> 
> The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.
> 
> Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government.​
Click to expand...

You're cutting and pasting from one of the most notorious, agenda driven Christian ministries. These loons announce their bias and have no interest in truth or objectivity.

What a laughable joke.


----------



## newpolitics

asaratis said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a religion. That is definitional fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, according to the Supreme Court, and US tax law, atheism actually is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 200 years ago, according to the surpreme court, slavery was moral.
> 
> Since when does the Supreme court write dictionaries? Do they decide on every other word you use? No. They are not Miriam-Webster, and this constitues an appeal to improper authority, since their reasons for defining atheism "as a religion" are not purely of a semantic (or logical) consideration. So, who cares what the Supreme thinks about the definition this single word? Not to mention their reasons for considering atheism a religion are political and economic, and  an appeal to the consequences of calling it so (the political ease of throwing this segment of the population into a concise group for consensus purposes, rather than creating a whole new desriptor that no one else belongs to except atheists- which would cost money) rather than be a purely apt description of the word.
> 
> What a hilarious cop-out to even try to appeal to the Supreme Court for the definition of the word that has no operational power within the context of LEGAL preceding in any possible court case. The weakness of your attempt belies your motives behind trying to define a segment of the population you disagree with: the need to make them seem as arbitrary as you. And pointing to ONE part of a dictionary definition that states "strong atheism" (the belief that there is no god) is simply cherry picking, when the definition before it defines atheism as "the disbelief in a god," which is simply, a lack of belief, and a lack of belief can not possibly constitute a religion.
> 
> Worse for you, and as someone has very aptly pointed out already, THEISM itself can not even be called a religion, as it denotes too little information for the word to be categorized in this way. If this is true, then on the flip side, atheism logically can not be called a religion either.
> 
> From so many angles, you lose this battle: semantically, legally, counterfactually...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt the atheists here will read this in its entirety...or if they do, will dismiss it based upon its source.
> 
> Is Atheism a religion - creation.com
> Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the _Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:_
> 
> “Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”1
> Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying that there is any overarching deity such as the Creator-God of the Bible. Atheism in the western sense excludes Buddhism, and adherents claim that it is not a religion. One Atheist said:
> 
> “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”2
> However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang-ups people have about ‘religion’. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.
> 
> Atheism3 will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.
> 
> ................
> 
> Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.
> 
> Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a ‘hairstyle’. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.
> 
> The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.
> 
> Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government.​
Click to expand...



Theism is not a religion. Therefore, Atheism is not a religion. End of story. To say it is, is special pleading. I am not original, even on this thread, in making this point, but it is the most important and poignant point in defeating your vapid assertion about atheism as a religion.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a religion. That is definitional fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, according to the Supreme Court, and US tax law, atheism actually is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 200 years ago, according to the surpreme court, slavery was moral.
> 
> Since when does the Supreme court write dictionaries? Do they decide on every other word you use? No. They are not Miriam-Webster, and this constitues an appeal to improper authority, since their reasons for defining atheism "as a religion" are not purely of a semantic (or logical) consideration. So, who cares what the Supreme thinks about the definition this single word? Not to mention their reasons for considering atheism a religion are political and economic, and  an appeal to the consequences of calling it so (the political ease of throwing this segment of the population into a concise group for consensus purposes, rather than creating a whole new desriptor that no one else belongs to except atheists- which would cost money) rather than be a purely apt description of the word.
> 
> What a hilarious cop-out to even try to appeal to the Supreme Court for the definition of the word that has no operational power within the context of LEGAL preceding in any possible court case. The weakness of your attempt belies your motives behind trying to define a segment of the population you disagree with: the need to make them seem as arbitrary as you. And pointing to ONE part of a dictionary definition that states "strong atheism" (the belief that there is no god) is simply cherry picking, when the definition before it defines atheism as "the disbelief in a god," which is simply, a lack of belief, and a lack of belief can not possibly constitute a religion.
> 
> Worse for you, and as someone has very aptly pointed out already, THEISM itself can not even be called a religion, as it denotes too little information for the word to be categorized in this way. If this is true, then on the flip side, atheism logically can not be called a religion either.
> 
> From so many angles, you lose this battle: semantically, legally, counterfactually...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt the atheists here will read this in its entirety...or if they do, will dismiss it based upon its source.
> 
> Is Atheism a religion - creation.com
> Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the _Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:_
> 
> “Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”1
> Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying that there is any overarching deity such as the Creator-God of the Bible. Atheism in the western sense excludes Buddhism, and adherents claim that it is not a religion. One Atheist said:
> 
> “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”2
> However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang-ups people have about ‘religion’. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.
> 
> Atheism3 will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.
> 
> ................
> 
> Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.
> 
> Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a ‘hairstyle’. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.
> 
> The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.
> 
> Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're cutting and pasting from one of the most notorious, agenda driven Christian ministries. These loons announce their bias and have no interest in truth or objectivity.
> 
> What a laughable joke.
Click to expand...

 I rest my case!

Funny (even laughable) that dismiss this because of the source.



			
				asaratis^^^^ said:
			
		

> I doubt the atheists here will read this in its entirety...or if they do, *will dismiss it based upon its source*.



Here's a question for you...and others that deny Atheism is a religion:  Why does it bother you that Atheism is considered by many to be a religion?  Nobody is calling any individual atheist a religious person.  Nobody is forced to practice a religion.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a religion. That is definitional fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, according to the Supreme Court, and US tax law, atheism actually is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 200 years ago, according to the surpreme court, slavery was moral.
> 
> Since when does the Supreme court write dictionaries? Do they decide on every other word you use? No. They are not Miriam-Webster, and this constitues an appeal to improper authority, since their reasons for defining atheism "as a religion" are not purely of a semantic (or logical) consideration. So, who cares what the Supreme thinks about the definition this single word? Not to mention their reasons for considering atheism a religion are political and economic, and  an appeal to the consequences of calling it so (the political ease of throwing this segment of the population into a concise group for consensus purposes, rather than creating a whole new desriptor that no one else belongs to except atheists- which would cost money) rather than be a purely apt description of the word.
> 
> What a hilarious cop-out to even try to appeal to the Supreme Court for the definition of the word that has no operational power within the context of LEGAL preceding in any possible court case. The weakness of your attempt belies your motives behind trying to define a segment of the population you disagree with: the need to make them seem as arbitrary as you. And pointing to ONE part of a dictionary definition that states "strong atheism" (the belief that there is no god) is simply cherry picking, when the definition before it defines atheism as "the disbelief in a god," which is simply, a lack of belief, and a lack of belief can not possibly constitute a religion.
> 
> Worse for you, and as someone has very aptly pointed out already, THEISM itself can not even be called a religion, as it denotes too little information for the word to be categorized in this way. If this is true, then on the flip side, atheism logically can not be called a religion either.
> 
> From so many angles, you lose this battle: semantically, legally, counterfactually...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt the atheists here will read this in its entirety...or if they do, will dismiss it based upon its source.
> 
> Is Atheism a religion - creation.com
> Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the _Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:_
> 
> “Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”1
> Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying that there is any overarching deity such as the Creator-God of the Bible. Atheism in the western sense excludes Buddhism, and adherents claim that it is not a religion. One Atheist said:
> 
> “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”2
> However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang-ups people have about ‘religion’. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.
> 
> Atheism3 will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.
> 
> ................
> 
> Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.
> 
> Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a ‘hairstyle’. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.
> 
> The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.
> 
> Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're cutting and pasting from one of the most notorious, agenda driven Christian ministries. These loons announce their bias and have no interest in truth or objectivity.
> 
> What a laughable joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case!
> 
> Funny (even laughable) that dismiss this because of the source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis^^^^ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt the atheists here will read this in its entirety...or if they do, *will dismiss it based upon its source*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a question for you...and others that deny Atheism is a religion:  Why does it bother you that Atheism is considered by many to be a religion?  Nobody is calling any individual atheist a religious person.  Nobody is forced to practice a religion.
Click to expand...

When your source has an overt bias and relies on subjective opinion then yes,  I reject your source. Has it gone unnoticed to you that those screeching about lack of belief in your gods as being a religion are fundie christians?

Why this need of yours to assign religious belief to a rational and objective conclusion that your gods don't exist?


----------



## PostmodernProph

Quantum Windbag said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you're argument is that "natural" simply means "organic"?........if a dog's turd on your lawn contains chemical preservatives from the food its been fed, does that make it unnatural?......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, my argument is that everything that exists is natural, even if it is made by man, because man is part of nature.
Click to expand...

if that is the case we have no need of the word "natural", we could simply say "everything"......


----------



## PratchettFan

PostmodernProph said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you're argument is that "natural" simply means "organic"?........if a dog's turd on your lawn contains chemical preservatives from the food its been fed, does that make it unnatural?......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, my argument is that everything that exists is natural, even if it is made by man, because man is part of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if that is the case we have no need of the word "natural", we could simply say "everything"......
Click to expand...

 
That works for me.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, according to the Supreme Court, and US tax law, atheism actually is a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 200 years ago, according to the surpreme court, slavery was moral.
> 
> Since when does the Supreme court write dictionaries? Do they decide on every other word you use? No. They are not Miriam-Webster, and this constitues an appeal to improper authority, since their reasons for defining atheism "as a religion" are not purely of a semantic (or logical) consideration. So, who cares what the Supreme thinks about the definition this single word? Not to mention their reasons for considering atheism a religion are political and economic, and  an appeal to the consequences of calling it so (the political ease of throwing this segment of the population into a concise group for consensus purposes, rather than creating a whole new desriptor that no one else belongs to except atheists- which would cost money) rather than be a purely apt description of the word.
> 
> What a hilarious cop-out to even try to appeal to the Supreme Court for the definition of the word that has no operational power within the context of LEGAL preceding in any possible court case. The weakness of your attempt belies your motives behind trying to define a segment of the population you disagree with: the need to make them seem as arbitrary as you. And pointing to ONE part of a dictionary definition that states "strong atheism" (the belief that there is no god) is simply cherry picking, when the definition before it defines atheism as "the disbelief in a god," which is simply, a lack of belief, and a lack of belief can not possibly constitute a religion.
> 
> Worse for you, and as someone has very aptly pointed out already, THEISM itself can not even be called a religion, as it denotes too little information for the word to be categorized in this way. If this is true, then on the flip side, atheism logically can not be called a religion either.
> 
> From so many angles, you lose this battle: semantically, legally, counterfactually...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt the atheists here will read this in its entirety...or if they do, will dismiss it based upon its source.
> 
> Is Atheism a religion - creation.com
> Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the _Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:_
> 
> “Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”1
> Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying that there is any overarching deity such as the Creator-God of the Bible. Atheism in the western sense excludes Buddhism, and adherents claim that it is not a religion. One Atheist said:
> 
> “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”2
> However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang-ups people have about ‘religion’. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.
> 
> Atheism3 will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.
> 
> ................
> 
> Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.
> 
> Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a ‘hairstyle’. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.
> 
> The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.
> 
> Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're cutting and pasting from one of the most notorious, agenda driven Christian ministries. These loons announce their bias and have no interest in truth or objectivity.
> 
> What a laughable joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case!
> 
> Funny (even laughable) that dismiss this because of the source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis^^^^ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt the atheists here will read this in its entirety...or if they do, *will dismiss it based upon its source*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a question for you...and others that deny Atheism is a religion:  Why does it bother you that Atheism is considered by many to be a religion?  Nobody is calling any individual atheist a religious person.  Nobody is forced to practice a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When your source has an overt bias and relies on subjective opinion then yes,  I reject your source. Has it gone unnoticed to you that those screeching about lack of belief in your gods as being a religion are fundie christians?
> 
> Why this need of yours to assign religious belief to a rational and objective conclusion that your gods don't exist?
Click to expand...

I have no need.  Atheism has been assigned the tag of "a religion" by others.  I am simply agreeing with them based on the rational and objective conclusion that follows from what they say.  I have only one God.

I am not a fundie Christian.

You rejecting the source does not make what it says incorrect.

I have an overt bias in this regard also...based on accepted definitions of words in the English language and the concept of logical deduction.

One thing you seem to miss is that Atheism is a belief that there is no God (gods).  It is not simply the absence of belief in God.  That belief (that there is no God) is held on faith because you absolutely cannot prove it to be true.  A collection of people sharing the same faith concerning deities can quite properly be called a religion.  All you can claim is that you worship NOTHING.

Again, I ask....Why does it bother you that Atheism is considered by many to be a religion?


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi Hollie:
1. Christian beliefs can be summarized  in general terms such as:
a. having faith in the human Conscience to seek Justice and Truth
b. having faith in Charity to bring healing and help for the greater benefit of all humanity
c. having faith that embodying and embracing the laws, the people can govern ourselves
d. faith in Restorative Justice to break the cycle of Retributive Justice

Hollie, even if you do not believe any of these things are great enough
to overcome the evil, abuses or problems in the world,
can you at least see that having faith in Justice, so that people commit to
acting more justly, especially when corrected by fellow peers under that same
commitment and authority of law, is BENEFICIAL because it at least guides people
toward being more truthful, just and humane/merciful towards one another?

That is the most we can work with, because we can't prove that Justice exists
or can be achieved by encouraging everyone to receive and commit to Justice.

Most people fight Justice fearing it means to judge and punish us in ways we don't agree to.
However, the path of Restorative Justice, as used in South Africa to heal and rebuild communities
after genocidal wars and violent attacks, is based on people accepting each other unconditionally with love and truth,
and not judging or punishing based on the past, but agreeing to move forward to rebuild relations on peace and respect.

Are you okay with this explanation that faith in Christ Jesus to save humanity
means faith in Restorative Justice to end wars and bring world peace one relationship, one community at a time?

And YES there is  proof this process works. Look at the healing and peace it brought to communities, even
warring villages in Africa.  This saved them from further destruction and ruin.

Look at Spiritual Healing, taught, practiced and researched medically by
Dr. Francis MacNutt, Dr. Phillip Goldfedder, Dr. Larry Dorsey, Dr. Scott Peck who observed the healing of
two Schizophrenic patients so severely obstructed by demonic obsessions they couldn't even receive treatment
until the exorcism/deliverance was applied first to restore their ability to follow reason and medical instructions at all.

The scientists and doctors who have studied this find it is NATURAL.

The Natural healing energy, forces and process are built into the mind and body.

The problem blocking and obstructing Natural healing is unforgiveness that builds up stress and denial
and throws the mind and body off balance, blocking the natural flow of energy that would normally restore us by self-healing
and the recovery process after injury or disruption in our minds, bodies, relations, lives or activities.

The key to removing blockage to Restore natural  healing is forgiveness and letting go
of the negative obstructions and energy so that we let in the positive life energy to flow through which the healing relies on.

ALL the methods of recovery show that this process is facilitated by forgiveness and positive thinking;
and the studies by MacNutt, Dorsey, and Peck show that Negative forces, including occult and witchcraft type
spiritism or sorcery, can disrupt the natural positive flow of energy and cause disease, destruction and death.

My friends who have played with this negative energy could not get out of their problems, drug habits, self-destruction,
or abusive relationships until AFTER they went through the spiritual healing and deliverance process to REMOVE
those negative obstructions they were carrying in their minds, so they could open up and boost their healing and recovery instead. They were similar to Dr. Peck's patients, but were in lighter stages so they could be helped faster. His patients
were so severely affected, that one died from the diseased conditioned she had accumulated over years of abusing herself
and refusing to get medical help because of her demonic mindset that rejected any attempts to help her.

Hollie, this is completely proveable as effective, even if it is found to be natural and not supernatural.
Who cares if the demon voices in people's heads are real or not? the point is to get rid of them so the person
can return to normal, as both patients did that Dr. Peck observed before and after applying exorcism techniques
to remove the demonic obsessions and voices from these people's heads making them act out of control.

As long as the cure works, and helps patients to recover, does it matter if it is natural or supernatural,
psychological or spiritual? if it works, it works. And science and medicine can show this correlates:
* forgiveness and prayer for removal of the negative energies tied to unforgiven memories of the past
"correlates" with facilitated healing and health, even the "miracle" cures of cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases
* unforgiveness and holding onto to resentment, rejection, negative memories feelings thoughts and energy,
playing with negative forces of occult, voodoo, witchcraft, sorcery, spiritism, demonism, etc.
"correlates" with cycles of addiction, abuse, disease, disrupted or even criminal or violent relationships, etc.
that the person refuses help to change or correct but continues self-destructive behavior and project blame outward

This can be proven, Hollie.
It does not require any unusual or blind faith in anything supernatural.
Medical science can show these patterns are consistent statistically.

There is nothing to fear except fear of change, the great impact it would have on
society to prove that forgiveness and spiritual healing can cure 80% of mental and physical illness,
including criminal illness caused by the spiritual conditions that can be treated this way. Not all
cases of cancer or criminal illness can be cured; but the ones that can have greater chances if diagnosed early.

So that is what Dr. Peck urged fellow colleagues in the psychiatric and related medical fields to do:
further research and development to formally prove that there was a scientific method to the
deliverance and healing process that worked to return patients back to normal who were otherwise
diagnosed with incureable degrees of schizophrenia. he saw that they went through changes
consistent with the patterns or stages that have been documented in deliverance/exorcism methods used for centuries,
and consistent with the scientific method of applying the hypothetical remedy, observing if the symptoms go away or are reduced following the normal stages as predicted with signs of progress that can be quantified, and if the process
is completed that means it worked; and if the patient still does not show progress, that means some deeper level of healing needs to be addressed to remove the obstruction. Very similar to if cancer does not disappear or go into remission, then further treatment is needed. It is quantifiable and can be measured and monitored by science.

Does not have to be supernatural but perfectly consistent with laws of science and nature, and processes in medicine.



Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a definition not a list of attributes.  I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded.  It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe.  But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's absurd.  There is no such "set of beliefs".  Any given atheist may have wildly different beliefs about religions, general moral guidelines, politics or anything else.  They have nothing in common on the basis of atheism except not believing in the Easter Bunny theistic approach to religion.
> 
> I challenge you to prove your point by listing this "set of beliefs" -- or any part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge."  Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?
> 
> All beliefs are personal conclusions.  All beliefs are introspective.  Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's a point in that section. I don't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth.  The truth being their own beliefs.  Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus.  Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree with the last sentence.  Haven't seen the rest.  Also haven't seen where anyone declining theisim professes to "know the truth".  Seems to me religion by definition tries to address the Unknowable.  And it stays that way, for if something is knowable, we call that "science".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, a set of beliefs:  And keep in mind that these need not be taken as absolutes but with varying degrees of ardor.  I would refer you back to Dawkins list for that.
> 
> 1-  There are no gods
> 2-   The various god based religions are false
> 3-   The universe has no controlling force behind it
> 4-   The universe is not an artifact
> 
> Will those work for a start?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they wont.
> 
> Conclusion - all gods are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition. At no time in human history have any of the gods made themselves known in any extant way.
> 
> Conclusion - religious traditions are built upon earlier traditions and many religions tend to define their gods as simply grander, more powerful versions of the gods that ruled the preceding religions. And why not?  Why would a more recent religion establish itself as subordinate to a prior religion? Thus, the incorporation and inclusion of earlier traditions in mankinds formulation of newer religions.
> 
> Conclusion - nothing in the natural world indicates or even suggests supernatural forces. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.
> 
> I’ll submit that by employing evidence and reason, we can readily discriminate between which of our competing theories (mine being natural laws; yours being supernatural intervention), deserves the greater credibility. We actually have *direct observational evidence* that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have *no observational evidence of any kind* that your god (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observere who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> Conclusion - The universe is immensely old. That is in direct contradiction to biblical tales and fables and contradicts other religious tales.
> 
> In fact, the _only_ model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understand from the beginning that I am not a Christian.  I do not consider the Bible a science book.  At best it has some historical significance.  If you wish to argue Christianity, you will need to find someone else.
> 
> But I am willing to take your belief sets.  I don't know if Pogo will or not.
> 
> 1-  all god are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition.
> This is a pretty direct statement that gods are not real.  They do not exist but are entirely imaginary.  I really don't see how your statement could be taken any other way.     So, please present your evidence to support this conclusion.  And if you are going to use the argument that they have not made themselves known, you are going to have to explain your position that if they existed they would make themselves known.  Otherwise, it is irrelevant.
> 
> 2-  Religious institutions are built on earlier traditions.
> I'll grant you that and would consider this a valid statement based upon objective evidence.  I am not clear on how that matters.  If you could clarify that for me I would appreciate it.
> 
> 3-  Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force.
> I am not aware of anything which does.  OTOH, I am not aware of anything which suggests it doesn't.  The current theory (at least I think it is) is a singularity expanded to create the universe.  I am aware of nothing which indicates the origination of the singularity or the cause of the expansion.  Nor any current theory as to why the natural forces you speak of exist at all.  I stipulate they are there, but why they are there is a matter of speculation.  So, do you have any objective evidence that supernatural (I really dislike that word) forces were not involved?
> 
> Keep in mind that what I am attempting to do here is determine the nature of your conclusions, not whether or not they are true.  You have as much chance of getting it right as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you having such difficulty with acknowledging your fundamentalist Christian beliefs?
> 
> It’s been pointed out repeatedly and tediously that reason and rationality lead to conclusions that leave as superficial and subordinate, your allegiance to supernaturalism and mysticism.
> 
> In your theistic worldview, what accounts for the existence of all are Supreme Beings whose minds we can never know, whose methods are wholly mysterious, whose goals are self-contradictory (an all supreme being cannot have any challenges or goals-- there is nothing beyond its ability to achieve, instantaneously, hence has no wants).
> 
> This, you religionists claim, is the "origin" of existence, and it's supposed to be a defendable position?. Well, what have you fundies "answered" in this paradigm? That an unknowable being, for unfathomable, self-contradictory reasons, using methods beyond our scope to perceive, created everything. This "answer" is not only tantamount to no answer, it is also purposely accepting no answer as the answer precluding one from ever discovering any answer.
> 
> We are in agreement on numerous levels. There is no evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods. _All_ is assumption from the religious perspective, (the theist assumes gods, the materialist assumes logic). Given the plethora of gods thoughout human history, none of which are open to any proof, yes, it is rational and logical to conclude that gods are invented to explain phenomenon. Unless you are willing to argue that any number of assertions of gods other than the one you selected as "true" doesn't illustrate this fact very clearly. I’m still waiting for you to support your gods as true to the exclusion of the Egyptian gods, which were obviously meant to "explain existence" and have no more or less authority than that of the conclusions of your Judeo-Christian gods.
> 
> You simply cannot disprove the fact that your gods are false and the Egyptian gods are true.
> 
> Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force. That is true.
> While challenges to your fundamentalist views are met with nothing more than _“but… but… but…. but you can’t prove it isn’t”,_ I opt for reason and rationality as a conclusion primarily because as a member of the natural universe, we can most correctly assess natural realities as empirically supported. Other than assuming logic is cohesive, there is nothing more to _assume_ in the rationalist camp. While there are so-far unanswered questions, these questions do not leap frog out of the physical and into the metaphysical at any point, and even in analogies where reality doesn't behave quite like we expected to (quantuum mechanics for instance), you religionists are just as shackled to that reality as is the rationalist.
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear PratchettFan and Hollie:
RE: natural or supernatural forces
1. How do you view the forces of life or love? the forces of truth or justice which compel people in that direction by conscience?

Do you believe this is  natural by human nature and "design"?

Do you believe some of the energy of Nature or Life has a "life of its own" and pushes in the direction
toward sustaining good health and life, or greater good for the collective whole?

Are these Natural or Supernatural forces in life?

2. Would you prefer the term Collective?
So anything beyond the human will to control is on a Collective level:
collective truth
collective laws
universal laws of science or nature
collective energy of all life on the planet
collective economy
collective politics

Even if we do not agree what is Natural or Supernatural/beyond our control.

Isn't it sufficient to talk about "collective levels" of society, humanity, conscience,
justice, truth, universal or natural laws,
and we are still talking about the SAME forces in life?

is Collective a better term that AVOIDS this debate where it comes from or what is driving it?

If we can agree there is a COLLECTIVE level that influences people,
then isn't the point of laws or religions to try to define, communicate and agree how to manage/regulate
the RELATIONSHIP between the individual and the Collective level?

If that is the common goal, can we derive language that describes
what works and what fails, how to correct when things fail,
and agree on that, regardless what laws are used to describe these locally to members under those rules.

Isn't that what both the laws in govt and religion attempt to do:
regulate or reach agreement between members
on how to act to keep equal justice, as a balance between peace/security and freedom/free choice,
between the individuals and the collective whole of society or humanity.

isn't that the purpose of AGREEING on laws, whether secular or civil, religious or spiritual.


----------



## PratchettFan

emilynghiem said:


> Dear PratchettFan and Hollie:
> RE: natural or supernatural forces
> 1. How do you view the forces of life or love? the forces of truth or justice which compel people in that direction by conscience?
> 
> Do you believe this is  natural by human nature and "design"?
> 
> Do you believe some of the energy of Nature or Life has a "life of its own" and pushes in the direction
> toward sustaining good health and life, or greater good for the collective whole?
> 
> Are these Natural or Supernatural forces in life?
> 
> 2. Would you prefer the term Collective?
> So anything beyond the human will to control is on a Collective level:
> collective truth
> collective laws
> universal laws of science or nature
> collective energy of all life on the planet
> collective economy
> collective politics
> 
> Even if we do not agree what is Natural or Supernatural/beyond our control.
> 
> Isn't it sufficient to talk about "collective levels" of society, humanity, conscience,
> justice, truth, universal or natural laws,
> and we are still talking about the SAME forces in life?
> 
> is Collective a better term that AVOIDS this debate where it comes from or what is driving it?
> 
> If we can agree there is a COLLECTIVE level that influences people,
> then isn't the point of laws or religions to try to define, communicate and agree how to manage/regulate
> the RELATIONSHIP between the individual and the Collective level?
> 
> If that is the common goal, can we derive language that describes
> what works and what fails, how to correct when things fail,
> and agree on that, regardless what laws are used to describe these locally to members under those rules.
> 
> Isn't that what both the laws in govt and religion attempt to do:
> regulate or reach agreement between members
> on how to act to keep equal justice, as a balance between peace/security and freedom/free choice,
> between the individuals and the collective whole of society or humanity.
> 
> 
> isn't that the purpose of AGREEING on laws, whether secular or civil, religious or spiritual.


 
There is the individual and there is the group.  The group is not simply a collection of individuals, it has its own existence and its behavior can be predicted.  An individual acting within a group does act differently than when on its own.  So you can certainly talk about a collective in reference to humans, just as you talk about it in relation to bees. But I tend to think it is more than just a collective.  I am essentially a collective of cells, but I think I am more than just that.  Of course, I could be wrong.

As to life and love as forces, I think we walk into a metaphorical wall there.  What you mean by "life", "love" or "force" does not necessarily match what I mean.  Do you consider life to be purely biological?  Does a rock have a soul?  I can tell you my sense of it but it all comes down to my blind guess vs your blind guess.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

asaratis said:


> Partially correct. Indeed you didn't say that God is not supernatural. You said He would be man-made, if He exists.  Man cannot create a supernatural thing.  Therefore by your own statement, God is not supernatural (if He exists).  I am not here to explain logic to you. Take some lessons.



I did not say He would be man made, I posited that He could be, and then concluded that He would be natural if this were true. That is called logic, which is why only idiots try to cite logic as proof of their intelligence.


----------



## emilynghiem

PratchettFan said:


> 1. There is the individual and there is the group.  The group is not simply a collection of individuals, it has its own existence and its behavior can be predicted.  An individual acting within a group does act differently than when on its own.  So you can certainly talk about a collective in reference to humans, just as you talk about it in relation to bees. But I tend to think it is more than just a collective.  I am essentially a collective of cells, but I think I am more than just that.  Of course, I could be wrong.
> 
> 2. As to life and love as forces, I think we walk into a metaphorical wall there.  What you mean by "life", "love" or "force" does not necessarily match what I mean.  Do you consider life to be purely biological?  Does a rock have a soul?  I can tell you my sense of it but it all comes down to my blind guess vs your blind guess.



Yes, my point is we DON'T have to agree on, or even debate #2 if we don't,
in order to agree how to deal with #1. So why not solve all problems in terms of #1.

As long as we agree the point is to work out common principles or process to deal with "individual and collective behavior,"
and the Relationship between these, we can work out whatever we do have control or choices in. The other things
will work out in the process, or may not matter if we get the root issues and problems resolved we can do something about.

I love your precise, articulate answers that help to delineate the relevant substance from the external shell.
We need more people like you, who talk in secular objective terms for anyone to understand,
and don't waste time arguing or rejecting the parts that are subjective or unproveable.

Sticking to what we can or do agree on is enough to work through whatever needs to be discussed and resolved.
Our success and goals cannot depend on unprovable things or we'd never get anywhere if we had to agree or prove what cannot be! 

Thanks PF
I think you and Hollie are great, at spelling out exactly what is or what is not the problem,
so we can sort it out and get to agreed conclusions that are important. Everything else will follow, or get out of the way.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

newpolitics said:


> 200 years ago, according to the surpreme court, slavery was moral.



I am willing to bet you actual money that you cannot find a single SCOTUS case that said slavery is moral. The reason for that is quite simple, if you are not an idiot, they do not decide issues based on morality, they do it on the basis of law.



newpolitics said:


> Since when does the Supreme court write dictionaries? Do they decide on every other word you use? No. They are not Miriam-Webster, and this constitues an appeal to improper authority, since their reasons for defining atheism "as a religion" are not purely of a semantic (or logical) consideration. So, who cares what the Supreme thinks about the definition this single word? Not to mention their reasons for considering atheism a religion are political and economic, and  an appeal to the consequences of calling it so (the political ease of throwing this segment of the population into a concise group for consensus purposes, rather than creating a whole new desriptor that no one else belongs to except atheists- which would cost money) rather than be a purely apt description of the word.



Funny, I actually cited a dictionary definition of religion that could include atheism. I suggest you take some time to read through the thread before you attempt to pontificate to me about dictionaries, especially since you are wrong.



newpolitics said:


> What a hilarious cop-out to even try to appeal to the Supreme Court for the definition of the word that has no operational power within the context of LEGAL preceding in any possible court case. The weakness of your attempt belies your motives behind trying to define a segment of the population you disagree with: the need to make them seem as arbitrary as you. And pointing to ONE part of a dictionary definition that states "strong atheism" (the belief that there is no god) is simply cherry picking, when the definition before it defines atheism as "the disbelief in a god," which is simply, a lack of belief, and a lack of belief can not possibly constitute a religion.



I did not appeal to anything, I only mentioned them to prove that it is actually possible to get all the legal benefits of a religion while being an atheist. Since your contention is that there is no way that atheism can possibly be considered a religion, even though there are actual churches that preach atheism, you are proven wrong.

By the way, that makes almost every word you used in this post utterly irrelevant to the point.



newpolitics said:


> Worse for you, and as someone has very aptly pointed out already, THEISM itself can not even be called a religion, as it denotes too little information for the word to be categorized in this way. If this is true, then on the flip side, atheism logically can not be called a religion either.



That is not what was said, I suggest you go back and reread the post.



newpolitics said:


> From so many angles, you lose this battle: semantically, legally, counterfactually...



Yet I still win because, ultimately, some atheists view their beliefs as a religion. Since the only claim I have made in this thread is that atheism can be a religion, you are left with the task of denying provable facts in order to claim that your view of the world is the only one that matters. That puts you on the same level of every other religious zealot on the planet.

Feel stupid yet?


----------



## emilynghiem

asaratis said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, to you God is not supernatural?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say that? Why, no, I did not. I said that, given the above, if God exists, and He was created by man, He would be natural. If you need someone to parse that for you I suggest you ask an English teacher at your elementary school, I am not here to explain simple grammar to idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Partially correct. Indeed you didn't say that God is not supernatural. You said He would be man-made, if He exists.  Man cannot create a supernatural thing.  Therefore by your own statement, God is not supernatural (if He exists).  I am not here to explain logic to you. Take some lessons.
Click to expand...


Hi Asaratis:
Would it help to make a distinction between
the MEANING of God and the DEPICTIONS of God that are man made.

For example if God means universal truth of all life and creation, and/or the source of these laws or truths,
that is NOT something man made.

But if this Source of Life, real or imagined, is PERSONIFIED in a god figure
and told in stories passed down by man, that REPRESENTATION is manmade.

I find both are true:
Both this greater body of existence and energy is "what made man (we didn't create ourselves or the laws of science/nature)"
AND the language, laws and religions used to DESCRIBE this mass of knowledge of the universe
(and the relationships or laws connecting individual man to the collective process or world around us)
IS "man made" cultural language.

So both are true, not either/or

And the point is: 
How do we reconcile the laws and expressions
coming from both directions? People who see the CONTENT of the laws coming from God/Nature/Life
as  pre-existent, where man has made up laws of science, math, religion, govt to try to REPRESENT these laws or truths.
And People who see the religions as "laws made up by man" and don't relate to the content attributed to "divine sources."

What parts of the CONTENT can we agree how to use consistently?

Can we use the laws of science and nature without arguing where these came from?

Can we use the laws of governance to set up democratic processes for
representing and solving conflicts WITHOUT depending on everyone believing the same way?

How do we address the common CONTENT of laws and principles we actually agree on,
without letting political or religious differences screw up the language where we impose and fight over that part?

Would it help to first separate what is the Content or Principle
we want to address or establish agreement on, from what is each person's way of expressing it that may not be universal.

What is the Universal concept (not made by man, such as Wisdom, Truth, Justice that we don't magically create ourselves)
and what is the relative language that is made up by man, is relative to each person group or culture, and can be changed.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PostmodernProph said:


> if that is the case we have no need of the word "natural", we could simply say "everything"......



Like I said, the idea that man's works is separate from nature is a product of a time when science actually believed that man was innately superior to all other animals. If you aver read the Tarzan books you would discover that educated people actually believed that a man raised by apes would naturally grow up to dominate the apes because of his superior intellect. That is arrogance, and it should not be a part of science.


----------



## PratchettFan

emilynghiem said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There is the individual and there is the group.  The group is not simply a collection of individuals, it has its own existence and its behavior can be predicted.  An individual acting within a group does act differently than when on its own.  So you can certainly talk about a collective in reference to humans, just as you talk about it in relation to bees. But I tend to think it is more than just a collective.  I am essentially a collective of cells, but I think I am more than just that.  Of course, I could be wrong.
> 
> 2. As to life and love as forces, I think we walk into a metaphorical wall there.  What you mean by "life", "love" or "force" does not necessarily match what I mean.  Do you consider life to be purely biological?  Does a rock have a soul?  I can tell you my sense of it but it all comes down to my blind guess vs your blind guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, my point is we DON'T have to agree on, or even debate #2 if we don't,
> in order to agree how to deal with #1. So why not solve all problems in terms of #1.
> 
> As long as we agree the point is to work out common principles or process to deal with "individual and collective behavior,"
> and the Relationship between these, we can work out whatever we do have control or choices in. The other things
> will work out in the process, or may not matter if we get the root issues and problems resolved we can do something about.
> 
> I love your precise, articulate answers that help to delineate the relevant substance from the external shell.
> We need more people like you, who talk in secular objective terms for anyone to understand,
> and don't waste time arguing or rejecting the parts that are subjective or unproveable.
> 
> Sticking to what we can or do agree on is enough to work through whatever needs to be discussed and resolved.
> Our success and goals cannot depend on unprovable things or we'd never get anywhere if we had to agree or prove what cannot be!
> 
> Thanks PF
> I think you and Hollie are great, at spelling out exactly what is or what is not the problem,
> so we can sort it out and get to agreed conclusions that are important. Everything else will follow, or get out of the way.
Click to expand...

 
We can always find things to agree on.  You might think the Raiders are the best team and I might think it is the Cowboys, but we can both agree the Steelers suck.  However, I doubt that is going to change our relationship when the Raiders play the Cowboys.  Ultimately, there is going to be conflict.

But I don't think conflict is necessarily bad, nor that it needs to be resolved.  If I say A and you agree with me, what have I learned?  How have I grown?  But if you tell me A is just flat wrong and I'm an idiot, then (assuming I don't just walk away) I have to come up with reasons to support A.  I have to think. 

Aside from the entertainment value (and it is there) what I like about these boards is people disagree with me.  This does not usually change my mind, but I do have to examine what I am saying in response.  I'm not looking to change their mind, only to clarify my own thoughts for myself.  This is why I don't see any of these discussions as a contest.  I am not in competition with anyone here, only in a conversation.  Sometimes a heated conversation, but still just an exchange of views.  Other people's mileage may vary.


----------



## emilynghiem

PostmodernProph said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you're argument is that "natural" simply means "organic"?........if a dog's turd on your lawn contains chemical preservatives from the food its been fed, does that make it unnatural?......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, my argument is that everything that exists is natural, even if it is made by man, because man is part of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if that is the case we have no need of the word "natural", we could simply say "everything"......
Click to expand...


Yes and no.
Yes, by universal that means everything.

But it still helps to make a distinction between
natural laws such as preexisting, like laws of science, nature, physics.

And manmade laws established by writing them down and going through a process
like religions and govts.

Natural laws are different from religious laws.
The content and principles they are based on are supposed to be universal.
But the language, context and audience is relative, local and subjective and not universal to all people or groups.


----------



## asaratis

Quantum Windbag said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Partially correct. Indeed you didn't say that God is not supernatural. You said He would be man-made, if He exists.  Man cannot create a supernatural thing.  Therefore by your own statement, God is not supernatural (if He exists).  I am not here to explain logic to you. Take some lessons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say He would be man made, I posited that He could be, and then concluded that He would be natural if this were true. That is called logic, which is why only idiots try to cite logic as proof of their intelligence.
Click to expand...

Begging your esteemed pardon, you said:



			
				Windbag^^^^ said:
			
		

> Did I say that? Why, no, I did not. I said that, given the above,* if God exists, and He was created by man, He would be natural.* If you need someone to parse that for you I suggest you ask an English teacher at your elementary school, I am not here to explain simple grammar to idiots.



We seem to be muddled with differing connotations of words.  You have apparently adopted an errant definition of_ natural_. Perhaps you also do not understand the commonly accepted definition of_ logic_.

You mistakenly equate_ man made_ and _natural_.  As explained before, natural things are those that would occur or exist in nature absent the presence of man.  Anything produced by mankind (other than itself and its bodily remains) would not fall in that category.  You said ^^^^if God exists, and He was created by man (i.e.  man made), He would be natural.  He cannot be both.  We simply disagree on your all encompassing definition of natural.  By your errant way of thinking, the USS Enterprise was made by nature.  (Please don't regurgitate your simplistic argument that because man is part of nature, all things made by man are natural.)  Please review the definition of _natural_.  [Writings in brackets [...] below are mine.]

Natural - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
*1nat·u·ral*
_adjective_ \ˈna-chə-rəl, ˈnach-rəl\
: existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature  [This includes your silly plastic rocks.]

: not having any extra substances or chemicals added : not containing anything artificial

: usual or expected


If you cannot fathom that one, try to grasp this one:

Natural Define Natural at Dictionary.com
adjective
1.
existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ):      [...as opposed to a man made bridge]
a natural bridge.
2.
based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature:
Growth is a natural process.
3.
of or pertaining to nature or the universe:
natural beauty.
4.
of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science:
conducting natural experiments.
5.
in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.
6.
growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.     [A silk flower is not natural.  It is artificial....man made.]....[Corn growing in neat rows in an irrigated field is NOT natural.]

7.  having undergone little or no processing and containing no chemical additives:


Augmenting that, you might try to understand what artificial means:

*artificial*

[ahr-tuh-fish-uh l]

 Synonyms 
 Examples 
 Word Origin 
adjective
1.
made by human skill; produced by humans (opposed to natural ):    *[Note<<<<opposed to natural]*
artificial flowers.
2.
imitation; simulated; sham:
artificial vanilla flavoring.
3.
lacking naturalness or spontaneity; forced; contrived; feigned:
an artificial smile.
4.
full of affectation; affected; stilted:
artificial manners; artificial speech.
5.
made without regard to the particular needs of a situation, person, etc.; imposed arbitrarily; unnatural:
artificial rules for dormitory residents.
6.
Biology. based on arbitrary, superficial characteristics rather than natural, organic relationships:
an artificial system of classification.
7.
Jewelry. manufactured to resemble a natural gem, in chemical composition or appearance.
Compare assembled, imitation (def 11), synthetic (def 6). 

So if God was created by man, He would NOT be natural.

In any further discussion here or elsewhere on USMB you should differentiate between natural and man made things.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

asaratis said:


> Begging your esteemed pardon, you said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windbag^^^^ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say that? Why, no, I did not. I said that, given the above,* if God exists, and He was created by man, He would be natural.* If you need someone to parse that for you I suggest you ask an English teacher at your elementary school, I am not here to explain simple grammar to idiots.
Click to expand...


Damn, I remembered what I said.

Thanks for verifying that my memory still works right.



asaratis said:


> We seem to be muddled with differing connotations of words.  You have apparently adopted an errant definition of_ natural_. Perhaps you also do not understand the commonly accepted definition of_ logic_.
> 
> You mistakenly equate_ man made_ and _natural_.  As explained before, natural things are those that would occur or exist in nature absent the presence of man.  Anything produced by mankind (other than itself and its bodily remains) would not fall in that category.  You said ^^^^if God exists, and He was created by man (i.e.  man made), He would be natural.  He cannot be both.  We simply disagree on your all encompassing definition of natural.  By your errant way of thinking, the USS Enterprise was made by nature.  (Please don't regurgitate your simplistic argument that because man is part of nature, all things made by man are natural.)  Please review the definition of _natural_.  [Writings in brackets [...] below are mine.]
> 
> Natural - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> *1nat·u·ral*
> _adjective_ \ˈna-chə-rəl, ˈnach-rəl\
> : existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature  [This includes your silly plastic rocks.]
> 
> : not having any extra substances or chemicals added : not containing anything artificial
> 
> : usual or expected
> 
> 
> If you cannot fathom that one, try to grasp this one:
> 
> Natural Define Natural at Dictionary.com
> adjective
> 1.
> existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ):      [...as opposed to a man made bridge]
> a natural bridge.
> 2.
> based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature:
> Growth is a natural process.
> 3.
> of or pertaining to nature or the universe:
> natural beauty.
> 4.
> of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science:
> conducting natural experiments.
> 5.
> in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.
> 6.
> growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.     [A silk flower is not natural.  It is artificial....man made.]....[Corn growing in neat rows in an irrigated field is NOT natural.]
> 
> 7.  having undergone little or no processing and containing no chemical additives:
> 
> 
> Augmenting that, you might try to understand what artificial means:
> 
> *artificial*
> 
> [ahr-tuh-fish-uh l]
> 
> Synonyms
> Examples
> Word Origin
> adjective
> 1.
> made by human skill; produced by humans (opposed to natural ):    *[Note<<<<opposed to natural]*
> artificial flowers.
> 2.
> imitation; simulated; sham:
> artificial vanilla flavoring.
> 3.
> lacking naturalness or spontaneity; forced; contrived; feigned:
> an artificial smile.
> 4.
> full of affectation; affected; stilted:
> artificial manners; artificial speech.
> 5.
> made without regard to the particular needs of a situation, person, etc.; imposed arbitrarily; unnatural:
> artificial rules for dormitory residents.
> 6.
> Biology. based on arbitrary, superficial characteristics rather than natural, organic relationships:
> an artificial system of classification.
> 7.
> Jewelry. manufactured to resemble a natural gem, in chemical composition or appearance.
> Compare assembled, imitation (def 11), synthetic (def 6).
> 
> So if God was created by man, He would NOT be natural.
> 
> In any further discussion here or elsewhere on USMB you should differentiate between natural and man made things.



I am not muddling anything, I am rejecting the outdated, and ridiculously arrogant, notion that man is somehow able to make unnatural things. Man is a part of nature, despite the outdated philosophy that we control it through our superior intellect.

I realize that some people are insecure, and need to cling to the notion that they are special in some way, but I see no need to feed into their lack of self respect by pretending they have a point.

Feel free to continue to post dictionary definitions if you feel a need to promote yourself above nature, just remember that those definitions are archaic and that, one day, everyone will come to realize that anything that the only things that are not part of nature are things that come from outside the universe.

Given the above, would you care to explain how a God created by man, that actually exists, would come from outside the universe? The only way I could see that working is if man were somehow able to work outside of the natural laws that the universe are governed by. That would make man, by definition, supernatural, and is the only logical way you can conclude that God is not natural if the conditions I laid out are true.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pays to increase your vocabulary.
> 
> It's a big word.  You're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you missed the part where I said single person.
> 
> Why am I not surprised?
> 
> Or, even more likely, you just cannot fucking read.
> 
> From your link, oh he who is always wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that one —used as subject or direct object or indirect object of a verb or object of a preposition usually *in reference to a lifeless thing*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Not at all -- in fact I'm about to copy it since it would still be present if you didn't keep editing the quotes out in a feeble attempt to run away from your own words.  So here it is:



Captain Butthurt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why "He"?
> Who is the "She" that makes "him" a "He"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because English doesn't have gender neutral pronouns that can be used to refer to a single person, and my regular practice of using they and ignoring numbers would confuse the idiots, like you, that don't understand the basics of English grammar, oh he who thinks he is smarter than the average ant.
Click to expand...


So not only are you giving "God" a penis --- sorry, I guess that's "Penis" -- but you're implying "God" is a _person._
I wasn't going to bother drawing attention to that; I figured the genderical quicksand was enough.  But now you have.

It's like a cat toy with this one.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a religion. That is definitional fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, according to the Supreme Court, and US tax law, atheism actually is a religion.
Click to expand...


Yet we're not writing law here so that's irrelevant.  Legally, you can define a human being as three-fifths of a person, so .... so much for legal technicalities to hide behind.

Too bad.


----------



## Pogo

Wanton Whinebag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am starting to believe there may actually be a Church of the Composition Fallacy.
> Apparently it does not include Confession.  But it has a nice creation myth. In the River DeNial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aprently you cannnot read, what a surprise.
> 
> In order for you to make the argument that I am using a composition fallacy you would have to show that I claimed that atheism is a religion because some people treat it as one.
Click to expand...


And speak of the devil, as in the one in the details, that's exactly what you did in the post immediately after my noting the fallacy, as well as before it:

To wit, the post prior:



Quantum Wind-up-Troll said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> The christians' need to peg atheism as a religion is the reason this thread has gone on so long, despite it being semantically unjustified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need to peg anything.
> 
> I do, however, enjoy pointing out to idiots when they are wrong, which is why the fact that churches like the one in the link below are ignored by religious zealots. The question now is, are you a religious zealot that will deny facts in order to maintain the fiction that atheism is cannot be a religion?
> 
> Home First Church of Atheism
Click to expand...


And the post after:



Quantum Windbag said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do they minister? They don't have a specific doctrine, and those so-called churches are really nothing more than community centers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was funny.
> 
> Newsflash, the fact that you deliberately chose to ignore reality is not proof that something does not exist.
> 
> This is the doctrine of an atheist church.
> 
> “Nothing exists besides natural phenomena. Thought is merely a function of those natural phenomena. Death is complete, and irreversible. We have faith solely in humankind, nature, and the facts of science.”​FAQ First Church of Atheism
> 
> Damn, they even mention faith, what a surprise.
> 
> By the way, this also proves that Dawkins was right when he said that atheist that absolutely reject the existence of God do exist, and that everyone who claimed they do not is an idiot.
Click to expand...


Oops.



Quantum AdHominaHominaHomina said:


> Since my only point in this thread is that you are wrong when you claim it is cannot be a religion because you do not see it as one you would be the person that is actually guilty of using a composition fallacy.
> 
> Then again, you are always wrong, so you should be used to finding out, once again, that you are totally screwed up.




Your only point here appears to be ad hominem scattershot in a hopeless quest for self-esteem.  Apparently you don't recognize a Composition Fallacy even while employing it:

The second type of fallacy of Composition is committed when it is concluded that what is true of the parts of a whole must be true of the whole without there being adequate justification for the claim. More formally, the line of "reasoning" would be as follows:​




The parts of the whole X have characteristics A, B, C, etc.

Therefore the whole X must have characteristics A, B, C.
That this sort of reasoning is fallacious because it cannot be inferred that simply because the parts of a complex whole have (or lack) certain properties that the whole that they are parts of has those properties. This is especially clear in math: The numbers 1 and 3 are both odd. 1 and 3 are parts of 4. Therefore, the number 4 is odd.(Nizkor, op.cit.)​"Atheism is a religion because here are some atheists calling themselves a 'church'.

And this fallacy has been called out before here already.
I don't think you're up to this level of debate.


----------



## sealybobo

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a religion. That is definitional fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, according to the Supreme Court, and US tax law, atheism actually is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 200 years ago, according to the surpreme court, slavery was moral.
> 
> Since when does the Supreme court write dictionaries? Do they decide on every other word you use? No. They are not Miriam-Webster, and this constitues an appeal to improper authority, since their reasons for defining atheism "as a religion" are not purely of a semantic (or logical) consideration. So, who cares what the Supreme thinks about the definition this single word? Not to mention their reasons for considering atheism a religion are political and economic, and  an appeal to the consequences of calling it so (the political ease of throwing this segment of the population into a concise group for consensus purposes, rather than creating a whole new desriptor that no one else belongs to except atheists- which would cost money) rather than be a purely apt description of the word.
> 
> What a hilarious cop-out to even try to appeal to the Supreme Court for the definition of the word that has no operational power within the context of LEGAL preceding in any possible court case. The weakness of your attempt belies your motives behind trying to define a segment of the population you disagree with: the need to make them seem as arbitrary as you. And pointing to ONE part of a dictionary definition that states "strong atheism" (the belief that there is no god) is simply cherry picking, when the definition before it defines atheism as "the disbelief in a god," which is simply, a lack of belief, and a lack of belief can not possibly constitute a religion.
> 
> Worse for you, and as someone has very aptly pointed out already, THEISM itself can not even be called a religion, as it denotes too little information for the word to be categorized in this way. If this is true, then on the flip side, atheism logically can not be called a religion either.
> 
> From so many angles, you lose this battle: semantically, legally, counterfactually...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt the atheists here will read this in its entirety...or if they do, will dismiss it based upon its source.
> 
> Is Atheism a religion - creation.com
> Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the _Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:_
> 
> “Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”1
> Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying that there is any overarching deity such as the Creator-God of the Bible. Atheism in the western sense excludes Buddhism, and adherents claim that it is not a religion. One Atheist said:
> 
> “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”2
> However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang-ups people have about ‘religion’. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.
> 
> Atheism3 will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.
> 
> ................
> 
> Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.
> 
> Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a ‘hairstyle’. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.
> 
> The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.
> 
> Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're cutting and pasting from one of the most notorious, agenda driven Christian ministries. These loons announce their bias and have no interest in truth or objectivity.
> 
> What a laughable joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case!
> 
> Funny (even laughable) that dismiss this because of the source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis^^^^ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt the atheists here will read this in its entirety...or if they do, *will dismiss it based upon its source*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a question for you...and others that deny Atheism is a religion:  Why does it bother you that Atheism is considered by many to be a religion?  Nobody is calling any individual atheist a religious person.  Nobody is forced to practice a religion.
Click to expand...


I wish it was so I could go to services and get the tax write offs.  

It probably upsets some of us because it is simply not true.


*Atheism takes faith / is a religion.*
Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheism_is_a_religion

_“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi Pogo: I think the next big stage is agreeing what is a Political Religion, and how do we deal with that?
If our govt is supposed to "separate" and not impose religion through govt, what about Constitutionalist beliefs?
What about belief that health care is a right, Prochoice or prolife should be the default position taken by govt, etc?

I have more success explaining to prolife people that prolife views can exist within a prochoice context,
because that's already  happening. All my prolife friends would not do a single thing towards the choice of abortion,
and yet this is all by free choice and none of that is required or dictated by law. So i can argue that all the goals
of the prolife movement can be achieved while the laws are prochoice. We can still get rid of the causes of abortion
and not have to make abortion illegal to do it. The prolife already prove that by free choice, you can be educated enough to choose not to have sex, not to get pregnant and not to have an abortion. you don't have to be forced by law to choose that.

I have ZERO success explaining to prochoice people about free market health care as a choice.

So the problem is people's political BELIEFS.

If these are not going to change, and why SHOULD govt be abused to force a different belief on people than what they naturally believe; why not decide the system for DEALING with clashing political beliefs?

if prolife or Constitutionalism is a political belief that inherently involves participation and policy of govt,
how do we deal with that? if liberal views of prochoice, anti death penalty, prolegalization and singlepayer health
care are a political belief, how can this be exercised freely WITHOUT imposing a national religion on others?



Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a religion. That is definitional fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, according to the Supreme Court, and US tax law, atheism actually is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet we're not writing law here so that's irrelevant.  Legally, you can define a human being as three-fifths of a person, so .... so much for legal technicalities to hide behind.
> 
> Too bad.
Click to expand...


----------



## Pogo

Hi Emily

I'm still going to insist that "politics" and "religion" have nothing to do with each other and that conflating them only serves to muddy the waters as long as we grope for definitions of either.

To oversimplify to a nice sound bite: Politics addresses the machinations of the world; Religion addresses the machinations of the otherworld.
Ideally never the twain shall meet.


----------



## emilynghiem

You can do even better sealybobo. nonprofits and churches require a bunch of filing and admin/legal work.

If you set up a DBA business under your name, you can deduct business expenses 100%.

So if you have a web or media consulting business, anything you spend to advertise counts as a 100% deduction.

I had a friend who ran her "nonprofit school" this way, as a business DBA under her name.
So there was no filing, only money paid in and out. No employees, only consultants who counted as expenses paid out.

Some of the top millionaires who retired off their real estate investments as a business
also deduct all kinds of costs using the tax laws. See example: Lifestyles Unlimited - The education and mentor group for real estate investors
Ex: if a property is bought under its value using one loan, then afterwards the property is assessed at its normal value and a higher second loan is obtained against that higher value, then when the second loan (counted as a debt) is used to pay off the first loan (counted as debt), the "difference" in cash isn't counted as income but debt, so there are no taxes on it. 
The founder of the network in Houston that teaches this used this method to buy a 4 or 5 million dollar home for
under value, something like 3.5 I think. So when he got the bigger loan to refinance 6 months later, he paid off the first loan and pocketed 500,000 in cash tax free. He didn't need to borrow this money, he has 10 million in the bank.  He uses credit to finance property because the difference counts as debt not income. So he makes more money off borrowing, even including interest and the business costs, taxes, fees and other expenses.  He calculates all this in advance before he prices or pays.



sealybobo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, according to the Supreme Court, and US tax law, atheism actually is a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 200 years ago, according to the surpreme court, slavery was moral.
> 
> Since when does the Supreme court write dictionaries? Do they decide on every other word you use? No. They are not Miriam-Webster, and this constitues an appeal to improper authority, since their reasons for defining atheism "as a religion" are not purely of a semantic (or logical) consideration. So, who cares what the Supreme thinks about the definition this single word? Not to mention their reasons for considering atheism a religion are political and economic, and  an appeal to the consequences of calling it so (the political ease of throwing this segment of the population into a concise group for consensus purposes, rather than creating a whole new desriptor that no one else belongs to except atheists- which would cost money) rather than be a purely apt description of the word.
> 
> What a hilarious cop-out to even try to appeal to the Supreme Court for the definition of the word that has no operational power within the context of LEGAL preceding in any possible court case. The weakness of your attempt belies your motives behind trying to define a segment of the population you disagree with: the need to make them seem as arbitrary as you. And pointing to ONE part of a dictionary definition that states "strong atheism" (the belief that there is no god) is simply cherry picking, when the definition before it defines atheism as "the disbelief in a god," which is simply, a lack of belief, and a lack of belief can not possibly constitute a religion.
> 
> Worse for you, and as someone has very aptly pointed out already, THEISM itself can not even be called a religion, as it denotes too little information for the word to be categorized in this way. If this is true, then on the flip side, atheism logically can not be called a religion either.
> 
> From so many angles, you lose this battle: semantically, legally, counterfactually...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt the atheists here will read this in its entirety...or if they do, will dismiss it based upon its source.
> 
> Is Atheism a religion - creation.com
> Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the _Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:_
> 
> “Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”1
> Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying that there is any overarching deity such as the Creator-God of the Bible. Atheism in the western sense excludes Buddhism, and adherents claim that it is not a religion. One Atheist said:
> 
> “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”2
> However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang-ups people have about ‘religion’. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.
> 
> Atheism3 will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.
> 
> ................
> 
> Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.
> 
> Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a ‘hairstyle’. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.
> 
> The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.
> 
> Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're cutting and pasting from one of the most notorious, agenda driven Christian ministries. These loons announce their bias and have no interest in truth or objectivity.
> 
> What a laughable joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case!
> 
> Funny (even laughable) that dismiss this because of the source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis^^^^ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt the atheists here will read this in its entirety...or if they do, *will dismiss it based upon its source*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a question for you...and others that deny Atheism is a religion:  Why does it bother you that Atheism is considered by many to be a religion?  Nobody is calling any individual atheist a religious person.  Nobody is forced to practice a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish it was so I could go to services and get the tax write offs.
> 
> It probably upsets some of us because it is simply not true.
> 
> 
> *Atheism takes faith / is a religion.*
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion.
> 
> _“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

Pogo said:


> Hi Emily
> 
> I'm still going to insist that "politics" and "religion" have nothing to do with each other and that conflating them only serves to muddy the waters as long as we grope for definitions of either.
> 
> To oversimplify to a nice sound bite: Politics addresses the machinations of the world; Religion addresses the machinations of the otherworld.
> Ideally never the twain shall meet.



OKAY then I would REALLY Say we need to be discussing political beliefs then.
Since that's what applies to the real world.

What I find is key, is if people believe in Retributive Justice or Restorative Justice.

How we relate and whether we can work together is most determined by that,
and what people/groups you can or cannot forgive and work with.

Once you align on where you can relate, everything else can work out and follow from there.

People with different views of Justice will fight and impose on each other.
So that is the key question, and the key to the answer is to what degree we are willing to forgive,
and what things can we not forgive but will project blame and demand punishment instead of correction and prevention.


----------



## Pogo

emilynghiem said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Emily
> 
> I'm still going to insist that "politics" and "religion" have nothing to do with each other and that conflating them only serves to muddy the waters as long as we grope for definitions of either.
> 
> To oversimplify to a nice sound bite: Politics addresses the machinations of the world; Religion addresses the machinations of the otherworld.
> Ideally never the twain shall meet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKAY then I would REALLY Say we need to be discussing political beliefs then.
> Since that's what applies to the real world.
> 
> What I find is key, is if people believe in Retributive Justice or Restorative Justice.
> 
> How we relate and whether we can work together is most determined by that,
> and what people/groups you can or cannot forgive and work with.
> 
> Once you align on where you can relate, everything else can work out and follow from there.
> 
> People with different views of Justice will fight and impose on each other.
> So that is the key question, and the key to the answer is to what degree we are willing to forgive,
> and what things can we not forgive but will project blame and demand punishment instead of correction and prevention.
Click to expand...


Emily I know you mean well and have positive intentions but if I may say, you're a bit obsessed when you try to shunt every topic back into the politics of government and healthcare.

Sorry but this simply is not a political thread but a philosophical one on the aspects of religion and religious philosophies.  That's a personal and individual field of thought, not a public or government-structure one.  You seem to be trying to mix apples and oranges.


----------



## sealybobo

Pogo said:


> Hi Emily
> 
> I'm still going to insist that "politics" and "religion" have nothing to do with each other and that conflating them only serves to muddy the waters as long as we grope for definitions of either.
> 
> To oversimplify to a nice sound bite: Politics addresses the machinations of the world; Religion addresses the machinations of the otherworld.
> Ideally never the twain shall meet.



I think they do have a lot to do with each other especially since the GOP started using god as a wedge issue to divide poor and middle class voters.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Not at all -- in fact I'm about to copy it since it would still be present if you didn't keep editing the quotes out in a feeble attempt to run away from your own words.  So here it is:
> 
> 
> So not only are you giving "God" a penis --- sorry, I guess that's "Penis" -- but you're implying "God" is a _person._
> I wasn't going to bother drawing attention to that; I figured the genderical quicksand was enough.  But now you have.
> 
> It's like a cat toy with this one.



No, I am saying that God, if He, She, or whatever gender that being is, is alive, which is why the pronoun it is inappropriate, and indicates why I emphasized that portion of the definition of it.. 

But keep showing us how stupid you are by insisting that I am saying something else. oh he who is always wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Yet we're not writing law here so that's irrelevant.  Legally, you can define a human being as three-fifths of a person, so .... so much for legal technicalities to hide behind.
> 
> Too bad.



Wow, another idiot that thinks the fact that slaves were actually counted for establishing the number of representatives proves that they were less than human. The funny part of this is that it was the people that were, allegedly, opposed to slavery that insisted that they shouldn't count at all. (My guess is you would have been right there with those assholes.) If you don't believe me, read some history. 

That said, the mere fact that you do not regard atheism as a religion in no way obligates other atheists to have the same belief, but feel free to keep claiming that me pointing out that some atheists insist on that designation proves I am delusional.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> And speak of the devil, as in the one in the details, that's exactly what you did in the post immediately after my noting the fallacy, as well as before it:
> 
> To wit, the post prior:



Sigh, I almost feel sorry for you.

Almost.



Quantum Wind-up-Troll said:


> I have no need to peg anything.
> 
> I do, however, enjoy pointing out to idiots when they are wrong, which is why the fact that churches like the one in the link below are ignored by religious zealots. The question now is, are you a religious zealot that will deny facts in order to maintain the fiction that atheism is cannot be a religion?
> 
> Home First Church of Atheism



Can you point out where I said that atheism is always a religion in that post?



Pogo said:


> And the post after:
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was funny.
> 
> Newsflash, the fact that you deliberately chose to ignore reality is not proof that something does not exist.
> 
> This is the doctrine of an atheist church.
> 
> “Nothing exists besides natural phenomena. Thought is merely a function of those natural phenomena. Death is complete, and irreversible. We have faith solely in humankind, nature, and the facts of science.”​FAQ First Church of Atheism
> 
> Damn, they even mention faith, what a surprise.
> 
> By the way, this also proves that Dawkins was right when he said that atheist that absolutely reject the existence of God do exist, and that everyone who claimed they do not is an idiot.
Click to expand...


Or that one?

Can you explain me not saying something proves I said it?

Didn't think so.



Pogo said:


> Oops.



Don't worry about it, like I said before, you are always wrong, so another example of it, even when you go out of your way to provide it, is not going to upset anyone who knows you.



Pogo said:


> Your only point here appears to be ad hominem scattershot in a hopeless quest for self-esteem.  Apparently you don't recognize a Composition Fallacy even while employing it.
> 
> The second type of fallacy of Composition is committed when it is concluded that what is true of the parts of a whole must be true of the whole without there being adequate justification for the claim. More formally, the line of "reasoning" would be as follows:​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The parts of the whole X have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
> Therefore the whole X must have characteristics A, B, C.
> That this sort of reasoning is fallacious because it cannot be inferred that simply because the parts of a complex whole have (or lack) certain properties that the whole that they are parts of has those properties. This is especially clear in math: The numbers 1 and 3 are both odd. 1 and 3 are parts of 4. Therefore, the number 4 is odd.(Nizkor, op.cit.)​"Atheism is a religion because here are some atheists calling themselves a 'church'.



No, the fact that some atheists regard it as religion proves that it can be. That is not me saying that, because some people view it as a religion, everyone does.

On the other hand, you are the one insisting that, since you say it is not, that proves that everyone who calls themselves an atheist has to agree with you.

Which actually sounds like a composition fallacy to your keepers?



Pogo said:


> And this fallacy has been called out before here already.
> I don't think you're up to this level of debate.



You are right, I do have trouble not using words that I know you do not understand, like it. But what can I say, I enjoy mocking you, so I am willing to put some effort into it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I wish it was so I could go to services and get the tax write offs.



You can, I even posted a link to the church to make it easier for you.

You, however, prefer to insist that your personal ignorance trumps reality.


----------



## Pogo

sealybobo said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Emily
> 
> I'm still going to insist that "politics" and "religion" have nothing to do with each other and that conflating them only serves to muddy the waters as long as we grope for definitions of either.
> 
> To oversimplify to a nice sound bite: Politics addresses the machinations of the world; Religion addresses the machinations of the otherworld.
> Ideally never the twain shall meet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they do have a lot to do with each other especially since the GOP started using god as a wedge issue to divide poor and middle class voters.
Click to expand...


Ah but that's a false relationship  -- a misuse by one of the other as a tool.  Anyone with half a brain should have seen/should see right through that false relationship.

It has no validity in a nation founded on the denial of the power of the First Estate, i.e. the divorce of church from state.  It's naught but demagoguery and as such, dishonest.  That's what I meant by "ideally".


----------



## asaratis

Quantum Windbag said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Begging your esteemed pardon, you said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windbag^^^^ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say that? Why, no, I did not. I said that, given the above,* if God exists, and He was created by man, He would be natural.* If you need someone to parse that for you I suggest you ask an English teacher at your elementary school, I am not here to explain simple grammar to idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, I remembered what I said.
> 
> Thanks for verifying that my memory still works right.
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> We seem to be muddled with differing connotations of words.  You have apparently adopted an errant definition of_ natural_. Perhaps you also do not understand the commonly accepted definition of_ logic_.
> 
> You mistakenly equate_ man made_ and _natural_.  As explained before, natural things are those that would occur or exist in nature absent the presence of man.  Anything produced by mankind (other than itself and its bodily remains) would not fall in that category.  You said ^^^^if God exists, and He was created by man (i.e.  man made), He would be natural.  He cannot be both.  We simply disagree on your all encompassing definition of natural.  By your errant way of thinking, the USS Enterprise was made by nature.  (Please don't regurgitate your simplistic argument that because man is part of nature, all things made by man are natural.)  Please review the definition of _natural_.  [Writings in brackets [...] below are mine.]
> 
> Natural - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> *1nat·u·ral*
> _adjective_ \ˈna-chə-rəl, ˈnach-rəl\
> : existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature  [This includes your silly plastic rocks.]
> 
> : not having any extra substances or chemicals added : not containing anything artificial
> 
> : usual or expected
> 
> 
> If you cannot fathom that one, try to grasp this one:
> 
> Natural Define Natural at Dictionary.com
> adjective
> 1.
> existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ):      [...as opposed to a man made bridge]
> a natural bridge.
> 2.
> based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature:
> Growth is a natural process.
> 3.
> of or pertaining to nature or the universe:
> natural beauty.
> 4.
> of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science:
> conducting natural experiments.
> 5.
> in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.
> 6.
> growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.     [A silk flower is not natural.  It is artificial....man made.]....[Corn growing in neat rows in an irrigated field is NOT natural.]
> 
> 7.  having undergone little or no processing and containing no chemical additives:
> 
> 
> Augmenting that, you might try to understand what artificial means:
> 
> *artificial*
> 
> [ahr-tuh-fish-uh l]
> 
> Synonyms
> Examples
> Word Origin
> adjective
> 1.
> made by human skill; produced by humans (opposed to natural ):    *[Note<<<<opposed to natural]*
> artificial flowers.
> 2.
> imitation; simulated; sham:
> artificial vanilla flavoring.
> 3.
> lacking naturalness or spontaneity; forced; contrived; feigned:
> an artificial smile.
> 4.
> full of affectation; affected; stilted:
> artificial manners; artificial speech.
> 5.
> made without regard to the particular needs of a situation, person, etc.; imposed arbitrarily; unnatural:
> artificial rules for dormitory residents.
> 6.
> Biology. based on arbitrary, superficial characteristics rather than natural, organic relationships:
> an artificial system of classification.
> 7.
> Jewelry. manufactured to resemble a natural gem, in chemical composition or appearance.
> Compare assembled, imitation (def 11), synthetic (def 6).
> 
> So if God was created by man, He would NOT be natural.
> 
> In any further discussion here or elsewhere on USMB you should differentiate between natural and man made things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not muddling anything, I am rejecting the outdated, and ridiculously arrogant, notion that man is somehow able to make unnatural things. Man is a part of nature, despite the outdated philosophy that we control it through our superior intellect.
> 
> I realize that some people are insecure, and need to cling to the notion that they are special in some way, but I see no need to feed into their lack of self respect by pretending they have a point.
> 
> Feel free to continue to post dictionary definitions if you feel a need to promote yourself above nature, just remember that those definitions are archaic and that, one day, everyone will come to realize that anything that the only things that are not part of nature are things that come from outside the universe.
> 
> Given the above, would you care to explain how a God created by man, that actually exists, would come from outside the universe? The only way I could see that working is if man were somehow able to work outside of the natural laws that the universe are governed by. That would make man, by definition, supernatural, and is the only logical way you can conclude that God is not natural if the conditions I laid out are true.
Click to expand...

You are a sick puppy.  You continue to deny the dictionary definition of _natural_ just to save face and appear to be intellectual.

I never claimed that we are not part of nature.  I never claimed that we control nature.  We survive by adapting to it. We make the things we need from it, like bridges, silk flowers, plastic. aircraft carriers, ad infinitum. The things we make are not considered to be naturally occurring things.  The are artificial things.

God necessarily came from outside the universe.  Something outside of the universe had to set it all in motion...with the big bang.  That something was God.  God lit the fuse....then watched as nature formed all of the natural things in the universe....over billions and billions of years (our constructed metric) time...including mankind by way of evolution.

I'm done with you.


----------



## asaratis

sealybobo said:


> ......<snip>
> 
> I wish it was so I could go to services and get the tax write offs.
> 
> It probably upsets some of us because it is simply not true.
> 
> 
> *Atheism takes faith / is a religion.*
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion.
> 
> _“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather


Atheism is* not *the lack of belief in a god or gods.  That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.

*Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist.*  That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism.  Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a religion. That is definitional fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, according to the Supreme Court, and US tax law, atheism actually is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet we're not writing law here so that's irrelevant.  Legally, you can define a human being as three-fifths of a person, so .... so much for legal technicalities to hide behind.
> 
> Too bad.
Click to expand...



Good point.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Atheism is* not *the lack of belief in a god or gods.  That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.
> 
> *Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist.*  That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism.  Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.





We've gone over this since page two...

Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):


Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
I'm a number 6.


----------



## Pogo

Queen of Hissyfits said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet we're not writing law here so that's irrelevant.  Legally, you can define a human being as three-fifths of a person, so .... so much for legal technicalities to hide behind.
> 
> Too bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, another idiot that thinks the fact that slaves were actually counted for establishing the number of representatives proves that they were less than human. The funny part of this is that it was the people that were, allegedly, opposed to slavery that insisted that they shouldn't count at all. (My guess is you would have been right there with those assholes.) If you don't believe me, read some history.
Click to expand...


In fact I already know that history -- where do you think I came up wtih "three-fifths"?  Out of my ass?  How's that been working out for you?

I wouldn't have bothered to respond to your usual drivel but this is a rare occasion and warrants it:

That is--- mark the date and time here and you'd better sit down for this...

*You are correct.*   I would indeed be with those "assholes" opposed to slavery. 

Which .... kind of tells us more about you than me if you get my drift.



Wanton Trollbag said:


> That said, the mere fact that you do not regard atheism as a religion in no way obligates other atheists to have the same belief, but feel free to keep claiming that me pointing out that some atheists insist on that designation proves I am delusional.



Since we're already here -- where does your linked organisation ever call itself a "religion"  -- or any part of one?

Let's check it out, shall we?

On its front page the FCA (a few miles from where I grew up) describes itself thusly:
"A *community *for atheists and Network of our local chapters"

Oopsie.

Under "Ordination" It describes its members as from "every race, ethnicity, age, and *creed*"

Over to our intrepid reporter Dictionary.com again:
*creed*

[kreed] 
noun 
1. 
any system, doctrine, or formula of religious belief, as of a denomination. 
2. 
any system or codification of belief or of opinion. ​
Oopsie again.  This community seems to include all kinds of creeds, whereas a real "religion" IS a creed.

Leave us chek the FAQ then.  That should tell us something.

>> Can atheism really have a church?

A church is defined as an *association* of people who share a particular belief system. So yes, a church of atheism can really exist. <<​"Church" in the sense of "community".  Which is what Carla has been pointing out the entire time..

Not a "religion".  Strike three.

But wait -- there's more.  NOW how much would you pay....
The whole purpose of the FCA seems to be to ordain "ministers" who can conduct civil services such as marriages -- without the legal state heavy meddle of requiring some kind of OR as a qualifier.

In other words it's a way around faults of the law as practiced.  A scheme to force the First Amendment to protect what it's writ to protect.  The same legal system you put in a snake oil bottle and tried to sell as a "definition".

Perhaps you should try reading not only your own posts but your own links as well, before ass-uming they mean what you think they mean.

That's all.  Dismissed.​


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is* not *the lack of belief in a god or gods.  That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.
> 
> *Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist.*  That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism.  Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've gone over this since page two...
> 
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6.
Click to expand...

Dawkins likely made up those definitions to keep his pet, Atheism from being defined as a religion.  I could redefine things and make myself a Saint...just like QW redefines _natural _to include all things made by man simply because man is a part of nature.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is* not *the lack of belief in a god or gods.  That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.
> 
> *Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist.*  That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism.  Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've gone over this since page two...
> 
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dawkins likely made up those definitions to keep his pet, Atheism from being defined as a religion.  I could redefine things and make myself a Saint...just like QW redefines _natural _to include all things made by man simply because man is a part of nature.
Click to expand...




No, it is not defined as a religion.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is* not *the lack of belief in a god or gods.  That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.
> 
> *Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist.*  That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism.  Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've gone over this since page two...
> 
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dawkins likely made up those definitions to keep his pet, Atheism from being defined as a religion.  I could redefine things and make myself a Saint...just like QW redefines _natural _to include all things made by man simply because man is a part of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not defined as a religion.
Click to expand...

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck....must be a duck!


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......<snip>
> 
> I wish it was so I could go to services and get the tax write offs.
> 
> It probably upsets some of us because it is simply not true.
> 
> 
> *Atheism takes faith / is a religion.*
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion.
> 
> _“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is* not *the lack of belief in a god or gods.  That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.
> 
> *Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist.*  That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism.  Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.
Click to expand...

You have a desperate need to convince yourself of false premises that have been explained to you as being false.

You have a desperate need to use your religious belief like a bloody truncheon.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......<snip>
> 
> I wish it was so I could go to services and get the tax write offs.
> 
> It probably upsets some of us because it is simply not true.
> 
> 
> *Atheism takes faith / is a religion.*
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion.
> 
> _“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is* not *the lack of belief in a god or gods.  That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.
> 
> *Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist.*  That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism.  Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a desperate need to convince yourself of false premises that have been explained to you as being false.
> 
> You have a desperate need to use your religious belief like a bloody truncheon.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not.  I am desperate about nothing...except maybe about having my next meal.  The premises I stated are not false.  The explanations in the rebuttal thereof are.

Don't expect me to trust you.

I don't push my religious beliefs on anyone.  Atheists do in their incessant attacks on all religions except their godless Atheism.

You must have faith in the belief that gods do not exist because you cannot prove it....just as I have faith that God exists because I cannot prove it.

Why don't you switch to Agnosticism?  Then you can safely claim there is no religion that describes what you think about gods and such.

But I guess it is repugnant for you know-it-all Atheists to say something as hideous as, "I don't know!"


----------



## Quantum Windbag

asaratis said:


> You are a sick puppy.  You continue to deny the dictionary definition of _natural_ just to save face and appear to be intellectual.



I have made my position clear from the start, and even explained it. I don't see why me explaining why I think the dictionary definition is inadequate somehow makes me a sick puppy. After all, you made the point that your posts are your opinion, and stuck to them even after I pointed out that your opinions are not grounded in reality. Maybe your problem is that you are inconsistent in applying the standards you expect others to use to judge you.



asaratis said:


> I never claimed that we are not part of nature.  I never claimed that we control nature.  We survive by adapting to it. We make the things we need from it, like bridges, silk flowers, plastic. aircraft carriers, ad infinitum. The things we make are not considered to be naturally occurring things.  The are artificial things.



Funny, I bet you can't find a post where I claimed you said the things you just made a point of saying you did not say. That makes me wonder why you are going out of your way to make it look like I made any such allegation.



asaratis said:


> God necessarily came from outside the universe.  Something outside of the universe had to set it all in motion...with the big bang.  That something was God.  God lit the fuse....then watched as nature formed all of the natural things in the universe....over billions and billions of years (our constructed metric) time...including mankind by way of evolution.



Why is it necessary that God comes from outside the universe? What proof do you have that this is a prerequisite of a being claiming the title of God? Given that you have repeatedly claimed you are not a Christian, I fail to see why you insist that the only possible God is the one popularly associated with the Abrahamic religions.



asaratis said:


> I'm done with you.



You got the asshole part right, thanks for the compliment.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> In fact I already know that history -- where do you think I came up wtih "three-fifths"?  Out of my ass?  How's that been working out for you?



You know the history? Are you aware that the slave owners are the ones that insisted that slaves counted the same as non slaves for representation, or did you simply pull the 3/5ths out of a book and ignore the history behind the debate?



Pogo said:


> I wouldn't have bothered to respond to your usual drivel but this is a rare occasion and warrants it:



But you have an obsessive need to actually win an argument with me because you have lost every single argument we have had on this board.



Pogo said:


> That is--- mark the date and time here and you'd better sit down for this...



Yawn.

*


Pogo said:



			You are correct.
		
Click to expand...

*


Pogo said:


> I would indeed be with those "assholes" opposed to slavery.



I didn't say you would be with the assholes opposed to slavery. If you had read my post you would have noticed the key word you missed, that word being allegedly. I even set it off in commas to make it clear that it was important. Then again, you have trouble with the word it, so I can understand why you missed what that word did to the sentence.

To be clear, I said you would be with the assholes that were opposed to counting the slaves as a single human being. The same assholes who profited of the slaves by passing laws that forced free states to give the slaves back to the owners if they escaped to the North. The same assholes who were happy to take advantage of slavery to make money for themselves. Those are the assholes I said you would be with.

That, again proves you do not actually read anything anyone else says, you just jump to absurd conclusions based on your delusions.



Pogo said:


> Which .... kind of tells us more about you than me if you get my drift.



I have to disagree, but feel free to prove me right by making another point about how stupid you are.



Pogo said:


> Since we're already here -- where does your linked organisation ever call itself a "religion"  -- or any part of one?



In the filings it provides to the IRS, oh he who thinks he knows everything.




Pogo said:


> But wait -- there's more.  NOW how much would you pay....
> The whole purpose of the FCA seems to be to ordain "ministers" who can conduct civil services such as marriages -- without the legal state heavy meddle of requiring some kind of OR as a qualifier.
> 
> In other words it's a way around faults of the law as practiced.  A scheme to force the First Amendment to protect what it's writ to protect.  The same legal system you put in a snake oil bottle and tried to sell as a "definition".
> 
> Perhaps you should try reading not only your own posts but your own links as well, before ass-uming they mean what you think they mean.
> 
> That's all.  Dismissed.



Seriously?

May I pint out that the Society of Humanist routinely jumps through the same legal hoops without calling any of their their members ministers? They use the word officiant for people that are legally allowed to perform weddings.

Want to tell me again how clever you are?


----------



## Pogo

Poor Windy.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is* not *the lack of belief in a god or gods.  That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.
> 
> *Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist.*  That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism.  Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've gone over this since page two...
> 
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6.
Click to expand...

 
Which supports the claim that Atheism is not a lack of belief.  Unless you have evidence to support your thinking God is very improbable, then that is a belief - not a lack of belief.  And number 7 is entirely belief.  So either that definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.

What is the problem with number 4?


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is* not *the lack of belief in a god or gods.  That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.
> 
> *Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist.*  That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism.  Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've gone over this since page two...
> 
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which supports the claim that Atheism is not a lack of belief.  Unless you have evidence to support your thinking God is very improbable, then that is a belief - not a lack of belief.  And number 7 is entirely belief.  So either that definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.
> 
> What is the problem with number 4?
Click to expand...


It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in _anything_. 
I _believe _it will not rain today.  That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".

Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present".  On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on.  When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."

It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist".  Saves time.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is* not *the lack of belief in a god or gods.  That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.
> 
> *Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist.*  That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism.  Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've gone over this since page two...
> 
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which supports the claim that Atheism is not a lack of belief.  Unless you have evidence to support your thinking God is very improbable, then that is a belief - not a lack of belief.  And number 7 is entirely belief.  So either that definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.
> 
> What is the problem with number 4?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in _anything_.
> I _believe _it will not rain today.  That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".
> 
> Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present".  On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on.  When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."
> 
> It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist".  Saves time.
Click to expand...

 
Then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> ...<snip>...
> 
> It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in _anything_.
> I _believe _it will not rain today.  That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".
> 
> Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present".  On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on.  *When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."*
> 
> It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist".  Saves time.


You are again confusing agnosticism with atheism.

Atheists share the belief that that are no gods.  That is a belief that is held by Atheists.  It is not a "belief that is not present".

Actually, when we say someone's an Atheist, all we're saying is,  "the person believes there is no god".


----------



## Pogo

It sounds like you guys are now trying to draw a distinction between:

(a) doesn't believe "god" exists, (absence/rejection of theism) and 
(b) belief (positive belief) that "'god' absolutely does not exist" 

?
(b) would be a positive belief of a negative.  That's pretty much impossible.
We don't believe unicorns exist, because we have no such evidence.  But if one suddenly crossed the road in front of us, we would then have evidence and would have to adopt the belief that they do exist.  That's not the same as purporting to declare "unicorns absolutely do not exist".  No one is in a position to say that.

Either way, it doesn't really matter -- one is the absence of a positive belief, the other is a positive belief in a negative.   Even if the latter were possible, neither one, having no religious philosophy of its own, qualifies as a "religion".  Just as a pedestrian walking on the street doesn't qualify as "automotive traffic".


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> It sounds like you guys are now trying to draw a distinction between:
> 
> (a) doesn't believe "god" exists, (absence/rejection of theism) and
> (b) belief (positive belief) that "'god' absolutely does not exist"
> 
> ?
> (b) would be a positive belief of a negative.  That's pretty much impossible.
> We don't believe unicorns exist, because we have no such evidence.  But if one suddenly crossed the road in front of us, we would then have evidence and would have to adopt the belief that they do exist.  That's not the same as purporting to declare "unicorns absolutely do not exist".  No one is in a position to say that.
> 
> Either way, it doesn't really matter -- one is the absence of a positive belief, the other is a positive belief in a negative.   Even if the latter were possible, neither one, having no religious philosophy of its own, qualifies as a "religion".  Just as a pedestrian walking on the street doesn't qualify as "automotive traffic".


 
Nope.  Only that a belief is a belief.  If a position is held without any objective evidence to support it, it is a belief.  It can't be anything else.  So if Atheism is an absence of belief, then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like you guys are now trying to draw a distinction between:
> 
> (a) doesn't believe "god" exists, (absence/rejection of theism) and
> (b) belief (positive belief) that "'god' absolutely does not exist"
> 
> ?
> (b) would be a positive belief of a negative.  That's pretty much impossible.
> We don't believe unicorns exist, because we have no such evidence.  But if one suddenly crossed the road in front of us, we would then have evidence and would have to adopt the belief that they do exist.  That's not the same as purporting to declare "unicorns absolutely do not exist".  No one is in a position to say that.
> 
> Either way, it doesn't really matter -- one is the absence of a positive belief, the other is a positive belief in a negative.   Even if the latter were possible, neither one, having no religious philosophy of its own, qualifies as a "religion".  Just as a pedestrian walking on the street doesn't qualify as "automotive traffic".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Only that a belief is a belief.  If a position is held without any objective evidence to support it, it is a belief.  It can't be anything else.  So if Atheism is an absence of belief, then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.
Click to expand...



We noted way back at the beginning of this thread that atheism as an absolute cannot exist.  It's a relative term - hence the scale.  The absolute has to be included in the scale to give it boundaries that include all possibilities.  Just as the thermometer outside your window may read down to minus 50 -- doesn't mean that temperature is ever going to happen.

I've had many a car equipped with a speedometer that reads up to 120 mph, which cars were in no way capable of achieving that.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is* not *the lack of belief in a god or gods.  That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.
> 
> *Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist.*  That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism.  Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've gone over this since page two...
> 
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dawkins likely made up those definitions to keep his pet, Atheism from being defined as a religion.  I could redefine things and make myself a Saint...just like QW redefines _natural _to include all things made by man simply because man is a part of nature.
Click to expand...




Lets see you do better...


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...<snip>...
> 
> It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in _anything_.
> I _believe _it will not rain today.  That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".
> 
> Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present".  On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on.  *When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."*
> 
> It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist".  Saves time.
> 
> 
> 
> You are again confusing agnosticism with atheism.
> 
> Atheists share the belief that that are no gods.  That is a belief that is held by Atheists.  It is not a "belief that is not present".
> 
> Actually, when we say someone's an Atheist, all we're saying is,  "the person believes there is no god".
Click to expand...




We do not share the belief that there are no Gods. You are incorrect. I have no evidence that there is a God, so I live my life under the assumption that there isn't.


----------



## Pogo

"Dawkins likely made up those definitions to keep his pet, Atheism from being defined as a religion"  doesn't make any sense anyway --- atheism doesn't need to "keep from being defined as a religion" any more than  grapefruit or a piano bench does.  They simply fail to possess the characteristics of a religion.

Basically what the revisionistas are doing is:


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck....must be a duck!




You just described your own religion. You walk into the same building, preach from the same Bible, and look alike. 








You're projecting your own indoctrination onto others, because you can't fathom it any other way.


----------



## sealybobo

Pogo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Emily
> 
> I'm still going to insist that "politics" and "religion" have nothing to do with each other and that conflating them only serves to muddy the waters as long as we grope for definitions of either.
> 
> To oversimplify to a nice sound bite: Politics addresses the machinations of the world; Religion addresses the machinations of the otherworld.
> Ideally never the twain shall meet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they do have a lot to do with each other especially since the GOP started using god as a wedge issue to divide poor and middle class voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah but that's a false relationship  -- a misuse by one of the other as a tool.  Anyone with half a brain should have seen/should see right through that false relationship.
> 
> It has no validity in a nation founded on the denial of the power of the First Estate, i.e. the divorce of church from state.  It's naught but demagoguery and as such, dishonest.  That's what I meant by "ideally".
Click to expand...


Are you dumb or trying to play stupid?  We all know how the GOP used racism to win over the south and it is well documented how Reagan made an unholy alliance with the moral majority/bible belt, religious right and Reagan paid them back for their support.  Bush 2 did too, big time!  I even saw what I thought was a liberal or at least moderate/neutral church say vote to the right because of abortion.  

So religion is another wedge issue that the rich use to divide the middle class or the not rich voters.  Guns, Gays, Abortion & Racism.


----------



## sealybobo

Pogo said:


> "Dawkins likely made up those definitions to keep his pet, Atheism from being defined as a religion"  doesn't make any sense anyway --- atheism doesn't need to "keep from being defined as a religion" any more than  grapefruit or a piano bench does.  They simply fail to possess the characteristics of a religion.
> 
> Basically what the revisionistas are doing is:



Actually, we need to change the perception and debunk the myths about atheism.  When I was growing up I thought atheism was evil or devil worship.  No one explained to me it simply means people who don't believe in god.  That's bullshit.  Why do you have to lie to your kids about the alternative?  I would think you would want to present both sides but instead you just tell them a million stories about how god punished the non believers and will punish you in hell if you don't believe.  That's bullshit.  

Last night I was flippin channels and the theist show said something like, "faith is walking with you eyes closed"

I agree.


----------



## sealybobo

asaratis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......<snip>
> 
> I wish it was so I could go to services and get the tax write offs.
> 
> It probably upsets some of us because it is simply not true.
> 
> 
> *Atheism takes faith / is a religion.*
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion.
> 
> _“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is* not *the lack of belief in a god or gods.  That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.
> 
> *Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist.*  That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism.  Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.
Click to expand...


I think 99% of atheists will admit they can not say 100% they know but I bet they would say they are 99.99999% sure there is no god because they see no proof and the only proof we claim to have are books filled with impossible stories and then if we ask to many questions ultimately we are told that we just have to have blind faith.  

To an atheist, it is just so obvious there is no god.  But we can't claim to know so the actual best position to have is to say you are an agnostic atheist.  Can't say for sure but pretty sure god is all made up.  

An agnostic is too wishy washy.  They aren't sure.  Not convinced.  Don't lean either way.  

Am I right atheists?  Does any atheist here say they know 100% for sure nothing made us?

The whole intelligent design stuff, adam, god, eve, moses, mohammad, jesus, this we are certain is bullshit.  100% sure.


----------



## sealybobo

Zeus is made up too.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is* not *the lack of belief in a god or gods.  That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.
> 
> *Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist.*  That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism.  Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've gone over this since page two...
> 
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which supports the claim that Atheism is not a lack of belief.  Unless you have evidence to support your thinking God is very improbable, then that is a belief - not a lack of belief.  And number 7 is entirely belief.  So either that definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.
> 
> What is the problem with number 4?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in _anything_.
> I _believe _it will not rain today.  That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".
> 
> Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present".  On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on.  When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."
> 
> It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist".  Saves time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.
Click to expand...



Maybe you're not really an agnostic. It's just a weasel-word for people afraid of confrontation. The vast majority of agnostics hasn't thought very hard, nor done any research. That doesn't seem to be the case with you.


----------



## Pogo

sealybobo said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Emily
> 
> I'm still going to insist that "politics" and "religion" have nothing to do with each other and that conflating them only serves to muddy the waters as long as we grope for definitions of either.
> 
> To oversimplify to a nice sound bite: Politics addresses the machinations of the world; Religion addresses the machinations of the otherworld.
> Ideally never the twain shall meet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they do have a lot to do with each other especially since the GOP started using god as a wedge issue to divide poor and middle class voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah but that's a false relationship  -- a misuse by one of the other as a tool.  Anyone with half a brain should have seen/should see right through that false relationship.
> 
> It has no validity in a nation founded on the denial of the power of the First Estate, i.e. the divorce of church from state.  It's naught but demagoguery and as such, dishonest.  That's what I meant by "ideally".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you dumb or trying to play stupid?  We all know how the GOP used racism to win over the south and it is well documented how Reagan made an unholy alliance with the moral majority/bible belt, religious right and Reagan paid them back for their support.  Bush 2 did too, big time!  I even saw what I thought was a liberal or at least moderate/neutral church say vote to the right because of abortion.
> 
> So religion is another wedge issue that the rich use to divide the middle class or the not rich voters.  Guns, Gays, Abortion & Racism.
Click to expand...


Of course they did.  And as noted above it's an *illegitimate relationship*.  They have no business being conflated.  And they really weren't conflated before the "moral majority" bullshit came along, which was simple political (not religious) demagoguery -- using religion as a tool for politics.

No I'm not stupid.  I see _all too well_ what's been going on.  When I grew up there was no such thing as an association between religion and politics; association with one particular party or religion simply had nothing to do with one's religion or party.  That's what I mean by a "false relationship".  Which is _exactly what I said_ up there -- a wedge issue.

And the term I believe is "God, Guns and Gays".  Three easy emotional hooks used for hoodwinking in the naked quest for votes.  Rationale based on divisive emotional cheap hooks is bullshit rationale.

And I'll repeat without hesitation, it has no place in a nation founded exactly to get away from that bullshit.  What part of that do you disagree with?


----------



## sealybobo

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......<snip>
> 
> I wish it was so I could go to services and get the tax write offs.
> 
> It probably upsets some of us because it is simply not true.
> 
> 
> *Atheism takes faith / is a religion.*
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion.
> 
> _“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is* not *the lack of belief in a god or gods.  That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.
> 
> *Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist.*  That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism.  Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a desperate need to convince yourself of false premises that have been explained to you as being false.
> 
> You have a desperate need to use your religious belief like a bloody truncheon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely not.  I am desperate about nothing...except maybe about having my next meal.  The premises I stated are not false.  The explanations in the rebuttal thereof are.
> 
> Don't expect me to trust you.
> 
> I don't push my religious beliefs on anyone.  Atheists do in their incessant attacks on all religions except their godless Atheism.
> 
> You must have faith in the belief that gods do not exist because you cannot prove it....just as I have faith that God exists because I cannot prove it.
> 
> Why don't you switch to Agnosticism?  Then you can safely claim there is no religion that describes what you think about gods and such.
> 
> But I guess it is repugnant for you know-it-all Atheists to say something as hideous as, "I don't know!"
Click to expand...


We see no sign that gods exist.  And lets separate the herd here.  So like Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Greek Gods, etc.  So you believe in one of these versions of God or a generic version altogether?  Kind of important here because I want to ask you if you are not a Mormon, Jehova or Muslim are these three different "faiths" of yours?  Because we are all atheists.  You just happen to believe in one more god than I do.

_“Science adjusts it’s understanding based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.”_ – Tim Minchin

_To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather

Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because _none are made_. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of _justified belief_ grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an _unjustified belief_ based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like you guys are now trying to draw a distinction between:
> 
> (a) doesn't believe "god" exists, (absence/rejection of theism) and
> (b) belief (positive belief) that "'god' absolutely does not exist"
> 
> ?
> (b) would be a positive belief of a negative.  That's pretty much impossible.
> We don't believe unicorns exist, because we have no such evidence.  But if one suddenly crossed the road in front of us, we would then have evidence and would have to adopt the belief that they do exist.  That's not the same as purporting to declare "unicorns absolutely do not exist".  No one is in a position to say that.
> 
> Either way, it doesn't really matter -- one is the absence of a positive belief, the other is a positive belief in a negative.   Even if the latter were possible, neither one, having no religious philosophy of its own, qualifies as a "religion".  Just as a pedestrian walking on the street doesn't qualify as "automotive traffic".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Only that a belief is a belief.  If a position is held without any objective evidence to support it, it is a belief.  It can't be anything else.  So if Atheism is an absence of belief, then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.
Click to expand...


Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality.

Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.


----------



## sealybobo

Pogo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Emily
> 
> I'm still going to insist that "politics" and "religion" have nothing to do with each other and that conflating them only serves to muddy the waters as long as we grope for definitions of either.
> 
> To oversimplify to a nice sound bite: Politics addresses the machinations of the world; Religion addresses the machinations of the otherworld.
> Ideally never the twain shall meet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they do have a lot to do with each other especially since the GOP started using god as a wedge issue to divide poor and middle class voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah but that's a false relationship  -- a misuse by one of the other as a tool.  Anyone with half a brain should have seen/should see right through that false relationship.
> 
> It has no validity in a nation founded on the denial of the power of the First Estate, i.e. the divorce of church from state.  It's naught but demagoguery and as such, dishonest.  That's what I meant by "ideally".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you dumb or trying to play stupid?  We all know how the GOP used racism to win over the south and it is well documented how Reagan made an unholy alliance with the moral majority/bible belt, religious right and Reagan paid them back for their support.  Bush 2 did too, big time!  I even saw what I thought was a liberal or at least moderate/neutral church say vote to the right because of abortion.
> 
> So religion is another wedge issue that the rich use to divide the middle class or the not rich voters.  Guns, Gays, Abortion & Racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they did.  And as noted above it's an *illegitimate relationship*.  They have no business being conflated.  And they really weren't conflated before the "moral majority" bullshit came along, which was simple political (not religious) demagoguery -- using religion as a tool for politics.
> 
> No I'm not stupid.  I see _all too well_ what's been going on.  When I grew up there was no such thing as an association between religion and politics; association with one particular party or religion simply had nothing to do with one's religion or party.  That's what I mean by a "false relationship".  Which is _exactly what I said_ up there -- a wedge issue.
> 
> And the term I believe is "God, Guns and Gays".  Three easy emotional hooks used for hoodwinking in the naked quest for votes.  Rationale based on divisive emotional cheap hooks is bullshit rationale.
> 
> And I'll repeat without hesitation, it has no place in a nation founded exactly to get away from that bullshit.  What part of that do you disagree with?
Click to expand...


None of it.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like you guys are now trying to draw a distinction between:
> 
> (a) doesn't believe "god" exists, (absence/rejection of theism) and
> (b) belief (positive belief) that "'god' absolutely does not exist"
> 
> ?
> (b) would be a positive belief of a negative.  That's pretty much impossible.
> We don't believe unicorns exist, because we have no such evidence.  But if one suddenly crossed the road in front of us, we would then have evidence and would have to adopt the belief that they do exist.  That's not the same as purporting to declare "unicorns absolutely do not exist".  No one is in a position to say that.
> 
> Either way, it doesn't really matter -- one is the absence of a positive belief, the other is a positive belief in a negative.   Even if the latter were possible, neither one, having no religious philosophy of its own, qualifies as a "religion".  Just as a pedestrian walking on the street doesn't qualify as "automotive traffic".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Only that a belief is a belief.  If a position is held without any objective evidence to support it, it is a belief.  It can't be anything else.  So if Atheism is an absence of belief, then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We noted way back at the beginning of this thread that atheism as an absolute cannot exist.  It's a relative term - hence the scale.  The absolute has to be included in the scale to give it boundaries that include all possibilities.  Just as the thermometer outside your window may read down to minus 50 -- doesn't mean that temperature is ever going to happen.
> 
> I've had many a car equipped with a speedometer that reads up to 120 mph, which cars were in no way capable of achieving that.
Click to expand...

 
No.  You said it, that doesn't make it true.  I personally know people who say they are certain there are no gods, as well as people who are certain there is.  I am quite certain that Jehovah in all of its incarnations does not exist.  And it changes nothing.  A belief is not an absence of belief.  So if your definition is correct then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.

I would also point out that unquestioning adherence to a definition even when presented with clear evidence that it is wrong is the essence of dogma.  So we have group identity, belief and dogma.  i.e.... religion.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...<snip>...
> 
> It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in _anything_.
> I _believe _it will not rain today.  That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".
> 
> Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present".  On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on.  *When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."*
> 
> It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist".  Saves time.
> 
> 
> 
> You are again confusing agnosticism with atheism.
> 
> Atheists share the belief that that are no gods.  That is a belief that is held by Atheists.  It is not a "belief that is not present".
> 
> Actually, when we say someone's an Atheist, all we're saying is,  "the person believes there is no god".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do not share the belief that there are no Gods. You are incorrect. I have no evidence that there is a God, so I live my life under the assumption that there isn't.
Click to expand...

 
You think God probably does not exist.  You have said this yourself on more than one occasion.  That is a belief.  Calling it not a belief does not change what it is.  Pogo posted a picture of a banana which is a very apt example of that.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is* not *the lack of belief in a god or gods.  That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.
> 
> *Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist.*  That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism.  Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've gone over this since page two...
> 
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which supports the claim that Atheism is not a lack of belief.  Unless you have evidence to support your thinking God is very improbable, then that is a belief - not a lack of belief.  And number 7 is entirely belief.  So either that definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.
> 
> What is the problem with number 4?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in _anything_.
> I _believe _it will not rain today.  That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".
> 
> Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present".  On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on.  When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."
> 
> It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist".  Saves time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you're not really an agnostic. It's just a weasel-word for people afraid of confrontation. The vast majority of agnostics hasn't thought very hard, nor done any research. That doesn't seem to be the case with you.
Click to expand...

 
Interesting.  So you are saying my position is faulty because I'm not ignorant enough?

It really is simple.  You hold a position you have no evidence to support.  How is that not a belief?


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like you guys are now trying to draw a distinction between:
> 
> (a) doesn't believe "god" exists, (absence/rejection of theism) and
> (b) belief (positive belief) that "'god' absolutely does not exist"
> 
> ?
> (b) would be a positive belief of a negative.  That's pretty much impossible.
> We don't believe unicorns exist, because we have no such evidence.  But if one suddenly crossed the road in front of us, we would then have evidence and would have to adopt the belief that they do exist.  That's not the same as purporting to declare "unicorns absolutely do not exist".  No one is in a position to say that.
> 
> Either way, it doesn't really matter -- one is the absence of a positive belief, the other is a positive belief in a negative.   Even if the latter were possible, neither one, having no religious philosophy of its own, qualifies as a "religion".  Just as a pedestrian walking on the street doesn't qualify as "automotive traffic".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Only that a belief is a belief.  If a position is held without any objective evidence to support it, it is a belief.  It can't be anything else.  So if Atheism is an absence of belief, then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We noted way back at the beginning of this thread that atheism as an absolute cannot exist.  It's a relative term - hence the scale.  The absolute has to be included in the scale to give it boundaries that include all possibilities.  Just as the thermometer outside your window may read down to minus 50 -- doesn't mean that temperature is ever going to happen.
> 
> I've had many a car equipped with a speedometer that reads up to 120 mph, which cars were in no way capable of achieving that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  You said it, that doesn't make it true.  I personally know people who say they are certain there are no gods, as well as people who are certain there is.  I am quite certain that Jehovah in all of its incarnations does not exist.  And it changes nothing.  A belief is not an absence of belief.  So if your definition is correct then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.
> 
> I would also point out that unquestioning adherence to a definition even when presented with clear evidence that it is wrong is the essence of dogma.  So we have group identity, belief and dogma.  i.e.... religion.
Click to expand...


Seriously, ask the atheists again and be clear.  You are not talking about the god that created earth and put adam here and flooded the earth.  You are just talking about some thing, perhaps on the other side of a black hole that shit or jizzed into the black hole and his spunk or dukey is the stuff that made our universe.  Who knows?  Anything is possible.  We might be inside a snow globe the kind you shake.  An atheist has to admit he doesn't have all the answers.  He never claimed to though.  All he can say is based on the evidence, he sees no god(s) and the evidence he does see tells him man made up this idea of god a long time ago when we were very primitive curious superstitious and frightened animals.

Anyone who says they are SURE there is no god, is just telling you they are pretty sure.  99.999999% sure.  That's where I am.  I give god .000001% chance of being real.

And even if a god exists, he doesn't care about you.  That comes from the ancient primitive superstitious and frightened ancestors and corrupt churches/rich/kings who used religion to control the masses.  This god we are 100% sure doesn't exist even though we weren't there because all the stories are so stupid.  From the Greek Gods to the Mormons, you guys are all silly.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...<snip>...
> 
> It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in _anything_.
> I _believe _it will not rain today.  That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".
> 
> Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present".  On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on.  *When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."*
> 
> It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist".  Saves time.
> 
> 
> 
> You are again confusing agnosticism with atheism.
> 
> Atheists share the belief that that are no gods.  That is a belief that is held by Atheists.  It is not a "belief that is not present".
> 
> Actually, when we say someone's an Atheist, all we're saying is,  "the person believes there is no god".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do not share the belief that there are no Gods. You are incorrect. I have no evidence that there is a God, so I live my life under the assumption that there isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think God probably does not exist.  You have said this yourself on more than one occasion.  That is a belief.  Calling it not a belief does not change what it is.  Pogo posted a picture of a banana which is a very apt example of that.
Click to expand...


Ok it's a belief.  Not only do I believe that, I believe it's bad for people.  I know theists do a lot of good but they can keep on doing good long after they realize there is no god.  Atheists do good things too you know.  There is a whole thread on it.  No god necessary to be good.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...<snip>...
> 
> It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in _anything_.
> I _believe _it will not rain today.  That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".
> 
> Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present".  On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on.  *When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."*
> 
> It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist".  Saves time.
> 
> 
> 
> You are again confusing agnosticism with atheism.
> 
> Atheists share the belief that that are no gods.  That is a belief that is held by Atheists.  It is not a "belief that is not present".
> 
> Actually, when we say someone's an Atheist, all we're saying is,  "the person believes there is no god".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do not share the belief that there are no Gods. You are incorrect. I have no evidence that there is a God, so I live my life under the assumption that there isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think God probably does not exist.  You have said this yourself on more than one occasion.  That is a belief.  Calling it not a belief does not change what it is.  Pogo posted a picture of a banana which is a very apt example of that.
Click to expand...



Now, explain how I can build a Church on that foundation. You cannot define a religion with "probably not." Now lets go out and try to sell it.

knock, knock...

Who's there?

Probably no one

Who?


----------



## sealybobo

Carla_Danger said:


> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have faith that there is no God. I cannot be 100% sure of what happens when we die.. As a matter of fact, I miss the comfort I got out of religion back when I was a believer. I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists. (that's lack of faith)
Click to expand...


When I became convinced that the universe was natural, that all the ghosts and gods were myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles turned to dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space.

I was free to think. Free to express my thoughts, free to live in my own ideal. Free to live for myself and those I loved. Free to use all my faculties, all my senses. Free to spread imagination’s wings, free to investigate, to guess, and dream and hope. Free to judge and determine for myself. Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the inspired books that savages have produced, and the barbarous legends of the past. Free from sanctified mistakes and “holy” lies. Free from the fear of eternal pain, free from the winged monsters of the night. Free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free.

There were no prohibited places in all of the realm of thought. No error, no space where fancy could not spread her painted wings. No chains for my limbs. No lashes for my back. No flames for my flesh. No Master’s frown or threat, no following in another’s steps. No need to bow or cringe or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free; I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.

My heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heros, the thinkers who gave their lives for liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought to those who fell on the fierce fields of war. To those who died in dungeons, bound in chains, to those by fire consumed, to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then, I vowed to grasp the torch that they held, and hold it high, That light might conquer darkness still.

-Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)


----------



## sealybobo

And I don't need to know 100% for sure there is no god.  99.99% is good enough for me.  The rest I guess I just have to have faith I'm right.  

If god is playing marco polo with us he's going to have to be honest when he says marco and polo.


----------



## Carla_Danger

sealybobo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have faith that there is no God. I cannot be 100% sure of what happens when we die.. As a matter of fact, I miss the comfort I got out of religion back when I was a believer. I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists. (that's lack of faith)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I became convinced that the universe was natural, that all the ghosts and gods were myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles turned to dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space.
> 
> I was free to think. Free to express my thoughts, free to live in my own ideal. Free to live for myself and those I loved. Free to use all my faculties, all my senses. Free to spread imagination’s wings, free to investigate, to guess, and dream and hope. Free to judge and determine for myself. Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the inspired books that savages have produced, and the barbarous legends of the past. Free from sanctified mistakes and “holy” lies. Free from the fear of eternal pain, free from the winged monsters of the night. Free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free.
> 
> There were no prohibited places in all of the realm of thought. No error, no space where fancy could not spread her painted wings. No chains for my limbs. No lashes for my back. No flames for my flesh. No Master’s frown or threat, no following in another’s steps. No need to bow or cringe or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free; I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.
> 
> My heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heros, the thinkers who gave their lives for liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought to those who fell on the fierce fields of war. To those who died in dungeons, bound in chains, to those by fire consumed, to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then, I vowed to grasp the torch that they held, and hold it high, That light might conquer darkness still.
> 
> -Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Click to expand...



I think that many non-believers do not take life for granted. If this is all we've got, we had better make the most of it.


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like you guys are now trying to draw a distinction between:
> 
> (a) doesn't believe "god" exists, (absence/rejection of theism) and
> (b) belief (positive belief) that "'god' absolutely does not exist"
> 
> ?
> (b) would be a positive belief of a negative.  That's pretty much impossible.
> We don't believe unicorns exist, because we have no such evidence.  But if one suddenly crossed the road in front of us, we would then have evidence and would have to adopt the belief that they do exist.  That's not the same as purporting to declare "unicorns absolutely do not exist".  No one is in a position to say that.
> 
> Either way, it doesn't really matter -- one is the absence of a positive belief, the other is a positive belief in a negative.   Even if the latter were possible, neither one, having no religious philosophy of its own, qualifies as a "religion".  Just as a pedestrian walking on the street doesn't qualify as "automotive traffic".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Only that a belief is a belief.  If a position is held without any objective evidence to support it, it is a belief.  It can't be anything else.  So if Atheism is an absence of belief, then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We noted way back at the beginning of this thread that atheism as an absolute cannot exist.  It's a relative term - hence the scale.  The absolute has to be included in the scale to give it boundaries that include all possibilities.  Just as the thermometer outside your window may read down to minus 50 -- doesn't mean that temperature is ever going to happen.
> 
> I've had many a car equipped with a speedometer that reads up to 120 mph, which cars were in no way capable of achieving that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  You said it, that doesn't make it true.  I personally know people who say they are certain there are no gods, as well as people who are certain there is.  I am quite certain that Jehovah in all of its incarnations does not exist.  And it changes nothing.  A belief is not an absence of belief.  So if your definition is correct then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.
> 
> I would also point out that unquestioning adherence to a definition even when presented with clear evidence that it is wrong is the essence of dogma.  So we have group identity, belief and dogma.  i.e.... religion.
Click to expand...


Definitions are not "religions" -- those are called "the dictionary".

There is no "group" to have "identity" -- it's a term of _exclusion_, not inclusion.  The set of "all people who do not have blue eyes" would be a similar "group" --- doesn't make them a "group" or give them anything "in common".  Rather it gives them something  "not in common".

Nor is there "dogma" -- there is the opposite, the absence of (one particular) dogma.  Nor is there the otherworld-view that is necessary to constitute a religion -- none at all.

I don't know who the fuck Dawkins is.  It's irrelevant.  Carla can speak for herself and already has.  But it's always curious when some wag purports to tell a third party what their beliefs are.


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...<snip>...
> 
> It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in _anything_.
> I _believe _it will not rain today.  That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".
> 
> Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present".  On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on.  *When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."*
> 
> It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist".  Saves time.
> 
> 
> 
> You are again confusing agnosticism with atheism.
> 
> Atheists share the belief that that are no gods.  That is a belief that is held by Atheists.  It is not a "belief that is not present".
> 
> Actually, when we say someone's an Atheist, all we're saying is,  "the person believes there is no god".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do not share the belief that there are no Gods. You are incorrect. I have no evidence that there is a God, so I live my life under the assumption that there isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think God probably does not exist.  You have said this yourself on more than one occasion.  That is a belief.  Calling it not a belief does not change what it is.  Pogo posted a picture of a banana which is a very apt example of that.
Click to expand...


You mean -- that wasn't an apple?

I don't understand, it said it was an "apple" like you're saying atheism is a "religion".  

Now why would somebody want to pass a banana off as an "apple"?   Is there a chimp around?


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've gone over this since page two...
> 
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which supports the claim that Atheism is not a lack of belief.  Unless you have evidence to support your thinking God is very improbable, then that is a belief - not a lack of belief.  And number 7 is entirely belief.  So either that definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.
> 
> What is the problem with number 4?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in _anything_.
> I _believe _it will not rain today.  That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".
> 
> Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present".  On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on.  When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."
> 
> It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist".  Saves time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you're not really an agnostic. It's just a weasel-word for people afraid of confrontation. The vast majority of agnostics hasn't thought very hard, nor done any research. That doesn't seem to be the case with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So you are saying my position is faulty because I'm not ignorant enough?
> 
> It really is simple.  You hold a position you have no evidence to support.  How is that not a belief?
Click to expand...


I don't get how you're inferring that.  What I read is that she does *not *hold a particular position because there's no evidence to do so.

See also

Unicorns
Easter Bunny
Great Pumpkin

Leprechauns, Ghoulies, Ghosties, Longleggety Beasites

etc etc etc

--- _none_ of which anyone claims are "religions".


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...<snip>...
> 
> It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in _anything_.
> I _believe _it will not rain today.  That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".
> 
> Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present".  On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on.  *When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."*
> 
> It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist".  Saves time.
> 
> 
> 
> You are again confusing agnosticism with atheism.
> 
> Atheists share the belief that that are no gods.  That is a belief that is held by Atheists.  It is not a "belief that is not present".
> 
> Actually, when we say someone's an Atheist, all we're saying is,  "the person believes there is no god".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do not share the belief that there are no Gods. You are incorrect. I have no evidence that there is a God, so I live my life under the assumption that there isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think God probably does not exist.  You have said this yourself on more than one occasion.  That is a belief.  Calling it not a belief does not change what it is.  Pogo posted a picture of a banana which is a very apt example of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now, explain how I can build a Church on that foundation. You cannot define a religion with "probably not." Now lets go out and try to sell it.
> 
> knock, knock...
> 
> Who's there?
> 
> Probably no one
> 
> Who?
Click to expand...

 
Why can't you define it like that?


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've gone over this since page two...
> 
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> I'm a number 6.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which supports the claim that Atheism is not a lack of belief.  Unless you have evidence to support your thinking God is very improbable, then that is a belief - not a lack of belief.  And number 7 is entirely belief.  So either that definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.
> 
> What is the problem with number 4?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in _anything_.
> I _believe _it will not rain today.  That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".
> 
> Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present".  On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on.  When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."
> 
> It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist".  Saves time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you're not really an agnostic. It's just a weasel-word for people afraid of confrontation. The vast majority of agnostics hasn't thought very hard, nor done any research. That doesn't seem to be the case with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So you are saying my position is faulty because I'm not ignorant enough?
> 
> It really is simple.  You hold a position you have no evidence to support.  How is that not a belief?
Click to expand...



You should take that as a compliment. It's also interesting that you get a little touchy when someones tries to define your agnosticism.

Now I have a question for you.  Do you believe that there's any one person living, who has all the answers?
That is a yes or no question.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...<snip>...
> 
> It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in _anything_.
> I _believe _it will not rain today.  That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".
> 
> Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present".  On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on.  *When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."*
> 
> It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist".  Saves time.
> 
> 
> 
> You are again confusing agnosticism with atheism.
> 
> Atheists share the belief that that are no gods.  That is a belief that is held by Atheists.  It is not a "belief that is not present".
> 
> Actually, when we say someone's an Atheist, all we're saying is,  "the person believes there is no god".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do not share the belief that there are no Gods. You are incorrect. I have no evidence that there is a God, so I live my life under the assumption that there isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think God probably does not exist.  You have said this yourself on more than one occasion.  That is a belief.  Calling it not a belief does not change what it is.  Pogo posted a picture of a banana which is a very apt example of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean -- that wasn't an apple?
> 
> I don't understand, it said it was an "apple" like you're saying atheism is a "religion".
> 
> Now why would somebody want to pass a banana off as an "apple"?   Is there a chimp around?
Click to expand...

 
No.  It wasn't.  Calling it an apple did not make it an apple.  That is what I have been saying to you.  Calling a belief a non-belief does not make it a non-belief.  Perhaps it would have been more direct if rather than saying "I'm an apple" it just said "I'm not a banana".  Either way it's the same.  If the definition does not fit reality, it is the definition that's wrong.  If the definition is held out as correct despite reality, then it is dogma.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which supports the claim that Atheism is not a lack of belief.  Unless you have evidence to support your thinking God is very improbable, then that is a belief - not a lack of belief.  And number 7 is entirely belief.  So either that definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.
> 
> What is the problem with number 4?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in _anything_.
> I _believe _it will not rain today.  That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".
> 
> Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present".  On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on.  When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."
> 
> It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist".  Saves time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you're not really an agnostic. It's just a weasel-word for people afraid of confrontation. The vast majority of agnostics hasn't thought very hard, nor done any research. That doesn't seem to be the case with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So you are saying my position is faulty because I'm not ignorant enough?
> 
> It really is simple.  You hold a position you have no evidence to support.  How is that not a belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should take that as a compliment. It's also interesting that you get a little touchy when someones tries to define your agnosticism.
> 
> Now I have a question for you.  Do you believe that there's any one person living, who has all the answers?
> That is a yes or no question.
Click to expand...

 
I was amused, not irritated.  No one has ever complained about me being too well informed before.

No.  No one has all the answers.  In this arena I would go further though.  No one has any answers.  There is not a shred of valid evidence upon which to establish any conclusion of any kind - save that there is no evidence.  In Dawkins scale, the only difference between number 6 and number two is which side of the scale you're on.


----------



## Carla_Danger

In my opinion, to fit the Dawkins description of an agnostic, would be the same as a person not knowing if purple monsters live at the bottom of the ocean, because they've never really given it much thought, one way or another.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which supports the claim that Atheism is not a lack of belief.  Unless you have evidence to support your thinking God is very improbable, then that is a belief - not a lack of belief.  And number 7 is entirely belief.  So either that definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.
> 
> What is the problem with number 4?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in _anything_.
> I _believe _it will not rain today.  That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".
> 
> Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present".  On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on.  When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."
> 
> It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist".  Saves time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you're not really an agnostic. It's just a weasel-word for people afraid of confrontation. The vast majority of agnostics hasn't thought very hard, nor done any research. That doesn't seem to be the case with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So you are saying my position is faulty because I'm not ignorant enough?
> 
> It really is simple.  You hold a position you have no evidence to support.  How is that not a belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't get how you're inferring that.  What I read is that she does *not *hold a particular position because there's no evidence to do so.
> 
> See also
> 
> Unicorns
> Easter Bunny
> Great Pumpkin
> 
> Leprechauns, Ghoulies, Ghosties, Longleggety Beasites
> 
> etc etc etc
> 
> --- _none_ of which anyone claims are "religions".
Click to expand...

 
She says she thinks there probably is not a God.  How is that not a particular position?  What evidence has she or anyone presented to support that?


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> In my opinion, to fit the Dawkins description of an agnostic, would be the same as a person not knowing if purple monsters live at the bottom of the ocean, because they've never really given it much thought, one way or another.


 
I don't see why.  I have given it considerable thought and I have concluded the evidence does not support either side of the issue.  In the total absence of evidence, no belief is superior to another.  IOW, your blind guess is as good as my blind guess.


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in _anything_.
> I _believe _it will not rain today.  That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".
> 
> Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present".  On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on.  When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."
> 
> It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist".  Saves time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you're not really an agnostic. It's just a weasel-word for people afraid of confrontation. The vast majority of agnostics hasn't thought very hard, nor done any research. That doesn't seem to be the case with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So you are saying my position is faulty because I'm not ignorant enough?
> 
> It really is simple.  You hold a position you have no evidence to support.  How is that not a belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't get how you're inferring that.  What I read is that she does *not *hold a particular position because there's no evidence to do so.
> 
> See also
> 
> Unicorns
> Easter Bunny
> Great Pumpkin
> 
> Leprechauns, Ghoulies, Ghosties, Longleggety Beasites
> 
> etc etc etc
> 
> --- _none_ of which anyone claims are "religions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She says she thinks there probably is not a God.  How is that not a particular position?  What evidence has she or anyone presented to support that?
Click to expand...


The key word is "probably".  _Probably _is not an absolute.


----------



## Pogo

PratchettFan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...<snip>...
> 
> It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in _anything_.
> I _believe _it will not rain today.  That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".
> 
> Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present".  On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on.  *When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."*
> 
> It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist".  Saves time.
> 
> 
> 
> You are again confusing agnosticism with atheism.
> 
> Atheists share the belief that that are no gods.  That is a belief that is held by Atheists.  It is not a "belief that is not present".
> 
> Actually, when we say someone's an Atheist, all we're saying is,  "the person believes there is no god".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do not share the belief that there are no Gods. You are incorrect. I have no evidence that there is a God, so I live my life under the assumption that there isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think God probably does not exist.  You have said this yourself on more than one occasion.  That is a belief.  Calling it not a belief does not change what it is.  Pogo posted a picture of a banana which is a very apt example of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean -- that wasn't an apple?
> 
> I don't understand, it said it was an "apple" like you're saying atheism is a "religion".
> 
> Now why would somebody want to pass a banana off as an "apple"?   Is there a chimp around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It wasn't.  Calling it an apple did not make it an apple.  That is what I have been saying to you.  Calling a belief a non-belief does not make it a non-belief.  Perhaps it would have been more direct if rather than saying "I'm an apple" it just said "I'm not a banana".  Either way it's the same.  If the definition does not fit reality, it is the definition that's wrong.  If the definition is held out as correct despite reality, then it is dogma.
Click to expand...


My post was entirely allegorical.  You get that doncha?


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi Pogo, sorry, I thought you just said that religion was about the "otherworld"
and politics was about the real world.  So when i communicate with YOU it only makes
sense to focus on what YOU think is real and important and makes sense.

Otherwise, there seems little sense in talking about nothing.

Pogo, the beliefs someone has affect whatever we talk about.
So when I talk with YOU, the issue is where YOUR beliefs and mine intersect.

THAT is the focus, "independent" of WHAT subjects we discuss and share input and perceptions of.

So I am really focused on YOUR beliefs when I am talking with YOU.
So if YOU tell me that the things in religion are some other world and not relevant to this one.
WTF is the point of talking about nonexisting things?

OF COURSE I am going to follow what YOU find relevant to talk about and focus there!
Pogo, it is still about YOUR beliefs and YOUR priorities if I am getting to understand
YOUR beliefs.  It only makes sense to talk about things that are relevant and critical to YOU.

You are going to perceive and paint all things, real or imagined,
using your worldview and ways of seeing and saying things.

Is that more clear? Sorry if it wasn't. 

With each person it is different. If someone really sees the world and humanity's future 
in terms of the Bible, of course that is the language we are going to use to discuss what's going on.

If you and I are more concerned about reforms and sustainable systems that are going to
save the planet logistically, of course, that is where we are going to focus.

The same issue of "faith in justice" "faith in  humanity" "faith in things to change for the better"
are STILL going to come up in whatever context we pick. It just makes sense to focus on
a context where we have a chance to agree on taking real steps in the real world.

That's what really matters anyway. The religious exercises are an allegory or metaphor
to understand the same concepts in the secular world we need to agree on to work on real change together.

If you can go straight into reality and discuss and resolve the same issues as "symbolized" in religion,
why not go straight into the application to real world change? That's the real point anyway, we don't need to
argue about symbolism if we can discuss substance directly! Thanks Pogo! I appreciate your clarity on this.



Pogo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Emily
> 
> I'm still going to insist that "politics" and "religion" have nothing to do with each other and that conflating them only serves to muddy the waters as long as we grope for definitions of either.
> 
> To oversimplify to a nice sound bite: Politics addresses the machinations of the world; Religion addresses the machinations of the otherworld.
> Ideally never the twain shall meet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKAY then I would REALLY Say we need to be discussing political beliefs then.
> Since that's what applies to the real world.
> 
> What I find is key, is if people believe in Retributive Justice or Restorative Justice.
> 
> How we relate and whether we can work together is most determined by that,
> and what people/groups you can or cannot forgive and work with.
> 
> Once you align on where you can relate, everything else can work out and follow from there.
> 
> People with different views of Justice will fight and impose on each other.
> So that is the key question, and the key to the answer is to what degree we are willing to forgive,
> and what things can we not forgive but will project blame and demand punishment instead of correction and prevention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily I know you mean well and have positive intentions but if I may say, you're a bit obsessed when you try to shunt every topic back into the politics of government and healthcare.
> 
> Sorry but this simply is not a political thread but a philosophical one on the aspects of religion and religious philosophies.  That's a personal and individual field of thought, not a public or government-structure one.  You seem to be trying to mix apples and oranges.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> Hi Pogo, sorry, I thought you just said that religion was about the "otherworld"
> and politics was about the real world.  So when i communicate with YOU it only makes
> sense to focus on what YOU think is real and important and makes sense.
> 
> Otherwise, there seems little sense in talking about nothing.
> 
> Pogo, the beliefs someone has affect whatever we talk about.
> So when I talk with YOU, the issue is where YOUR beliefs and mine intersect.



I try to point this out to theists who are anti gay who say being gay is a choice.  I try to explain to them that what they just said is only true for them.  So in a way anyone who thinks being gay is a choice, whether they know it or not, is a bi sexual.  They may choose not to sleep with the same sex, but to them not doing so is a choice.  Maybe because their church, society and parents told them it was wrong but regardless, they are a bi who chooses to be straight.

Now as me if I could ever choose another man.  Answer is no.

Now ask Richard Simmons if he could ever be with a woman.

The gays who get guilted into pretending to be straight, like Michelle bachman's husband, he is probably a bi who leans way to the gay.  Or he is only fooling himself.  It is possible he's a self loathing full on gay  who's convinced if he goes gay he'll go to hell so he says in a sexless marriage with Michelle.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hey Asaratis! I think you hit on what the issue is.

A. If you define Atheism as the BELIEF there is no god(s) period. As an absolute that is either proven or is true without being proven, etc. you are RIGHT that is a belief and people who share this belief share a religion.

B. However, some people do not BELIEVE "there is no god" but just don't BELIEVE in looking at the world that way through the language and symbolism of a personified God. So this is different from BELIEVING there is NOT something.

Can we agree to call this a NONTHEISTIC approach, where it is NOT a religion.

So A is like if you speak Spanish as your primary language in which you think your thoughts,
then you are a Spanish speaker and that is your LANGUAGE.

And B is like if you do NOT speak Spanish then you are a non-Spanish speaker and it is NOT your language.
*That doesn't mean "nonspanish" is your "language" because it is a general term for any language that isn't Spanish.*

So I am asking could we resolve this issue by distinguishing
which people are the type under
A. where Atheism is worldviews built around actually believing without question there is not a god or gods, which takes faith that is true with or without proof, as many will say it is proven just like those who think God is proven by the Bible.
Anyone with knowledge of logic understands that God can neither be proven nor proven, but both assertions are based on faith. Those who cannot see this, really BELIEVE either God exists, period, or God does not, period, as an absolute belief.
These are VERY RARE as most people will admit upon questioning that we really don't know and could all be wrong.

B. where Nontheism is a general category for anyone who does not believe in personifying God (or Jesus) as a finite
symbol or being, but may still be okay with equivalent beliefs in Universal Laws of Life, Truth, Wisdom, Justice, Conscience, Nature, etc. that are related to these principles, but not expressed in personified form like a deity or symbolic religious figure.

This is not a religion in itself, but a branch of systems or beliefs based on natural laws instead of spiritual religious authority.

There is also C for people who are multilingual, or can speak to audiences of different religions similar to translating
between languages.

I consider myself multilingual as I can speak the same language as a theist/Christian, Constitutionalist, nontheist/atheist/secular humanist (and some Buddhist though I have a heavy "accent" and sound too Western or
Christian for traditional Buddhists the same way I sound too Buddhist or secular/new age for traditional Christians).

So I have an accent, in the way I use terms interchangeably from one system to another (such as relating "sin" with "karma," and the cycle of "retribution") but at least I can understand and speak the "language" and interpret/understand the concepts.

Asaratis, are you okay with distinguishing the difference between A and B?
Most people especially Agnostics would fall under B, as nontheists who look at the world in secular terms of
science and natural laws, and don't necessarily relate to religious language using deified symbols or  personified figures.



asaratis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......<snip>
> 
> I wish it was so I could go to services and get the tax write offs.
> 
> It probably upsets some of us because it is simply not true.
> 
> 
> *Atheism takes faith / is a religion.*
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion.
> 
> _“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is* not *the lack of belief in a god or gods.  That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.
> 
> *Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist.*  That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism.  Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

Wow sealybobo, you bring up a difficult issue I have just recently been making some breakthroughs in myself.

A. When speaking with such theists, it is DEFINITELY important to them to 
1. cite the scriptures as the source they respect so you are speaking to them using their language
2. invoke the spirit of the laws as a  FELLOW believer so they know you are with them and not against them.

if you don't meet both the spirit and the letter of the law they commit to follow,
they will not hear your words. They will see you as outside, an adversary trying to speak falsely to deceive
and make them stumble.

Even if I do both 1 and 2, if they do not BELIEVE I am truly speaking truth, but
come as a false teacher abusing 1 and 2 to trick them and cause division or confusion,
they will still reject what I am saying.

So even the fellow Christians trying to resolve this with fellow believers have difficulty!

B. What I find works is citing the passage that
some Eunuchs are made by God and some by man.

And explaining this doesn't mean people cannot change, it doesn't mean once you are born that
way physically that's it. 

it just means Spiritually you are meant to be born a certain way, and/or meant to change if that happens.

If God's will is supreme and in control, then all this must be following God's plan, changes or not.

And it helps to cite Christians who have found that either
a. they were meant to change, and acknowledge this is a valid path
b. they weren't  meant to change, and this happens also!

BOTH can happen, it is NOT either/or,
all one way or another.

Sealybobo the disadvantage you have is if you do not believe
in either #1 or #2 so you do not relate to such theists as your peers.

The Biblical way to rebuke our fellow peers is given in scripture
Matthew 18:15-20, which I apply in these cases as trying to
correct someone from "bearing false witness".

Even fellow Christians have trouble rebuking their own using this
which is the tried and true method if any such correction is going to be heard and received!

So if even fellow Christians cannot reel and reign in all members of the flock,
of course, someone seen as coming from the outside as an adversary to be opposed
is not going to be heard.  

Please leave it to the fellow Christians to rebuke fellow members,
and instead of rejecting them, support them in succeeding.

As we grow together in agreement, these things will weed themselves out.
There are enough Christians who are supporting the understanding
that there are different paths going on, and don't negate each other.

Christians would have to agree among each other first,
and the rest will work itself out.

There is both a language barrier and a faith barrier.
And as I said before, the worst barrier is when people do not forgive
each other, then the changes cannot take place in an environment of
opposition, rejection and fear. Changes occur mutually between people
in relationship with each other, so both must be equally open to 
receive the change for it to manifest fully. The fear and division
blocks this process when people aren't ready for mutual change. 



sealybobo said:


> I try to point this out to theists who are anti gay who say being gay is a choice.  I try to explain to them that what they just said is only true for them.  So in a way anyone who thinks being gay is a choice, whether they know it or not, is a bi sexual.  They may choose not to sleep with the same sex, but to them not doing so is a choice.  Maybe because their church, society and parents told them it was wrong but regardless, they are a bi who chooses to be straight.
> 
> Now as me if I could ever choose another man.  Answer is no.
> 
> Now ask Richard Simmons if he could ever be with a woman.
> 
> The gays who get guilted into pretending to be straight, like Michelle bachman's husband, he is probably a bi who leans way to the gay.  Or he is only fooling himself.  It is possible he's a self loathing full on gay  who's convinced if he goes gay he'll go to hell so he says in a sexless marriage with Michelle.


----------



## emilynghiem

PratchettFan said:


> No.  It wasn't.  Calling it an apple did not make it an apple.  That is what I have been saying to you.  Calling a belief a non-belief does not make it a non-belief.  Perhaps it would have been more direct if rather than saying "I'm an apple" it just said "I'm not a banana".  Either way it's the same.  If the definition does not fit reality, it is the definition that's wrong.  If the definition is held out as correct despite reality, then it is dogma.



Hi PratchettFan: Can I ask you to look at my reply to Asaratis and maybe help restate that better if you can?

Do you agree we'd be better to make a distinction between:

A. Atheism as a BELIEF there absolutely is NO god or gods, with or without proof, period.
And acknowledge this is very rare, as most people will admit they are actually agnostic and don't know for sure
since we could be wrong, or what we think or know could change, etc.

B. Nontheism as not a belief but a general description of people or systems that don't personify God
but view and describe Life and the World in SECULAR terms or natural laws without religious symbolism

Why argue about A if so few people really fit this category, 
and most are either B or transition in that direction?


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you're not really an agnostic. It's just a weasel-word for people afraid of confrontation. The vast majority of agnostics hasn't thought very hard, nor done any research. That doesn't seem to be the case with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So you are saying my position is faulty because I'm not ignorant enough?
> 
> It really is simple.  You hold a position you have no evidence to support.  How is that not a belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't get how you're inferring that.  What I read is that she does *not *hold a particular position because there's no evidence to do so.
> 
> See also
> 
> Unicorns
> Easter Bunny
> Great Pumpkin
> 
> Leprechauns, Ghoulies, Ghosties, Longleggety Beasites
> 
> etc etc etc
> 
> --- _none_ of which anyone claims are "religions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She says she thinks there probably is not a God.  How is that not a particular position?  What evidence has she or anyone presented to support that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The key word is "probably".  _Probably _is not an absolute.
Click to expand...

 
So what?  It's still a position made with no evidence.


----------



## PratchettFan

Pogo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are again confusing agnosticism with atheism.
> 
> Atheists share the belief that that are no gods.  That is a belief that is held by Atheists.  It is not a "belief that is not present".
> 
> Actually, when we say someone's an Atheist, all we're saying is,  "the person believes there is no god".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do not share the belief that there are no Gods. You are incorrect. I have no evidence that there is a God, so I live my life under the assumption that there isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think God probably does not exist.  You have said this yourself on more than one occasion.  That is a belief.  Calling it not a belief does not change what it is.  Pogo posted a picture of a banana which is a very apt example of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean -- that wasn't an apple?
> 
> I don't understand, it said it was an "apple" like you're saying atheism is a "religion".
> 
> Now why would somebody want to pass a banana off as an "apple"?   Is there a chimp around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It wasn't.  Calling it an apple did not make it an apple.  That is what I have been saying to you.  Calling a belief a non-belief does not make it a non-belief.  Perhaps it would have been more direct if rather than saying "I'm an apple" it just said "I'm not a banana".  Either way it's the same.  If the definition does not fit reality, it is the definition that's wrong.  If the definition is held out as correct despite reality, then it is dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My post was entirely allegorical.  You get that doncha?
Click to expand...

 
And...?


----------



## emilynghiem

PratchettFan said:


> No.  No one has all the answers.  In this arena I would go further though.  No one has any answers.  There is not a shred of valid evidence upon which to establish any conclusion of any kind - save that there is no evidence.  In Dawkins scale, the only difference between number 6 and number two is which side of the scale you're on.



In math, when we use labels such as 6 and 2, we AGREE what they mean.
* * * * * *  is what 6 means
* * is what 2 means.
There is also "absolute value" where -6 and 6 both have "absolute value of 6";
but this does NOT mean they are the same! 

Why not apply the same approach to agreeing what symbols in religion mean?

In one context, God may refer to forces of Life, laws of Nature, unconditional Love connecting all humanity, etc.
God's will may mean the  ideal or greater good for all humanity, perfect good will driving society to reach maturity and peace.

For Jesus, one context may mean spiritual salvation or liberation from the cycles of human suffering and retribution or karma.
Another may mean Equal Justice, Social Justice, Restorative Justice, Justice with Mercy, Peace and Justice.
But to the person taking an OT approach that God means judgment and punishment, Jesus may mean Retributive Justice.

What do we MEAN by these symbols?
Do we see God or Jesus as negative or positive?

In math, this makes a HUGE difference.

You cannot simply equate -3 with +3 just because they "relatively" have the same "absolute value" on opposite sides of the scale.

How can we ALIGN our variables with the values we agree they represent,
so we can at least communicate the same meanings?


----------



## PratchettFan

emilynghiem said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It wasn't.  Calling it an apple did not make it an apple.  That is what I have been saying to you.  Calling a belief a non-belief does not make it a non-belief.  Perhaps it would have been more direct if rather than saying "I'm an apple" it just said "I'm not a banana".  Either way it's the same.  If the definition does not fit reality, it is the definition that's wrong.  If the definition is held out as correct despite reality, then it is dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi PratchettFan: Can I ask you to look at my reply to Asaratis and maybe help restate that better if you can?
> 
> Do you agree we'd be better to make a distinction between:
> 
> A. Atheism as a BELIEF there absolutely is NO god or gods, with or without proof, period.
> And acknowledge this is very rare, as most people will admit they are actually agnostic and don't know for sure
> since we could be wrong, or what we think or know could change, etc.
> 
> B. Nontheism as not a belief but a general description of people or systems that don't personify God
> but view and describe Life and the World in SECULAR terms or natural laws without religious symbolism
> 
> Why argue about A if so few people really fit this category,
> and most are either B or transition in that direction?
Click to expand...

 
I wouldn't argue either.  I think attempting to narrowly define an entire group is both pointless and dogmatic.  And, to be frank, I don't think there are any non-theists currently on this board.  At least none that are posting anything.  It isn't about definitions, it is about behavior.  Let me expand on that and I warn you it might get a bit wordy, but it also deals with this question that was brought up earlier as to just what is in it for us.

My wife is a non-smoker.  By that I mean she has never so much as taken a single drag on a cigarette.  She understands all of the bad stuff that can happen, but having never smoked she has no concept at all of the good stuff.  I started smoking about two weeks into my first tour in Vietnam.  I put out my last cigarette at 11:59 pm 12/31/1979.  I am an ex-smoker, not a non-smoker.  If my wife were to take a drag it would only confirm for her that she doesn't smoke.  If I were to take a drag I would be at two packs a day within a week.  As an ex-smoker I not only understand what is bad but also what is good about smoking.  I get the attraction.  Therefore, I see cigarettes as a direct threat to me while my wife sees them as an annoyance.

My parents were Christians.  I went to Sunday school, learned Jesus Loves Me, did finger paintings of the cross, etc.  Around the age of 9 or 10 I actually stopped and listened to what was being said and, for the first time in my life, grasped what it was being said.  I was stunned.  I could not then and to this day cannot understand why anyone would believe it.  It is incomprehensible to me.  Not the concepts of Christianity but that anyone would believe those concepts for a second.  I am a non-Christian in the same way my wife is a non-smoker.  I have never believed.  However, in reading the posts of the various Atheists on this board I see people who were Christians into their 40's, attending religious schools, etc.  They are ex-Christians in the same way I am an ex-smoker.  So they get the attraction of it and that makes it a personal threat.

So of course it has to be non-belief, because otherwise they might be engaging in the same behavior they have rejected.  The problem is that belief is a human thing, not a Christian thing.  We are a species of believers.  If we weren't we never would have developed the scientific method.  The irony is that this need for it to be non-belief is what is turning Atheism into a religion.  If I just say I believe there is no God, that stops it right there.  Let's go play some golf.  It is this insistence that some narrow definition be followed and evidence be ignored in order to match that definition which creates the religious aspect.  It's not about the belief, its all about the behavior.


----------



## PratchettFan

emilynghiem said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  No one has all the answers.  In this arena I would go further though.  No one has any answers.  There is not a shred of valid evidence upon which to establish any conclusion of any kind - save that there is no evidence.  In Dawkins scale, the only difference between number 6 and number two is which side of the scale you're on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In math, when we use labels such as 6 and 2, we AGREE what they mean.
> * * * * * *  is what 6 means
> * * is what 2 means.
> There is also "absolute value" where -6 and 6 both have "absolute value of 6";
> but this does NOT mean they are the same!
> 
> Why not apply the same approach to agreeing what symbols in religion mean?
> 
> In one context, God may refer to forces of Life, laws of Nature, unconditional Love connecting all humanity, etc.
> God's will may mean the  ideal or greater good for all humanity, perfect good will driving society to reach maturity and peace.
> 
> For Jesus, one context may mean spiritual salvation or liberation from the cycles of human suffering and retribution or karma.
> Another may mean Equal Justice, Social Justice, Restorative Justice, Justice with Mercy, Peace and Justice.
> But to the person taking an OT approach that God means judgment and punishment, Jesus may mean Retributive Justice.
> 
> What do we MEAN by these symbols?
> Do we see God or Jesus as negative or positive?
> 
> In math, this makes a HUGE difference.
> 
> You cannot simply equate -3 with +3 just because they "relatively" have the same "absolute value" on opposite sides of the scale.
> 
> How can we ALIGN our variables with the values we agree they represent,
> so we can at least communicate the same meanings?
Click to expand...

 

Unless we can agree on what God is, there is not way to align anything.  I would offer we can't.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> It sounds like you guys are now trying to draw a distinction between:
> 
> (a) doesn't believe "god" exists, (absence/rejection of theism) and
> (b) belief (positive belief) that "'god' absolutely does not exist"
> 
> ?
> (b) would be a positive belief of a negative.  That's pretty much impossible.
> We don't believe unicorns exist, because we have no such evidence.  But if one suddenly crossed the road in front of us, we would then have evidence and would have to adopt the belief that they do exist.  That's not the same as purporting to declare "unicorns absolutely do not exist".  No one is in a position to say that.
> 
> Either way, it doesn't really matter -- one is the absence of a positive belief, the other is a positive belief in a negative.   Even if the latter were possible, neither one, having no religious philosophy of its own, qualifies as a "religion".  Just as a pedestrian walking on the street doesn't qualify as "automotive traffic".



Hate to break it to you, but unicorns do exist. In fact, I have seen one with my own eyes, and even touched it. Somebody discovered the technique in an old manuscript and decided to resurrect it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> We noted way back at the beginning of this thread that atheism as an absolute cannot exist.  It's a relative term - hence the scale.  The absolute has to be included in the scale to give it boundaries that include all possibilities.  Just as the thermometer outside your window may read down to minus 50 -- doesn't mean that temperature is ever going to happen.
> 
> I've had many a car equipped with a speedometer that reads up to 120 mph, which cars were in no way capable of achieving that.



We who? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? There are people who absolutely deny the existence of any god whatsoever, and totally reject the possibility that any suck being is even possible. I even provided links to websites that defend that claim, and you ignored them. That presents us with a dilemma, either they are lying about what they believe, or you are wrong when you say it is impossible to believe that.

Guess which way I vote.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I think 99% of atheists will admit they can not say 100% they know but I bet they would say they are 99.99999% sure there is no god because they see no proof and the only proof we claim to have are books filled with impossible stories and then if we ask to many questions ultimately we are told that we just have to have blind faith.
> 
> To an atheist, it is just so obvious there is no god.  But we can't claim to know so the actual best position to have is to say you are an agnostic atheist.  Can't say for sure but pretty sure god is all made up.
> 
> An agnostic is too wishy washy.  They aren't sure.  Not convinced.  Don't lean either way.
> 
> Am I right atheists?  Does any atheist here say they know 100% for sure nothing made us?
> 
> The whole intelligent design stuff, adam, god, eve, moses, mohammad, jesus, this we are certain is bullshit.  100% sure.



Other than you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Of course they did.  And as noted above it's an *illegitimate relationship*.  They have no business being conflated.  And they really weren't conflated before the "moral majority" bullshit came along, which was simple political (not religious) demagoguery -- using religion as a tool for politics.
> 
> No I'm not stupid.  I see _all too well_ what's been going on.  When I grew up there was no such thing as an association between religion and politics; association with one particular party or religion simply had nothing to do with one's religion or party.  That's what I mean by a "false relationship".  Which is _exactly what I said_ up there -- a wedge issue.
> 
> And the term I believe is "God, Guns and Gays".  Three easy emotional hooks used for hoodwinking in the naked quest for votes.  Rationale based on divisive emotional cheap hooks is bullshit rationale.
> 
> And I'll repeat without hesitation, it has no place in a nation founded exactly to get away from that bullshit.  What part of that do you disagree with?



Did you just claim that politics and religion were never conflated before the 20th century? Have you ever read an actual history book, or do you get all your information from comics?


----------



## emilynghiem

PratchettFan said:


> Unless we can agree on what God is, there is not way to align anything.  I would offer we can't.



I just listed the most common meanings associated with using the word God in different contexts.

Someone else explained that ALLAH means "ALL LAWS" which also speaks to Universal Laws,
or Creation/the Universe.

Life, the forces of Life or Nature.

Love, Good will for all humanity, that makes sense to have faith in God's will to be supremely
in charge, means that Good will overcomes ill will or evil. That is what people are saying by God's will.

In Buddhism, the focus is in Wisdom, and the spiritual laws in existence.
Yahweh meaning "self-existent" power behind all things.

For many secular humanists, God as TRUTH seems to be what we all relate to as what we seek.
or the Kingdom of God, the TRUTH that sets us free from ignorance, strife and suffering in conflict or confusion.

The Muslims may have 99 names for God
but most people relate to just a few. Not that many to have to align or
at least see they complement each other and are not in conflict!

(As for whether God is good or evil, selfish and judgmental/punitive
or all merciful and inclusive, that is where one's faith in Jesus or Justice
determines if you take an inclusive approach or reject people by conditions;
if you believe in retributive justice or restorative justice.

So once we get past the issue of God and Jesus having concepts
associated with them that can be expressed in secular terms and still mean the same principles,
the next step is to differentiate between the QUALITY or Spirit of how we interpret these things
as Positive or Negative, and align those ways as well instead of letting the opposite clash and contradict each other)

There are only so many combinations in general.
After that, yes, each person is unique and has their own ways of seeing or saying it.
But in general, people either relate to the religious terms or prefer the secular terms.
The main branch between those two is fairly clear
and the first step is to recognize and quit demonizing the fact
that people branch off between spiritual/sacred laws and natural/secular laws.

If we can even get over our fear of differences there, the rest follows in turn.


----------



## emilynghiem

Yes and no. 
I believe the solution is to distinguish nontheism from true atheism. From your other msg, i agree true atheism is very rare.

As for faith, believing that the military will take care of terrorism so we don't have to worry about being invaded tomorrow,
requires faith. Believing that if something goes wrong with govt, we the people can fix it using our democratic system takes faith.

Believing that if I forgive something first, it can be corrected afterwards and my kindness won't be in vain but will
support fixing the problem, takes faith.

Any time you believe in something before it happens, that takes faith.



sealybobo said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Dawkins likely made up those definitions to keep his pet, Atheism from being defined as a religion"  doesn't make any sense anyway --- atheism doesn't need to "keep from being defined as a religion" any more than  grapefruit or a piano bench does.  They simply fail to possess the characteristics of a religion.
> 
> Basically what the revisionistas are doing is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we need to change the perception and debunk the myths about atheism.  When I was growing up I thought atheism was evil or devil worship.  No one explained to me it simply means people who don't believe in god.  That's bullshit.  Why do you have to lie to your kids about the alternative?  I would think you would want to present both sides but instead you just tell them a million stories about how god punished the non believers and will punish you in hell if you don't believe.  That's bullshit.
> 
> Last night I was flippin channels and the theist show said something like, "faith is walking with you eyes closed"
> 
> I agree.
Click to expand...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> Now, explain how I can build a Church on that foundation. You cannot define a religion with "probably not." Now lets go out and try to sell it.
> 
> knock, knock...
> 
> Who's there?
> 
> Probably no one
> 
> Who?



These people actually did build a church on the "Probably not" concept, perhaps you should ask them how they did it. If you get an answer, feel free to post it so I can see it because I confess I don't see how you can actually build anything on not caring. Howeve, unlike you, I recognize that my lack of imagination in some areas does not in any way impact other people.

What is the Church 

The people that built the church of atheism do not believe in probably not, they absolutely deny that any possibility of a god exists. I can easily see building a church on that dogma.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> When I became convinced that the universe was natural, that all the ghosts and gods were myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles turned to dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space.
> 
> I was free to think. Free to express my thoughts, free to live in my own ideal. Free to live for myself and those I loved. Free to use all my faculties, all my senses. Free to spread imagination’s wings, free to investigate, to guess, and dream and hope. Free to judge and determine for myself. Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the inspired books that savages have produced, and the barbarous legends of the past. Free from sanctified mistakes and “holy” lies. Free from the fear of eternal pain, free from the winged monsters of the night. Free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free.
> 
> There were no prohibited places in all of the realm of thought. No error, no space where fancy could not spread her painted wings. No chains for my limbs. No lashes for my back. No flames for my flesh. No Master’s frown or threat, no following in another’s steps. No need to bow or cringe or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free; I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.
> 
> My heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heros, the thinkers who gave their lives for liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought to those who fell on the fierce fields of war. To those who died in dungeons, bound in chains, to those by fire consumed, to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then, I vowed to grasp the torch that they held, and hold it high, That light might conquer darkness still.
> 
> -Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)



Posting quotes without actually thinking is not the sign of a person that is free.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> In my opinion, to fit the Dawkins description of an agnostic, would be the same as a person not knowing if purple monsters live at the bottom of the ocean, because they've never really given it much thought, one way or another.



That is a seriously ignorant response.

Are you familiar with Venn diagrams? If so, I suggest you draw a small dot to represent everything you know, then draw a circle about the size of the universe to indicate all the knowledge it is possible to know. Anyone that looks at that honestly would have to admit that it is possible that conclusive evidence for the existence of god exists inside that larger circle, and that they just haven't come across it. That is what makes agnostics honest, and atheist who insist that they don't hold a belief in something they cannot possible prove dishonest.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> We see no sign that gods exist.  And lets separate the herd here.  So like Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Greek Gods, etc.  So you believe in one of these versions of God or a generic version altogether?  Kind of important here because I want to ask you if you are not a Mormon, Jehova or Muslim are these three different "faiths" of yours?  Because we are all atheists.  You just happen to believe in one more god than I do.



Dear Sealybobo: I'd like you to take the same deeper look into spiritual  healing that Scott Peck took when he didn't believe the process was real either. My friend Ray Hill is an atheist, but he believes in the power of free grace and forgiveness to change lives and make people and the world better. So I"m saying that's the same thing as believing in that force or power, but just not using theistic terms of God and Jesus. The main key principle is having faith that forgiveness and healing energy tranforms and saves lives, sanity and relationships. So my friend Ray, an atheist, believes the same things as my friends who are Christian using personified terms of God and Jesus. We all believe in establishing peace and justice by grace.

If you do not see there is any proof of this "universal" process or laws of  "justice" for all people, then maybe
you haven't looked as deeply as those who have found it, both theists and nontheists who agree what is going on!



PratchettFan said:


> My parents were Christians.  I went to Sunday school, learned Jesus Loves Me, did finger paintings of the cross, etc.  Around the age of 9 or 10 I actually stopped and listened to what was being said and, for the first time in my life, grasped what it was being said.  I was stunned.  I could not then and to this day cannot understand why anyone would believe it.  It is incomprehensible to me.  Not the concepts of Christianity but that anyone would believe those concepts for a second.  I am a non-Christian in the same way my wife is a non-smoker.  I have never believed.  However, in reading the posts of the various Atheists on this board I see people who were Christians into their 40's, attending religious schools, etc.  They are ex-Christians in the same way I am an ex-smoker.  So they get the attraction of it and that makes it a personal threat.
> 
> So of course it has to be non-belief, because otherwise they might be engaging in the same behavior they have rejected.  The problem is that belief is a human thing, not a Christian thing.  We are a species of believers.  If we weren't we never would have developed the scientific method.  The irony is that this need for it to be non-belief is what is turning Atheism into a religion.  If I just say I believe there is no God, that stops it right there.  Let's go play some golf.  It is this insistence that some narrow definition be followed and evidence be ignored in order to match that definition which creates the religious aspect.  *It's not about the belief, its all about the behavior.*



Dear PratchettFan where "belief" affects the "behavior" is if you believe there is truth or justice in advance, based on faith, then you are more likely to take steps toward achieving that.

If you don't have faith, such as sealybobo has no faith that the process of spiritual healing can be proven universal,
or you have no faith that people can agree on the meaning of God,
what motivation do you have to push that process forward? If you do not even see it is possible?

So how can we even work toward a goal if to us it isn't even a viable option or possibility?

Do you see how faith or belief makes a difference?

If you have no faith that the democratic process can civilly correct problems in govt,
would you be more likely to abuse violence to force your way? 

On the other hand, if you believe that Restorative Justice is the way that humanity
is meant to approach reforms, so all social and political changes occur freely by informed consent
and voluntary collaboration, doesn't that faith change how we speak and act toward others especially adversaries?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I try to point this out to theists who are anti gay who say being gay is a choice.  I try to explain to them that what they just said is only true for them.  So in a way anyone who thinks being gay is a choice, whether they know it or not, is a bi sexual.  They may choose not to sleep with the same sex, but to them not doing so is a choice.  Maybe because their church, society and parents told them it was wrong but regardless, they are a bi who chooses to be straight.
> 
> Now as me if I could ever choose another man.  Answer is no.
> 
> Now ask Richard Simmons if he could ever be with a woman.
> 
> The gays who get guilted into pretending to be straight, like Michelle bachman's husband, he is probably a bi who leans way to the gay.  Or he is only fooling himself.  It is possible he's a self loathing full on gay  who's convinced if he goes gay he'll go to hell so he says in a sexless marriage with Michelle.



Excuse me?

I have pointd out, multiple times, that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that indicates that sexual preference is hard wired into people. I have also provided scientific evidence that free will exists, irrefutable evidence that sexual preference is not genetic, and challenged anyone to provide any evidence that something else somehow forces people to be gay. No one, including you, has ever provided a single shred of any tyoe of scientific evidence that proves we cannnot make a choice when it comes to who we like, yet you insist that it is true because you prefer to believe it rather than accept the science that contradicts you.

That is no different than the idiots that insist that evolution is not real, which means you are also an idiot. If you disagree about your idiocy, feel free to start yet another thread claiming that there is proof that sexual preference is not a choice.


----------



## asaratis

emilynghiem said:


> Hey Asaratis! I think you hit on what the issue is.
> 
> A. If you define Atheism as the BELIEF there is no god(s) period. As an absolute that is either proven or is true without being proven, etc. you are RIGHT that is a belief and people who share this belief share a religion.
> 
> B. However, some people do not BELIEVE "there is no god" but just don't BELIEVE in looking at the world that way through the language and symbolism of a personified God. So this is different from BELIEVING there is NOT something.
> 
> Can we agree to call this a NONTHEISTIC approach, where it is NOT a religion.
> 
> So A is like if you speak Spanish as your primary language in which you think your thoughts,
> then you are a Spanish speaker and that is your LANGUAGE.
> 
> And B is like if you do NOT speak Spanish then you are a non-Spanish speaker and it is NOT your language.
> *That doesn't mean "nonspanish" is your "language" because it is a general term for any language that isn't Spanish.*
> 
> ...<snip>...
> 
> Asaratis, are you okay with distinguishing the difference between A and B?
> 
> ...<snip>...


Yes, I can easily distinguish the differences between A and B above.

The definition of Atheism is definitely in dispute.  That is why we're having this disagreement about whether Atheism is a religion or not. Atheists claim that they simply do not believe there are gods.  Others, such as I claim that Atheists believe there are no gods.  Quite a difference exists there.  I consider the correct definition of Atheism to be a belief that gods do not exist.

If the less active version is accepted (that Atheism is simply lack of belief in gods) then all babies and Buddhists are Athests...a completely unacceptable position.

If Atheism is accepted to mean simply a lack of belief in gods, then there is not need for the word _agnostic_.

Secondly, if Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods, Atheists would not be so adamant in attacking those that do believe in  gods.  There would be no need to ridicule them.  Their verbal attacks and ridicule of believers in gods are simple defense mechanisms...defending their belief that the gods do not exist.  Were it simply a lack of belief, there would be no motive for the constant cajoling and ridicule.  If they had no beliefs concerning gods there would be no reason to harass someone that did.

Definitions on blog pages are unreliable in that the blogger was either an Atheist or someone that would oppose Atheism.  It is their biased opinion. I rather like to depend on dictionaries for definitions.

*athe·ism*
_noun_ \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\

1
_archaic_ *:* ungodliness, wickedness
2
_a_ *:*  a disbelief in the existence of deity

_b_ *:* * the doctrine that there is no deity *


*1ag·nos·tic*
_noun_ \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something



With the above definitions, what the Atheists here are calling themselves is agnostic...not a religion.

What I call Atheism ^^^^^ defined above ^^^^ is A RELIGION based upon faith in the belief that God does not exist!






BTW, you might want to correct this sentence in your post:



			
				Emily said:
			
		

> Anyone with knowledge of logic understands that God *can neither be proven nor proven*, but both assertions are based on faith.



I'd at least put a _dis_ in there somewhere!  Also, I would have used _proved and disproved_  ! 
A thing that has been proved is a proven thing!


----------



## PratchettFan

emilynghiem said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> My parents were Christians.  I went to Sunday school, learned Jesus Loves Me, did finger paintings of the cross, etc.  Around the age of 9 or 10 I actually stopped and listened to what was being said and, for the first time in my life, grasped what it was being said.  I was stunned.  I could not then and to this day cannot understand why anyone would believe it.  It is incomprehensible to me.  Not the concepts of Christianity but that anyone would believe those concepts for a second.  I am a non-Christian in the same way my wife is a non-smoker.  I have never believed.  However, in reading the posts of the various Atheists on this board I see people who were Christians into their 40's, attending religious schools, etc.  They are ex-Christians in the same way I am an ex-smoker.  So they get the attraction of it and that makes it a personal threat.
> 
> So of course it has to be non-belief, because otherwise they might be engaging in the same behavior they have rejected.  The problem is that belief is a human thing, not a Christian thing.  We are a species of believers.  If we weren't we never would have developed the scientific method.  The irony is that this need for it to be non-belief is what is turning Atheism into a religion.  If I just say I believe there is no God, that stops it right there.  Let's go play some golf.  It is this insistence that some narrow definition be followed and evidence be ignored in order to match that definition which creates the religious aspect.  *It's not about the belief, its all about the behavior.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear PratchettFan where "belief" affects the "behavior" is if you believe there is truth or justice in advance, based on faith, then you are more likely to take steps toward achieving that.
> 
> If you don't have faith, such as sealybobo has no faith that the process of spiritual healing can be proven universal,
> or you have no faith that people can agree on the meaning of God,
> what motivation do you have to push that process forward? If you do not even see it is possible?
> 
> So how can we even work toward a goal if to us it isn't even a viable option or possibility?
> 
> Do you see how faith or belief makes a difference?
> 
> If you have no faith that the democratic process can civilly correct problems in govt,
> would you be more likely to abuse violence to force your way?
> 
> On the other hand, if you believe that Restorative Justice is the way that humanity
> is meant to approach reforms, so all social and political changes occur freely by informed consent
> and voluntary collaboration, doesn't that faith change how we speak and act toward others especially adversaries?
Click to expand...


I don't believe in justice - restorative or otherwise.  Truth is merely that which is and is utterly neutral.  If someone shoots me in the back of the head, that is truth.

You seem to be looking for some sort of coming together.  Not only do I not believe that is practical, I believe it would be destructive.  Conflict is good.  Disagreement is good.  As in anything, moderation is the key.  But there is no growth without a little bit of shit on the ground.


----------



## asaratis

PratchettFan said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> My parents were Christians.  I went to Sunday school, learned Jesus Loves Me, did finger paintings of the cross, etc.  Around the age of 9 or 10 I actually stopped and listened to what was being said and, for the first time in my life, grasped what it was being said.  I was stunned.  I could not then and to this day cannot understand why anyone would believe it.  It is incomprehensible to me.  Not the concepts of Christianity but that anyone would believe those concepts for a second.  I am a non-Christian in the same way my wife is a non-smoker.  I have never believed.  However, in reading the posts of the various Atheists on this board I see people who were Christians into their 40's, attending religious schools, etc.  They are ex-Christians in the same way I am an ex-smoker.  So they get the attraction of it and that makes it a personal threat.
> 
> So of course it has to be non-belief, because otherwise they might be engaging in the same behavior they have rejected.  The problem is that belief is a human thing, not a Christian thing.  We are a species of believers.  If we weren't we never would have developed the scientific method.  The irony is that this need for it to be non-belief is what is turning Atheism into a religion.  If I just say I believe there is no God, that stops it right there.  Let's go play some golf.  It is this insistence that some narrow definition be followed and evidence be ignored in order to match that definition which creates the religious aspect.  *It's not about the belief, its all about the behavior.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear PratchettFan where "belief" affects the "behavior" is if you believe there is truth or justice in advance, based on faith, then you are more likely to take steps toward achieving that.
> 
> If you don't have faith, such as sealybobo has no faith that the process of spiritual healing can be proven universal,
> or you have no faith that people can agree on the meaning of God,
> what motivation do you have to push that process forward? If you do not even see it is possible?
> 
> So how can we even work toward a goal if to us it isn't even a viable option or possibility?
> 
> Do you see how faith or belief makes a difference?
> 
> If you have no faith that the democratic process can civilly correct problems in govt,
> would you be more likely to abuse violence to force your way?
> 
> On the other hand, if you believe that Restorative Justice is the way that humanity
> is meant to approach reforms, so all social and political changes occur freely by informed consent
> and voluntary collaboration, doesn't that faith change how we speak and act toward others especially adversaries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe in justice - restorative or otherwise.  Truth is merely that which is and is utterly neutral.  If someone shoots me in the back of the head, that is truth.
> 
> You seem to be looking for some sort of coming together.  Not only do I not believe that is practical, I believe it would be destructive.  Conflict is good.  Disagreement is good.  As in anything, moderation is the key.  But there is no growth without a little bit of shit on the ground.
Click to expand...

I agree to a degree!  It would be no fun if we all thought the same....


I think I'll go have a single malt.


----------



## emilynghiem

Great points, asaratis, I agree with what you're saying!

I see the solution to this is to explain that Buddhists, and Atheists who don't BELIEVE there is no God but DON'T BELIEVE there is one, are NONTHEIST in their approach. This can include Atheists who are really Agnostic, and not argue about it.
The main point is to agree the common factor is taking a NONTHEISTIC or "secular" approach as opposed to religious.

As for Atheists who rally against theists or theism,  I would call that ANTI-THEIST.

Technically the prefix "a-" is supposed to mean "without" but is used to mean "against" which "anti-" is more clearly for.

So instead of arguing if ALL or MOST "Atheists" are X Y or Z type,
let's just agree to call them terms that describe the different approaches
* Atheist
* Nontheist
* Anti-theist
And at least we can agree which cases we are talking about.

Instead of arguing over the use of one word "Atheist" to mean these three different levels.

NOTE: I have Atheist friends who truly are Nontheist and Atheist in their beliefs but are NOT anti-theist.
They do not go around actively preaching against theists or theism, but will only defend their views if attacked for them,
same as anyone else.

I do believe the issue of TRUE "Atheism" can be resolved as we reach agreement on these points.
and more and more people will agree they fall under NONTHEISM and fewer and fewer will really fit what a true Atheist is.

Thanks, Asaratis! You and PrachettFan are great at making astute objective points that explain the differences here.

QuantumWindbag and Pogo also make good points if they weren't so busy jumping on each other. Underneath the business of "talking past each other" and causing insult to each other's intelligence, I see good points and just the typical failure to communicate without getting confused in conflict that happens online when we can't hear each other in person, and have to rely on trial and error to sort it out. Thanks!



asaratis said:


> Yes, I can easily distinguish the differences between A and B above.
> 
> The definition of Atheism is definitely in dispute.  That is why we're having this disagreement about whether Atheism is a religion or not. Atheists claim that they simply do not believe there are gods.  Others, such as I claim that Atheists believe there are no gods.  Quite a difference exists there.  I consider the correct definition of Atheism to be a belief that gods do not exist.
> 
> If the less active version is accepted (that Atheism is simply lack of belief in gods) then all babies and Buddhists are Athests...a completely unacceptable position.
> 
> If Atheism is accepted to mean simply a lack of belief in gods, then there is not need for the word _agnostic_.
> 
> Secondly, if Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods, Atheists would not be so adamant in attacking those that do believe in  gods.  There would be no need to ridicule them.  Their verbal attacks and ridicule of believers in gods are simple defense mechanisms...defending their belief that the gods do not exist.  Were it simply a lack of belief, there would be no motive for the constant cajoling and ridicule.  If they had no beliefs concerning gods there would be no reason to harass someone that did.
> 
> Definitions on blog pages are unreliable in that the blogger was either an Atheist or someone that would oppose Atheism.  It is their biased opinion. I rather like to depend on dictionaries for definitions.
> 
> *athe·ism*
> _noun_ \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
> 
> 1
> _archaic_ *:* ungodliness, wickedness
> 2
> _a_ *:*  a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> _b_ *:* * the doctrine that there is no deity *
> 
> 
> *1ag·nos·tic*
> _noun_ \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
> : a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not
> 
> : a person who does not believe or is unsure of something
> 
> 
> 
> With the above definitions, what the Atheists here are calling themselves is agnostic...not a religion.
> 
> What I call Atheism ^^^^^ defined above ^^^^ is A RELIGION based upon faith in the belief that God does not exist!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, you might want to correct this sentence in your post:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emily said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with knowledge of logic understands that God *can neither be proven nor proven*, but both assertions are based on faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd at least put a _dis_ in there somewhere!  Also, I would have used _proved and disproved_  !
> A thing that has been proved is a proven thing!
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

PratchettFan said:


> I don't believe in justice - restorative or otherwise.  Truth is merely that which is and is utterly neutral.  If someone shoots me in the back of the head, that is truth.
> 
> You seem to be looking for some sort of coming together.  Not only do I not believe that is practical, I believe it would be destructive.  Conflict is good.  Disagreement is good.  As in anything, moderation is the key.  But there is no growth without a little bit of shit on the ground.



OK but not conflict for the sake of conflict. I don't see any sense in having excess drama over a nonissue, if it can be resolved in a sensible way that satisfies the interests of all parties.

What do you believe should take place after a conflict, abuse or crime occurs?

Don't you agree that by establishing the truth of what happened, and what it takes to repair the fault or damage,
and who owes what, then there is a sense of justice and restoring good faith relations if those people work out a plan
for correction, prevention or even restitution to satisfy the needs of the people involved?

What do you can that process if you do not call it making peace by establishing truth and justice?


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi Quantuam: I don't see any need to call someone an idiot for what they believe.

Even if it is not GENETIC that people are born gay or transgendered,
I have no issue or argument against people being SPIRITUALLY born the way they are.

Like trying to prove or disprove God, if you believe people are born SPIRITUALLY to be certain ways
and/or experience certain relations or CHANGES in life, then all that can be seen as God's plan and cannot be argued.

By definition, whatever happens would be defined to be God's truth or plan, because that will being supreme decides all things. So it is already written how the story of life will play out, and the characters in the story for the action to carry through.

I don't think anyone is an idiot for believe either that all people born gay or transgendered COULD go through healing or change.

If you are going to criticize people for thinking "ALL people are naturally the way they are and cannot change,"
are you going to equally criticize people of thinking "ALL people can change their orientation from gay to straight"?

Why criticize anyone? Why not just work with the understanding that
SOME people may be born gay, straight or transgendered for Spiritual reasons (not necessarily genetic or environmental)
SOME people may change but some may not

If people do not believe, know or understand how some cases can be one way and some the other,
that is likely because they have not known or interacted with someone who demonstrated that case to them.

How does it make someone an idiot if they just haven't seen any cases that make this real to them?

Don't I have the right to see a living example as proof that someone was "born gay and not meant to change,"
before believing that is possible? How can you judge someone for not believing in something if they haven't seen proof?



Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I try to point this out to theists who are anti gay who say being gay is a choice.  I try to explain to them that what they just said is only true for them.  So in a way anyone who thinks being gay is a choice, whether they know it or not, is a bi sexual.  They may choose not to sleep with the same sex, but to them not doing so is a choice.  Maybe because their church, society and parents told them it was wrong but regardless, they are a bi who chooses to be straight.
> 
> Now as me if I could ever choose another man.  Answer is no.
> 
> Now ask Richard Simmons if he could ever be with a woman.
> 
> The gays who get guilted into pretending to be straight, like Michelle bachman's husband, he is probably a bi who leans way to the gay.  Or he is only fooling himself.  It is possible he's a self loathing full on gay  who's convinced if he goes gay he'll go to hell so he says in a sexless marriage with Michelle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me?
> 
> I have pointd out, multiple times, that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that indicates that sexual preference is hard wired into people. I have also provided scientific evidence that free will exists, irrefutable evidence that sexual preference is not genetic, and challenged anyone to provide any evidence that something else somehow forces people to be gay. No one, including you, has ever provided a single shred of any tyoe of scientific evidence that proves we cannnot make a choice when it comes to who we like, yet you insist that it is true because you prefer to believe it rather than accept the science that contradicts you.
> 
> That is no different than the idiots that insist that evolution is not real, which means you are also an idiot. If you disagree about your idiocy, feel free to start yet another thread claiming that there is proof that sexual preference is not a choice.
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

BTW Open Questions if anyone wants to answer:
If Atheist beliefs can count as a religion without being centered around a deity or system of laws of how things in the world work or came to be,
can these beliefs count as a religion:

* Belief that health care is a right and govt is THE WAY to manage public health
(if teaching Jesus is the THE WAY to truth and God, what about people who
substitute GOVT as THE WAY to justice for all)

* Belief in Global Warming
(if teaching that the world is geocentric or heliocentric was made to be religious,
aren't current arguments for or against Global Warming
as heated as beliefs for or against God?)

Lastly, if we are going to treat secular or political beliefs
DIFFERENTLY from religious beliefs,
how is this fair to people who do not defend themselves using an organized religion or party?

HOw can we guarantee equal freedom and equal protection from discrimination by creed
if SOME people's religions count as protected
and some do not?

To be equal, shouldn't ALL beliefs or creeds be respected and protected equally for
that person, and neither infringe nor impose, neither mandate by govt nor exclude?

Isn't it Discriminatory to call one set of beliefs a protected religion while
allowing another set to be pushed through govt as law because of the majority that voted on it?

any answers or discussion on this,
in light of atheism argued as a religion or not a religion.


----------



## Pogo

I really need to be work-prepping and leaving this alone but one final pass...



asaratis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Asaratis! I think you hit on what the issue is.
> 
> A. If you define Atheism as the BELIEF there is no god(s) period. As an absolute that is either proven or is true without being proven, etc. you are RIGHT that is a belief and people who share this belief share a religion.
> 
> B. However, some people do not BELIEVE "there is no god" but just don't BELIEVE in looking at the world that way through the language and symbolism of a personified God. So this is different from BELIEVING there is NOT something.
> 
> Can we agree to call this a NONTHEISTIC approach, where it is NOT a religion.
> 
> So A is like if you speak Spanish as your primary language in which you think your thoughts,
> then you are a Spanish speaker and that is your LANGUAGE.
> 
> And B is like if you do NOT speak Spanish then you are a non-Spanish speaker and it is NOT your language.
> *That doesn't mean "nonspanish" is your "language" because it is a general term for any language that isn't Spanish.*
> 
> ...<snip>...
> 
> Asaratis, are you okay with distinguishing the difference between A and B?
> 
> ...<snip>...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I can easily distinguish the differences between A and B above.
> 
> The definition of Atheism is definitely in dispute.  That is why we're having this disagreement about whether Atheism is a religion or not. Atheists claim that they simply do not believe there are gods.  Others, such as I claim that Atheists believe there are no gods.  Quite a difference exists there.  I consider the correct definition of Atheism to be a belief that gods do not exist.
Click to expand...


I don't see where you've drawn a distinction here.  ("you" meaning Asaratis -- I DO see Emily's distinction).  I think you've muddied it.



asaratis said:


> If the less active version is accepted (that Atheism is simply lack of belief in gods) then all babies and Buddhists are Athests...a completely unacceptable position.



(this may be vital) -- WHY is it unacceptable?

We've already established and alluded to nontheistic religions, including Buddhism -- someone disputed that one IIRC but never did execute an exception, nevertheless we have others (Taoism and Jainism were also mentioned). And of course babies have not had the suggestion put in their heads.  So why are these atheists "unacceptable"?



asaratis said:


> If Atheism is accepted to mean simply a lack of belief in gods, then there is not need for the word _agnostic_.



Arguably so, yes.  In actual practice, proving a nonexistence being impossible, a true "atheist" in a strict definition could not exist.



asaratis said:


> Secondly, if Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods, Atheists would not be so adamant in attacking those that do believe in  gods.  There would be no need to ridicule them.  Their verbal attacks and ridicule of believers in gods are simple defense mechanisms...defending their belief that the gods do not exist.  Were it simply a lack of belief, there would be no motive for the constant cajoling and ridicule.  If they had no beliefs concerning gods there would be no reason to harass someone that did.



Sigh -- we're back to this strawman again.  Can you quote for us where anyone's "attacking those who do believe in gods"?  I mean real ones -- QuackumNutbag doesn't count, he attacks everybody.  But who legitimate has launched such "attacks"?  This "harassment"?   This "cajoling"?  This "ridicule"?  I've been here from the start and have yet to see it.

Leavng aside the strawman (i.e. even if this were happening), it still doesn't provide any basis for a definition as "religion" -- that would be nothing more than partisan attack.  It should be painfully obvious that goes on every day on every topic having zero to do with any kind of religion --- nor is that what "religion" means in anybody's definition anyway.  So the point is moot.




asaratis said:


> Definitions on blog pages are unreliable in that the blogger was either an Atheist or someone that would oppose Atheism.  It is their biased opinion. I rather like to depend on dictionaries for definitions.
> 
> *athe·ism*
> _noun_ \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
> 
> 1
> _archaic_ *:* ungodliness, wickedness
> 2
> _a_ *:*  a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> _b_ *:* * the doctrine that there is no deity *
> 
> 
> *1ag·nos·tic*
> _noun_ \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
> : a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not
> 
> : a person who does not believe or is unsure of something
> 
> With the above definitions, what the Atheists here are calling themselves is agnostic...not a religion.
> 
> 
> What I call Atheism ^^^^^ defined above ^^^^ is A RELIGION based upon faith in the belief that God does not exist!



Except that (1) we've already seen that dictionary definitions vary in reliability  and clarity, some even contradicting themselves, and (2) even the one you picked above still doesn't define atheism (or agnosticism) as a "religion".  You just plugged that in yourself.  On your own after the fact.

We still don't know _why _you need to plug that in, but none of these definitions meet the criteria for a "religion" anyway, even if we go with the above definition.  There's still no belief-framework to _exercise _in the practice of a "religion" -- i.e. a belief system to address the supernatural, the cosmic Mysteries.

Whether you have a simple empty space in your head where theism would be but isn't, or whether you actively, adamantly, disbelieve it and swear up and down there's no such thing as "god" (theoretical level 7), in _either _case what are you going to *DO* with that nonpresent belief?

There is nothing you _can_ do with nothing.  You have no basis for a religion.  All you have is a non-foundation for theism, so you can't be a theist.  But this only tells us what you can't be, not what you can.  Yet the Buddhist/Taoist/Jainist/etc DOES have actionable beliefs without theism -- because they _*do*_ have religion -- which simply does not _require _theism to operate.

I get the feeling that the reminder point made way upthread that theism and religion are two different things, never quite "took".


----------



## MaryL

Religions are tax exempt, is atheism? I never bothered to ask that before. If it isn't, should it be? Or, should religion be tax exempt at all?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

emilynghiem said:


> Hi Quantuam: I don't see any need to call someone an idiot for what they believe.



I am not calling them an idiot for what they believe, I am calling them idiots for denying facts.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

MaryL said:


> Religions are tax exempt, is atheism? I never bothered to ask that before. If it isn't, should it be? Or, should religion be tax exempt at all?



It is when it organizes as a religion.


----------



## Pogo

MaryL said:


> Religions are tax exempt, is atheism? I never bothered to ask that before. If it isn't, should it be? Or, should religion be tax exempt at all?



That may be where Emily's trying to go with the tangents on government.  And it certainly seems to be why that atheist "church" brought up earlier, seems to exist -- to address a legalistic disparity.

After all if the local authorities declare only churches get exemptions and privileges, then atheists will call themselves a "church" to get by the legal limitation.  Just as if the local authorities say only men may attend stonings...

​


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Quantuam: I don't see any need to call someone an idiot for what they believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not calling them an idiot for what they believe, I am calling them idiots for denying facts.
Click to expand...


As if there's a difference...


----------



## asaratis

MaryL said:


> Religions are tax exempt, is atheism? I never bothered to ask that before. If it isn't, should it be? Or, should religion be tax exempt at all?


It is the churches of religious groups that are tax exempt, not the religion per se. Since Atheism has been classified as a religion by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, any Atheist churches formed should be tax exempt.


----------



## asaratis

emilynghiem said:


> BTW Open Questions if anyone wants to answer:
> If Atheist beliefs can count as a religion without being centered around a deity or system of laws of how things in the world work or came to be,
> *can these beliefs count as a religion:*
> 
> ** Belief that health care is a right and govt is THE WAY to manage public health*
> ...<snip>...
> 
> ** Belief in Global Warming*
> ...<snip>...


No and no.

IMHO, the preface of your question is misstated.  Atheism concerns a deity (the belief that none exist).  If deities do exist, they are supernatural as they could not have been created  by man and they apparently do not exist in nature.

Whether Atheism is a religion or not has nothing to do with whether the other two things (belief that health care is a right and belief in global warming) can be counted as religions.

Whether health care is a right and whether government is the best way to manage it are political questions and have nothing to do with deities.

Global warming is measurable, subject to scientific study and has nothing to do with deities.  Whether global warming is caused by man or controllable by man are both subject to debate but still do not relate to deities.

Beliefs regarding deities constitute religions solely because deities are supernatural, if they exist.  Beliefs regarding other things may be either opinions or accepted facts.


----------



## Pogo

asaratis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW Open Questions if anyone wants to answer:
> If Atheist beliefs can count as a religion without being centered around a deity or system of laws of how things in the world work or came to be,
> *can these beliefs count as a religion:*
> 
> ** Belief that health care is a right and govt is THE WAY to manage public health*
> ...<snip>...
> 
> ** Belief in Global Warming*
> ...<snip>...
> 
> 
> 
> No and no.
> 
> IMHO, the preface of your question is misstated.  Atheism concerns a deity (the belief that none exist).  If deities do exist, they are supernatural as they could not have been created  by man and they apparently do not exist in nature.
> 
> Whether Atheism is a religion or not has nothing to do with whether the other two things (belief that health care is a right and belief in global warming) can be counted as religions.
Click to expand...


Completely agree.



asaratis said:


> Whether health care is a right and whether government is the best way to manage it are political questions and have nothing to do with deities.



Completely agree.



asaratis said:


> Global warming is measurable, subject to scientific study and has nothing to do with deities.  Whether global warming is caused by man or controllable by man are both subject to debate but still do not relate to deities.



Completely agree.



asaratis said:


> Beliefs regarding deities constitute religions solely because deities are supernatural, if they exist.  Beliefs regarding other things may be either opinions or accepted facts.



Can't agree.  Simply that they concern supernatural beings is not enough to constitute a "religion".  Science fiction and horror films can also concern supernatural beings.  But they have no belief structure to offer as a guide.  Nor does atheism.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> That may be where Emily's trying to go with the tangents on government.  And it certainly seems to be why that atheist "church" brought up earlier, seems to exist -- to address a legalistic disparity.
> 
> After all if the local authorities declare only churches get exemptions and privileges, then atheists will call themselves a "church" to get by the legal limitation.  Just as if the local authorities say only men may attend stonings...
> 
> ​



You just insist on being stupid, don't you?

There are dozens of ways to get tax exemptions like churches do, it there weren't no museum in this country would be tax exempt.

In other words, the only real reason to declare your organization a church or a religion is because you want to.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> As if there's a difference...



I am sure you don't see the difference, but anyone with the ability to look at the facts and realize they were wrong about something will see it. Which, by the way, I specifically referenced idiots who reuse to accept evolution.


----------



## Tuatara

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> *
> number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.*
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?


Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief. I don't belive in unicorns. That is not a belief. Seriously, think about what you write.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Tuatara said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> *
> number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.*
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, *Since when did a non belief equal a belief.* I don't belive in unicorns. That is not a belief. Seriously, think about what you write.
Click to expand...

Since theists wanted to drag those free from faith into their irrational realm of fantasy and myths.


----------



## asaratis

Pogo said:


> ...<snip>...
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beliefs regarding deities constitute religions solely because deities are supernatural, if they exist.  Beliefs regarding other things may be either opinions or accepted facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't agree.  Simply that they concern supernatural beings is not enough to constitute a "religion".  Science fiction and horror films can also concern supernatural beings.  But they have no belief structure to offer as a guide.  Nor does atheism.
Click to expand...

Disagree.

Firstly, I did not mean to imply that all supernatural things are deities.  However,  I did mean to imply that all deities would be supernatural....and that beliefs concerning deities would constitute religions....not to imply that belief in other supernatural things would constitute a religion.

Secondly, we are talking specifically about "belief in things", not the things per se.

A deity would not be a religion.  Belief regarding that deity would be a religion.


Science fiction and horror films may indeed present images of contrived supernatural things and happenings, but they are not supernatural per se.  They are constructs of man.

I'm not sure what you mean by "belief structure to offer as a guide".


----------



## asaratis

Tuatara said:


> ...<snip>...
> 
> Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief.* I don't believe in unicorns. That is not a belief.* Seriously, think about what you write.



It implies that you have a belief that unicorns do not exist.  It is not a non-belief.


----------



## PratchettFan

emilynghiem said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in justice - restorative or otherwise.  Truth is merely that which is and is utterly neutral.  If someone shoots me in the back of the head, that is truth.
> 
> You seem to be looking for some sort of coming together.  Not only do I not believe that is practical, I believe it would be destructive.  Conflict is good.  Disagreement is good.  As in anything, moderation is the key.  But there is no growth without a little bit of shit on the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK but not conflict for the sake of conflict. I don't see any sense in having excess drama over a nonissue, if it can be resolved in a sensible way that satisfies the interests of all parties.
> 
> What do you believe should take place after a conflict, abuse or crime occurs?
> 
> Don't you agree that by establishing the truth of what happened, and what it takes to repair the fault or damage,
> and who owes what, then there is a sense of justice and restoring good faith relations if those people work out a plan
> for correction, prevention or even restitution to satisfy the needs of the people involved?
> 
> What do you can that process if you do not call it making peace by establishing truth and justice?
Click to expand...

 
Yes.  Conflict for the sake of conflict.  Preferably not to the point of violence, but some excess drama over a nonissue is, at the very least, cathartic.  It need not be resolved and probably won't be resolved.  It doesn't have to be resolved and no one has to be satisfied.  Sometimes just getting the opportunity to have your say is satisfaction aplenty.

What I think should happen after conflict, abuse or crime is probably not something most people would agree with, which only generates more conflict.  However, I will tell you I think does happen.... more conflict, abuse and crime.  Welcome to the human race.

Truth and justice?  Do you think the people in the background of this picture didn't believe in truth and justice?


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It wasn't.  Calling it an apple did not make it an apple.  That is what I have been saying to you.  Calling a belief a non-belief does not make it a non-belief.  Perhaps it would have been more direct if rather than saying "I'm an apple" it just said "I'm not a banana".  Either way it's the same.  If the definition does not fit reality, it is the definition that's wrong.  If the definition is held out as correct despite reality, then it is dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi PratchettFan: Can I ask you to look at my reply to Asaratis and maybe help restate that better if you can?
> 
> Do you agree we'd be better to make a distinction between:
> 
> A. Atheism as a BELIEF there absolutely is NO god or gods, with or without proof, period.
> And acknowledge this is very rare, as most people will admit they are actually agnostic and don't know for sure
> since we could be wrong, or what we think or know could change, etc.
> 
> B. Nontheism as not a belief but a general description of people or systems that don't personify God
> but view and describe Life and the World in SECULAR terms or natural laws without religious symbolism
> 
> Why argue about A if so few people really fit this category,
> and most are either B or transition in that direction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't argue either.  I think attempting to narrowly define an entire group is both pointless and dogmatic.  And, to be frank, I don't think there are any non-theists currently on this board.  At least none that are posting anything.  It isn't about definitions, it is about behavior.  Let me expand on that and I warn you it might get a bit wordy, but it also deals with this question that was brought up earlier as to just what is in it for us.
> 
> My wife is a non-smoker.  By that I mean she has never so much as taken a single drag on a cigarette.  She understands all of the bad stuff that can happen, but having never smoked she has no concept at all of the good stuff.  I started smoking about two weeks into my first tour in Vietnam.  I put out my last cigarette at 11:59 pm 12/31/1979.  I am an ex-smoker, not a non-smoker.  If my wife were to take a drag it would only confirm for her that she doesn't smoke.  If I were to take a drag I would be at two packs a day within a week.  As an ex-smoker I not only understand what is bad but also what is good about smoking.  I get the attraction.  Therefore, I see cigarettes as a direct threat to me while my wife sees them as an annoyance.
> 
> My parents were Christians.  I went to Sunday school, learned Jesus Loves Me, did finger paintings of the cross, etc.  Around the age of 9 or 10 I actually stopped and listened to what was being said and, for the first time in my life, grasped what it was being said.  I was stunned.  I could not then and to this day cannot understand why anyone would believe it.  It is incomprehensible to me.  Not the concepts of Christianity but that anyone would believe those concepts for a second.  I am a non-Christian in the same way my wife is a non-smoker.  I have never believed.  However, in reading the posts of the various Atheists on this board I see people who were Christians into their 40's, attending religious schools, etc.  They are ex-Christians in the same way I am an ex-smoker.  So they get the attraction of it and that makes it a personal threat.
> 
> So of course it has to be non-belief, because otherwise they might be engaging in the same behavior they have rejected.  The problem is that belief is a human thing, not a Christian thing.  We are a species of believers.  If we weren't we never would have developed the scientific method.  The irony is that this need for it to be non-belief is what is turning Atheism into a religion.  If I just say I believe there is no God, that stops it right there.  Let's go play some golf.  It is this insistence that some narrow definition be followed and evidence be ignored in order to match that definition which creates the religious aspect.  It's not about the belief, its all about the behavior.
Click to expand...



Back when you could smoke in restaurants, did you tell the hostess that you'd like to sit in the ex-smoking section, or the non-smoking section? 

Giving up religion is not like quitting smoking or giving up alcohol. You don't go through withdrawals, and there's no need to attend 12 step meetings for the rest of your life.

You're turning this into more than it has to be.

Some gay men get married because they were taught it's the norm. There are countless stories of gay men divorcing their wives, in order to lead a happier life in a gay relationship. These men are not bisexual, they are gay.  

You can call yourself an ex smoker if you want, but you will still be sitting in the non smoking section.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It wasn't.  Calling it an apple did not make it an apple.  That is what I have been saying to you.  Calling a belief a non-belief does not make it a non-belief.  Perhaps it would have been more direct if rather than saying "I'm an apple" it just said "I'm not a banana".  Either way it's the same.  If the definition does not fit reality, it is the definition that's wrong.  If the definition is held out as correct despite reality, then it is dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi PratchettFan: Can I ask you to look at my reply to Asaratis and maybe help restate that better if you can?
> 
> Do you agree we'd be better to make a distinction between:
> 
> A. Atheism as a BELIEF there absolutely is NO god or gods, with or without proof, period.
> And acknowledge this is very rare, as most people will admit they are actually agnostic and don't know for sure
> since we could be wrong, or what we think or know could change, etc.
> 
> B. Nontheism as not a belief but a general description of people or systems that don't personify God
> but view and describe Life and the World in SECULAR terms or natural laws without religious symbolism
> 
> Why argue about A if so few people really fit this category,
> and most are either B or transition in that direction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't argue either.  I think attempting to narrowly define an entire group is both pointless and dogmatic.  And, to be frank, I don't think there are any non-theists currently on this board.  At least none that are posting anything.  It isn't about definitions, it is about behavior.  Let me expand on that and I warn you it might get a bit wordy, but it also deals with this question that was brought up earlier as to just what is in it for us.
> 
> My wife is a non-smoker.  By that I mean she has never so much as taken a single drag on a cigarette.  She understands all of the bad stuff that can happen, but having never smoked she has no concept at all of the good stuff.  I started smoking about two weeks into my first tour in Vietnam.  I put out my last cigarette at 11:59 pm 12/31/1979.  I am an ex-smoker, not a non-smoker.  If my wife were to take a drag it would only confirm for her that she doesn't smoke.  If I were to take a drag I would be at two packs a day within a week.  As an ex-smoker I not only understand what is bad but also what is good about smoking.  I get the attraction.  Therefore, I see cigarettes as a direct threat to me while my wife sees them as an annoyance.
> 
> My parents were Christians.  I went to Sunday school, learned Jesus Loves Me, did finger paintings of the cross, etc.  Around the age of 9 or 10 I actually stopped and listened to what was being said and, for the first time in my life, grasped what it was being said.  I was stunned.  I could not then and to this day cannot understand why anyone would believe it.  It is incomprehensible to me.  Not the concepts of Christianity but that anyone would believe those concepts for a second.  I am a non-Christian in the same way my wife is a non-smoker.  I have never believed.  However, in reading the posts of the various Atheists on this board I see people who were Christians into their 40's, attending religious schools, etc.  They are ex-Christians in the same way I am an ex-smoker.  So they get the attraction of it and that makes it a personal threat.
> 
> So of course it has to be non-belief, because otherwise they might be engaging in the same behavior they have rejected.  The problem is that belief is a human thing, not a Christian thing.  We are a species of believers.  If we weren't we never would have developed the scientific method.  The irony is that this need for it to be non-belief is what is turning Atheism into a religion.  If I just say I believe there is no God, that stops it right there.  Let's go play some golf.  It is this insistence that some narrow definition be followed and evidence be ignored in order to match that definition which creates the religious aspect.  It's not about the belief, its all about the behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back when you could smoke in restaurants, did you tell the hostess that you'd like to sit in the ex-smoking section, or the non-smoking section?
> 
> Giving up religion is not like quitting smoking or giving up alcohol. You don't go through withdrawals, and there's no need to attend 12 step meetings for the rest of your life.
> 
> You're turning this into more than it has to be.
> 
> Some gay men get married because they were taught it's the norm. There are countless stories of gay men divorcing their wives, in order to lead a happier life in a gay relationship. These men are not bisexual, they are gay.
> 
> You can call yourself an ex smoker if you want, but you will still be sitting in the non smoking section.
Click to expand...

 
I'm not the one turning it into more than it has to be.  It is the people who absolutely insist that a particular definition must be adhered to no matter how contrary it might be to reality.  They are the ones creating this dogma.  I am just laying out a possible reason why.  Another reason is that given the degree of indoctrination of religion they have had they tend to bring that same mindset to Atheism.  As I have said, only Atheists can turn Atheism into a religion. 

The claim has been made repeatedly that Atheism is the absence of belief.  Dawkins says someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, and that is certainly a belief.  I have asked on multiple occasions if Dawkins is wrong and while I have gotten some tap dancing on the question, not a single person has yet answered it.  Not a one.  Why?  Because it is a conflict which can't be resolved.  Either Dawkins (the person whose scale you are using) is wrong or the definition is wrong and the dogma is such that neither can be wrong.  So you all just pretend the question isn't there.  You can't just say "It is God's will" so you don't say anything at all. 

Atheism is a belief and it can't be anything but a belief.  But by insisting upon this absurd position that it is an absence of belief, you are turning it into a religion.  Don't blame the rest of us.  It is all you.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It wasn't.  Calling it an apple did not make it an apple.  That is what I have been saying to you.  Calling a belief a non-belief does not make it a non-belief.  Perhaps it would have been more direct if rather than saying "I'm an apple" it just said "I'm not a banana".  Either way it's the same.  If the definition does not fit reality, it is the definition that's wrong.  If the definition is held out as correct despite reality, then it is dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi PratchettFan: Can I ask you to look at my reply to Asaratis and maybe help restate that better if you can?
> 
> Do you agree we'd be better to make a distinction between:
> 
> A. Atheism as a BELIEF there absolutely is NO god or gods, with or without proof, period.
> And acknowledge this is very rare, as most people will admit they are actually agnostic and don't know for sure
> since we could be wrong, or what we think or know could change, etc.
> 
> B. Nontheism as not a belief but a general description of people or systems that don't personify God
> but view and describe Life and the World in SECULAR terms or natural laws without religious symbolism
> 
> Why argue about A if so few people really fit this category,
> and most are either B or transition in that direction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't argue either.  I think attempting to narrowly define an entire group is both pointless and dogmatic.  And, to be frank, I don't think there are any non-theists currently on this board.  At least none that are posting anything.  It isn't about definitions, it is about behavior.  Let me expand on that and I warn you it might get a bit wordy, but it also deals with this question that was brought up earlier as to just what is in it for us.
> 
> My wife is a non-smoker.  By that I mean she has never so much as taken a single drag on a cigarette.  She understands all of the bad stuff that can happen, but having never smoked she has no concept at all of the good stuff.  I started smoking about two weeks into my first tour in Vietnam.  I put out my last cigarette at 11:59 pm 12/31/1979.  I am an ex-smoker, not a non-smoker.  If my wife were to take a drag it would only confirm for her that she doesn't smoke.  If I were to take a drag I would be at two packs a day within a week.  As an ex-smoker I not only understand what is bad but also what is good about smoking.  I get the attraction.  Therefore, I see cigarettes as a direct threat to me while my wife sees them as an annoyance.
> 
> My parents were Christians.  I went to Sunday school, learned Jesus Loves Me, did finger paintings of the cross, etc.  Around the age of 9 or 10 I actually stopped and listened to what was being said and, for the first time in my life, grasped what it was being said.  I was stunned.  I could not then and to this day cannot understand why anyone would believe it.  It is incomprehensible to me.  Not the concepts of Christianity but that anyone would believe those concepts for a second.  I am a non-Christian in the same way my wife is a non-smoker.  I have never believed.  However, in reading the posts of the various Atheists on this board I see people who were Christians into their 40's, attending religious schools, etc.  They are ex-Christians in the same way I am an ex-smoker.  So they get the attraction of it and that makes it a personal threat.
> 
> So of course it has to be non-belief, because otherwise they might be engaging in the same behavior they have rejected.  The problem is that belief is a human thing, not a Christian thing.  We are a species of believers.  If we weren't we never would have developed the scientific method.  The irony is that this need for it to be non-belief is what is turning Atheism into a religion.  If I just say I believe there is no God, that stops it right there.  Let's go play some golf.  It is this insistence that some narrow definition be followed and evidence be ignored in order to match that definition which creates the religious aspect.  It's not about the belief, its all about the behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back when you could smoke in restaurants, did you tell the hostess that you'd like to sit in the ex-smoking section, or the non-smoking section?
> 
> Giving up religion is not like quitting smoking or giving up alcohol. You don't go through withdrawals, and there's no need to attend 12 step meetings for the rest of your life.
> 
> You're turning this into more than it has to be.
> 
> Some gay men get married because they were taught it's the norm. There are countless stories of gay men divorcing their wives, in order to lead a happier life in a gay relationship. These men are not bisexual, they are gay.
> 
> You can call yourself an ex smoker if you want, but you will still be sitting in the non smoking section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one turning it into more than it has to be.  It is the people who absolutely insist that a particular definition must be adhered to no matter how contrary it might be to reality.  They are the ones creating this dogma.  I am just laying out a possible reason why.  Another reason is that given the degree of indoctrination of religion they have had they tend to bring that same mindset to Atheism.  As I have said, only Atheists can turn Atheism into a religion.
> 
> The claim has been made repeatedly that Atheism is the absence of belief.  Dawkins says someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, and that is certainly a belief.  I have asked on multiple occasions if Dawkins is wrong and while I have gotten some tap dancing on the question, not a single person has yet answered it.  Not a one.  Why?  Because it is a conflict which can't be resolved.  Either Dawkins (the person whose scale you are using) is wrong or the definition is wrong and the dogma is such that neither can be wrong.  So you all just pretend the question isn't there.  You can't just say "It is God's will" so you don't say anything at all.
> 
> Atheism is a belief and it can't be anything but a belief.  But by insisting upon this absurd position that it is an absence of belief, you are turning it into a religion.  Don't blame the rest of us.  It is all you.
Click to expand...




No, actually it is you, because it is what it is. There is no dogma in atheism. No, atheist cannot turn atheism into a religion, because it's not one. 

There's no tuning a non religious person into a religious person.  You are the one attempting to do that, because you keep saying something is, that isn't.


----------



## Derideo_Te

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion
> 
> 
> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith *
> 
> *number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.*
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?
Click to expand...


Have you ever noticed that you can't define these "beliefs" that you erroneously allege that atheists have?

Do you even know what the definition of the term belief?

Did you even think through what you were posting before you hit reply?

Did you understand that you would assume the onus of having to prove not only these "beliefs" but that atheists actually have them?

So now that you have covered your face with egg how do you intend to wipe it off?


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It wasn't.  Calling it an apple did not make it an apple.  That is what I have been saying to you.  Calling a belief a non-belief does not make it a non-belief.  Perhaps it would have been more direct if rather than saying "I'm an apple" it just said "I'm not a banana".  Either way it's the same.  If the definition does not fit reality, it is the definition that's wrong.  If the definition is held out as correct despite reality, then it is dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi PratchettFan: Can I ask you to look at my reply to Asaratis and maybe help restate that better if you can?
> 
> Do you agree we'd be better to make a distinction between:
> 
> A. Atheism as a BELIEF there absolutely is NO god or gods, with or without proof, period.
> And acknowledge this is very rare, as most people will admit they are actually agnostic and don't know for sure
> since we could be wrong, or what we think or know could change, etc.
> 
> B. Nontheism as not a belief but a general description of people or systems that don't personify God
> but view and describe Life and the World in SECULAR terms or natural laws without religious symbolism
> 
> Why argue about A if so few people really fit this category,
> and most are either B or transition in that direction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't argue either.  I think attempting to narrowly define an entire group is both pointless and dogmatic.  And, to be frank, I don't think there are any non-theists currently on this board.  At least none that are posting anything.  It isn't about definitions, it is about behavior.  Let me expand on that and I warn you it might get a bit wordy, but it also deals with this question that was brought up earlier as to just what is in it for us.
> 
> My wife is a non-smoker.  By that I mean she has never so much as taken a single drag on a cigarette.  She understands all of the bad stuff that can happen, but having never smoked she has no concept at all of the good stuff.  I started smoking about two weeks into my first tour in Vietnam.  I put out my last cigarette at 11:59 pm 12/31/1979.  I am an ex-smoker, not a non-smoker.  If my wife were to take a drag it would only confirm for her that she doesn't smoke.  If I were to take a drag I would be at two packs a day within a week.  As an ex-smoker I not only understand what is bad but also what is good about smoking.  I get the attraction.  Therefore, I see cigarettes as a direct threat to me while my wife sees them as an annoyance.
> 
> My parents were Christians.  I went to Sunday school, learned Jesus Loves Me, did finger paintings of the cross, etc.  Around the age of 9 or 10 I actually stopped and listened to what was being said and, for the first time in my life, grasped what it was being said.  I was stunned.  I could not then and to this day cannot understand why anyone would believe it.  It is incomprehensible to me.  Not the concepts of Christianity but that anyone would believe those concepts for a second.  I am a non-Christian in the same way my wife is a non-smoker.  I have never believed.  However, in reading the posts of the various Atheists on this board I see people who were Christians into their 40's, attending religious schools, etc.  They are ex-Christians in the same way I am an ex-smoker.  So they get the attraction of it and that makes it a personal threat.
> 
> So of course it has to be non-belief, because otherwise they might be engaging in the same behavior they have rejected.  The problem is that belief is a human thing, not a Christian thing.  We are a species of believers.  If we weren't we never would have developed the scientific method.  The irony is that this need for it to be non-belief is what is turning Atheism into a religion.  If I just say I believe there is no God, that stops it right there.  Let's go play some golf.  It is this insistence that some narrow definition be followed and evidence be ignored in order to match that definition which creates the religious aspect.  It's not about the belief, its all about the behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back when you could smoke in restaurants, did you tell the hostess that you'd like to sit in the ex-smoking section, or the non-smoking section?
> 
> Giving up religion is not like quitting smoking or giving up alcohol. You don't go through withdrawals, and there's no need to attend 12 step meetings for the rest of your life.
> 
> You're turning this into more than it has to be.
> 
> Some gay men get married because they were taught it's the norm. There are countless stories of gay men divorcing their wives, in order to lead a happier life in a gay relationship. These men are not bisexual, they are gay.
> 
> You can call yourself an ex smoker if you want, but you will still be sitting in the non smoking section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one turning it into more than it has to be.  It is the people who absolutely insist that a particular definition must be adhered to no matter how contrary it might be to reality.  They are the ones creating this dogma.  I am just laying out a possible reason why.  Another reason is that given the degree of indoctrination of religion they have had they tend to bring that same mindset to Atheism.  As I have said, only Atheists can turn Atheism into a religion.
> 
> The claim has been made repeatedly that Atheism is the absence of belief.  Dawkins says someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, and that is certainly a belief.  I have asked on multiple occasions if Dawkins is wrong and while I have gotten some tap dancing on the question, not a single person has yet answered it.  Not a one.  Why?  Because it is a conflict which can't be resolved.  Either Dawkins (the person whose scale you are using) is wrong or the definition is wrong and the dogma is such that neither can be wrong.  So you all just pretend the question isn't there.  You can't just say "It is God's will" so you don't say anything at all.
> 
> Atheism is a belief and it can't be anything but a belief.  But by insisting upon this absurd position that it is an absence of belief, you are turning it into a religion.  Don't blame the rest of us.  It is all you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually it is you, because it is what it is. There is no dogma in atheism. No, atheist cannot turn atheism into a religion, because it's not one.
> 
> There's no tuning a non religious person into a religious person.  You are the one attempting to do that, because you keep saying something is, that isn't.
Click to expand...

 
An excellent example of dogma in practice.  You responded to none of my points, just kept repeating the dogma.  But let's try again...  Is Dawkins wrong or is the definition wrong?


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...<snip>...
> 
> Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief.* I don't believe in unicorns. That is not a belief.* Seriously, think about what you write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It implies that you have a belief that unicorns do not exist.  It is not a non-belief.
Click to expand...




That means Tuatara no longer follows the Unicornist doctrine, and is not affiliated with the Unicorn Church.  He/she does not share the unrealistic belief in Unicorns. Tuatara in now an Unicorneist. There is no doctrine for Unicorneism.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi PratchettFan: Can I ask you to look at my reply to Asaratis and maybe help restate that better if you can?
> 
> Do you agree we'd be better to make a distinction between:
> 
> A. Atheism as a BELIEF there absolutely is NO god or gods, with or without proof, period.
> And acknowledge this is very rare, as most people will admit they are actually agnostic and don't know for sure
> since we could be wrong, or what we think or know could change, etc.
> 
> B. Nontheism as not a belief but a general description of people or systems that don't personify God
> but view and describe Life and the World in SECULAR terms or natural laws without religious symbolism
> 
> Why argue about A if so few people really fit this category,
> and most are either B or transition in that direction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't argue either.  I think attempting to narrowly define an entire group is both pointless and dogmatic.  And, to be frank, I don't think there are any non-theists currently on this board.  At least none that are posting anything.  It isn't about definitions, it is about behavior.  Let me expand on that and I warn you it might get a bit wordy, but it also deals with this question that was brought up earlier as to just what is in it for us.
> 
> My wife is a non-smoker.  By that I mean she has never so much as taken a single drag on a cigarette.  She understands all of the bad stuff that can happen, but having never smoked she has no concept at all of the good stuff.  I started smoking about two weeks into my first tour in Vietnam.  I put out my last cigarette at 11:59 pm 12/31/1979.  I am an ex-smoker, not a non-smoker.  If my wife were to take a drag it would only confirm for her that she doesn't smoke.  If I were to take a drag I would be at two packs a day within a week.  As an ex-smoker I not only understand what is bad but also what is good about smoking.  I get the attraction.  Therefore, I see cigarettes as a direct threat to me while my wife sees them as an annoyance.
> 
> My parents were Christians.  I went to Sunday school, learned Jesus Loves Me, did finger paintings of the cross, etc.  Around the age of 9 or 10 I actually stopped and listened to what was being said and, for the first time in my life, grasped what it was being said.  I was stunned.  I could not then and to this day cannot understand why anyone would believe it.  It is incomprehensible to me.  Not the concepts of Christianity but that anyone would believe those concepts for a second.  I am a non-Christian in the same way my wife is a non-smoker.  I have never believed.  However, in reading the posts of the various Atheists on this board I see people who were Christians into their 40's, attending religious schools, etc.  They are ex-Christians in the same way I am an ex-smoker.  So they get the attraction of it and that makes it a personal threat.
> 
> So of course it has to be non-belief, because otherwise they might be engaging in the same behavior they have rejected.  The problem is that belief is a human thing, not a Christian thing.  We are a species of believers.  If we weren't we never would have developed the scientific method.  The irony is that this need for it to be non-belief is what is turning Atheism into a religion.  If I just say I believe there is no God, that stops it right there.  Let's go play some golf.  It is this insistence that some narrow definition be followed and evidence be ignored in order to match that definition which creates the religious aspect.  It's not about the belief, its all about the behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back when you could smoke in restaurants, did you tell the hostess that you'd like to sit in the ex-smoking section, or the non-smoking section?
> 
> Giving up religion is not like quitting smoking or giving up alcohol. You don't go through withdrawals, and there's no need to attend 12 step meetings for the rest of your life.
> 
> You're turning this into more than it has to be.
> 
> Some gay men get married because they were taught it's the norm. There are countless stories of gay men divorcing their wives, in order to lead a happier life in a gay relationship. These men are not bisexual, they are gay.
> 
> You can call yourself an ex smoker if you want, but you will still be sitting in the non smoking section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one turning it into more than it has to be.  It is the people who absolutely insist that a particular definition must be adhered to no matter how contrary it might be to reality.  They are the ones creating this dogma.  I am just laying out a possible reason why.  Another reason is that given the degree of indoctrination of religion they have had they tend to bring that same mindset to Atheism.  As I have said, only Atheists can turn Atheism into a religion.
> 
> The claim has been made repeatedly that Atheism is the absence of belief.  Dawkins says someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, and that is certainly a belief.  I have asked on multiple occasions if Dawkins is wrong and while I have gotten some tap dancing on the question, not a single person has yet answered it.  Not a one.  Why?  Because it is a conflict which can't be resolved.  Either Dawkins (the person whose scale you are using) is wrong or the definition is wrong and the dogma is such that neither can be wrong.  So you all just pretend the question isn't there.  You can't just say "It is God's will" so you don't say anything at all.
> 
> Atheism is a belief and it can't be anything but a belief.  But by insisting upon this absurd position that it is an absence of belief, you are turning it into a religion.  Don't blame the rest of us.  It is all you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually it is you, because it is what it is. There is no dogma in atheism. No, atheist cannot turn atheism into a religion, because it's not one.
> 
> There's no tuning a non religious person into a religious person.  You are the one attempting to do that, because you keep saying something is, that isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An excellent example of dogma in practice.  You responded to none of my points, just kept repeating the dogma.  But let's try again...  Is Dawkins wrong or is the definition wrong?
Click to expand...




I think the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.  There is no dogma, there is no set of principles.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't argue either.  I think attempting to narrowly define an entire group is both pointless and dogmatic.  And, to be frank, I don't think there are any non-theists currently on this board.  At least none that are posting anything.  It isn't about definitions, it is about behavior.  Let me expand on that and I warn you it might get a bit wordy, but it also deals with this question that was brought up earlier as to just what is in it for us.
> 
> My wife is a non-smoker.  By that I mean she has never so much as taken a single drag on a cigarette.  She understands all of the bad stuff that can happen, but having never smoked she has no concept at all of the good stuff.  I started smoking about two weeks into my first tour in Vietnam.  I put out my last cigarette at 11:59 pm 12/31/1979.  I am an ex-smoker, not a non-smoker.  If my wife were to take a drag it would only confirm for her that she doesn't smoke.  If I were to take a drag I would be at two packs a day within a week.  As an ex-smoker I not only understand what is bad but also what is good about smoking.  I get the attraction.  Therefore, I see cigarettes as a direct threat to me while my wife sees them as an annoyance.
> 
> My parents were Christians.  I went to Sunday school, learned Jesus Loves Me, did finger paintings of the cross, etc.  Around the age of 9 or 10 I actually stopped and listened to what was being said and, for the first time in my life, grasped what it was being said.  I was stunned.  I could not then and to this day cannot understand why anyone would believe it.  It is incomprehensible to me.  Not the concepts of Christianity but that anyone would believe those concepts for a second.  I am a non-Christian in the same way my wife is a non-smoker.  I have never believed.  However, in reading the posts of the various Atheists on this board I see people who were Christians into their 40's, attending religious schools, etc.  They are ex-Christians in the same way I am an ex-smoker.  So they get the attraction of it and that makes it a personal threat.
> 
> So of course it has to be non-belief, because otherwise they might be engaging in the same behavior they have rejected.  The problem is that belief is a human thing, not a Christian thing.  We are a species of believers.  If we weren't we never would have developed the scientific method.  The irony is that this need for it to be non-belief is what is turning Atheism into a religion.  If I just say I believe there is no God, that stops it right there.  Let's go play some golf.  It is this insistence that some narrow definition be followed and evidence be ignored in order to match that definition which creates the religious aspect.  It's not about the belief, its all about the behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back when you could smoke in restaurants, did you tell the hostess that you'd like to sit in the ex-smoking section, or the non-smoking section?
> 
> Giving up religion is not like quitting smoking or giving up alcohol. You don't go through withdrawals, and there's no need to attend 12 step meetings for the rest of your life.
> 
> You're turning this into more than it has to be.
> 
> Some gay men get married because they were taught it's the norm. There are countless stories of gay men divorcing their wives, in order to lead a happier life in a gay relationship. These men are not bisexual, they are gay.
> 
> You can call yourself an ex smoker if you want, but you will still be sitting in the non smoking section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one turning it into more than it has to be.  It is the people who absolutely insist that a particular definition must be adhered to no matter how contrary it might be to reality.  They are the ones creating this dogma.  I am just laying out a possible reason why.  Another reason is that given the degree of indoctrination of religion they have had they tend to bring that same mindset to Atheism.  As I have said, only Atheists can turn Atheism into a religion.
> 
> The claim has been made repeatedly that Atheism is the absence of belief.  Dawkins says someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, and that is certainly a belief.  I have asked on multiple occasions if Dawkins is wrong and while I have gotten some tap dancing on the question, not a single person has yet answered it.  Not a one.  Why?  Because it is a conflict which can't be resolved.  Either Dawkins (the person whose scale you are using) is wrong or the definition is wrong and the dogma is such that neither can be wrong.  So you all just pretend the question isn't there.  You can't just say "It is God's will" so you don't say anything at all.
> 
> Atheism is a belief and it can't be anything but a belief.  But by insisting upon this absurd position that it is an absence of belief, you are turning it into a religion.  Don't blame the rest of us.  It is all you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually it is you, because it is what it is. There is no dogma in atheism. No, atheist cannot turn atheism into a religion, because it's not one.
> 
> There's no tuning a non religious person into a religious person.  You are the one attempting to do that, because you keep saying something is, that isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An excellent example of dogma in practice.  You responded to none of my points, just kept repeating the dogma.  But let's try again...  Is Dawkins wrong or is the definition wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.  There is no dogma, there is no set of principles.
Click to expand...

 
You see?  Tap dancing but not answering the question.  The definition means Dawkins is wrong, it excludes you from being an Atheist, and you still won't question it.

dog·ma
*noun* \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back when you could smoke in restaurants, did you tell the hostess that you'd like to sit in the ex-smoking section, or the non-smoking section?
> 
> Giving up religion is not like quitting smoking or giving up alcohol. You don't go through withdrawals, and there's no need to attend 12 step meetings for the rest of your life.
> 
> You're turning this into more than it has to be.
> 
> Some gay men get married because they were taught it's the norm. There are countless stories of gay men divorcing their wives, in order to lead a happier life in a gay relationship. These men are not bisexual, they are gay.
> 
> You can call yourself an ex smoker if you want, but you will still be sitting in the non smoking section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one turning it into more than it has to be.  It is the people who absolutely insist that a particular definition must be adhered to no matter how contrary it might be to reality.  They are the ones creating this dogma.  I am just laying out a possible reason why.  Another reason is that given the degree of indoctrination of religion they have had they tend to bring that same mindset to Atheism.  As I have said, only Atheists can turn Atheism into a religion.
> 
> The claim has been made repeatedly that Atheism is the absence of belief.  Dawkins says someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, and that is certainly a belief.  I have asked on multiple occasions if Dawkins is wrong and while I have gotten some tap dancing on the question, not a single person has yet answered it.  Not a one.  Why?  Because it is a conflict which can't be resolved.  Either Dawkins (the person whose scale you are using) is wrong or the definition is wrong and the dogma is such that neither can be wrong.  So you all just pretend the question isn't there.  You can't just say "It is God's will" so you don't say anything at all.
> 
> Atheism is a belief and it can't be anything but a belief.  But by insisting upon this absurd position that it is an absence of belief, you are turning it into a religion.  Don't blame the rest of us.  It is all you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually it is you, because it is what it is. There is no dogma in atheism. No, atheist cannot turn atheism into a religion, because it's not one.
> 
> There's no tuning a non religious person into a religious person.  You are the one attempting to do that, because you keep saying something is, that isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An excellent example of dogma in practice.  You responded to none of my points, just kept repeating the dogma.  But let's try again...  Is Dawkins wrong or is the definition wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.  There is no dogma, there is no set of principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  Tap dancing but not answering the question.  The definition means Dawkins is wrong, it excludes you from being an Atheist, and you still won't question it.
> 
> dog·ma
> *noun* \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
> : a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
Click to expand...



That's where you're wrong.  I was an atheist long before I looked at Dawkins examples and nothing has changed. That Dawkins list is just an example, it's neither right or wrong.  That list is in no way or form a set of beliefs. Again, the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one turning it into more than it has to be.  It is the people who absolutely insist that a particular definition must be adhered to no matter how contrary it might be to reality.  They are the ones creating this dogma.  I am just laying out a possible reason why.  Another reason is that given the degree of indoctrination of religion they have had they tend to bring that same mindset to Atheism.  As I have said, only Atheists can turn Atheism into a religion.
> 
> The claim has been made repeatedly that Atheism is the absence of belief.  Dawkins says someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, and that is certainly a belief.  I have asked on multiple occasions if Dawkins is wrong and while I have gotten some tap dancing on the question, not a single person has yet answered it.  Not a one.  Why?  Because it is a conflict which can't be resolved.  Either Dawkins (the person whose scale you are using) is wrong or the definition is wrong and the dogma is such that neither can be wrong.  So you all just pretend the question isn't there.  You can't just say "It is God's will" so you don't say anything at all.
> 
> Atheism is a belief and it can't be anything but a belief.  But by insisting upon this absurd position that it is an absence of belief, you are turning it into a religion.  Don't blame the rest of us.  It is all you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually it is you, because it is what it is. There is no dogma in atheism. No, atheist cannot turn atheism into a religion, because it's not one.
> 
> There's no tuning a non religious person into a religious person.  You are the one attempting to do that, because you keep saying something is, that isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An excellent example of dogma in practice.  You responded to none of my points, just kept repeating the dogma.  But let's try again...  Is Dawkins wrong or is the definition wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.  There is no dogma, there is no set of principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  Tap dancing but not answering the question.  The definition means Dawkins is wrong, it excludes you from being an Atheist, and you still won't question it.
> 
> dog·ma
> *noun* \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
> : a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's where you're wrong.  I was an atheist long before I looked at Dawkins examples and nothing has changed. That Dawkins list is just an example, it's neither right or wrong.  That list is in no way or form a set of beliefs. Again, the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.
Click to expand...


The mindless insistence that atheism must be a "religion" reflects poorly on the comprehension of those who are making that allegation. They don't even understand the terminology they use. Responding to their posts is an exercise in futility because they are incapable of learning. They have a fixed mindset that everything must fit into. Their mental straightjacket is their problem in my opinion.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one turning it into more than it has to be.  It is the people who absolutely insist that a particular definition must be adhered to no matter how contrary it might be to reality.  They are the ones creating this dogma.  I am just laying out a possible reason why.  Another reason is that given the degree of indoctrination of religion they have had they tend to bring that same mindset to Atheism.  As I have said, only Atheists can turn Atheism into a religion.
> 
> The claim has been made repeatedly that Atheism is the absence of belief.  Dawkins says someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, and that is certainly a belief.  I have asked on multiple occasions if Dawkins is wrong and while I have gotten some tap dancing on the question, not a single person has yet answered it.  Not a one.  Why?  Because it is a conflict which can't be resolved.  Either Dawkins (the person whose scale you are using) is wrong or the definition is wrong and the dogma is such that neither can be wrong.  So you all just pretend the question isn't there.  You can't just say "It is God's will" so you don't say anything at all.
> 
> Atheism is a belief and it can't be anything but a belief.  But by insisting upon this absurd position that it is an absence of belief, you are turning it into a religion.  Don't blame the rest of us.  It is all you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually it is you, because it is what it is. There is no dogma in atheism. No, atheist cannot turn atheism into a religion, because it's not one.
> 
> There's no tuning a non religious person into a religious person.  You are the one attempting to do that, because you keep saying something is, that isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An excellent example of dogma in practice.  You responded to none of my points, just kept repeating the dogma.  But let's try again...  Is Dawkins wrong or is the definition wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.  There is no dogma, there is no set of principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  Tap dancing but not answering the question.  The definition means Dawkins is wrong, it excludes you from being an Atheist, and you still won't question it.
> 
> dog·ma
> *noun* \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
> : a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's where you're wrong.  I was an atheist long before I looked at Dawkins examples and nothing has changed. That Dawkins list is just an example, it's neither right or wrong.  That list is in no way or form a set of beliefs. Again, the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.
Click to expand...

 
Still not responding to the question.  The definition of Atheism being presented is that Atheism is an absence of belief.  You have clearly shown you do not have an absence of belief.  Ergo, you are not an Atheist.  Dawkins' list indicates someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, which is most certainly a belief.  Ergo, Dawkins is wrong.  You are faced with a definition which is in direct conflict with the facts and you will not question it. 

dog·ma
*noun* \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted


----------



## PratchettFan

Derideo_Te said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually it is you, because it is what it is. There is no dogma in atheism. No, atheist cannot turn atheism into a religion, because it's not one.
> 
> There's no tuning a non religious person into a religious person.  You are the one attempting to do that, because you keep saying something is, that isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An excellent example of dogma in practice.  You responded to none of my points, just kept repeating the dogma.  But let's try again...  Is Dawkins wrong or is the definition wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.  There is no dogma, there is no set of principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  Tap dancing but not answering the question.  The definition means Dawkins is wrong, it excludes you from being an Atheist, and you still won't question it.
> 
> dog·ma
> *noun* \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
> : a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's where you're wrong.  I was an atheist long before I looked at Dawkins examples and nothing has changed. That Dawkins list is just an example, it's neither right or wrong.  That list is in no way or form a set of beliefs. Again, the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mindless insistence that atheism must be a "religion" reflects poorly on the comprehension of those who are making that allegation. They don't even understand the terminology they use. Responding to their posts is an exercise in futility because they are incapable of learning. They have a fixed mindset that everything must fit into. Their mental straightjacket is their problem in my opinion.
Click to expand...

 
This level of irony could throw off a compass.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually it is you, because it is what it is. There is no dogma in atheism. No, atheist cannot turn atheism into a religion, because it's not one.
> 
> There's no tuning a non religious person into a religious person.  You are the one attempting to do that, because you keep saying something is, that isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An excellent example of dogma in practice.  You responded to none of my points, just kept repeating the dogma.  But let's try again...  Is Dawkins wrong or is the definition wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.  There is no dogma, there is no set of principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  Tap dancing but not answering the question.  The definition means Dawkins is wrong, it excludes you from being an Atheist, and you still won't question it.
> 
> dog·ma
> *noun* \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
> : a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's where you're wrong.  I was an atheist long before I looked at Dawkins examples and nothing has changed. That Dawkins list is just an example, it's neither right or wrong.  That list is in no way or form a set of beliefs. Again, the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still not responding to the question.  The definition of Atheism being presented is that Atheism is an absence of belief.  You have clearly shown you do not have an absence of belief.  Ergo, you are not an Atheist.  Dawkins' list indicates someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, which is most certainly a belief.  Ergo, Dawkins is wrong.  You are faced with a definition which is in direct conflict with the facts and you will not question it.
> 
> dog·ma
> *noun* \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
> : a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
Click to expand...



That's complete BS, and useless blabber. You don't get to define who or what I am.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> An excellent example of dogma in practice.  You responded to none of my points, just kept repeating the dogma.  But let's try again...  Is Dawkins wrong or is the definition wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.  There is no dogma, there is no set of principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  Tap dancing but not answering the question.  The definition means Dawkins is wrong, it excludes you from being an Atheist, and you still won't question it.
> 
> dog·ma
> *noun* \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
> : a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's where you're wrong.  I was an atheist long before I looked at Dawkins examples and nothing has changed. That Dawkins list is just an example, it's neither right or wrong.  That list is in no way or form a set of beliefs. Again, the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still not responding to the question.  The definition of Atheism being presented is that Atheism is an absence of belief.  You have clearly shown you do not have an absence of belief.  Ergo, you are not an Atheist.  Dawkins' list indicates someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, which is most certainly a belief.  Ergo, Dawkins is wrong.  You are faced with a definition which is in direct conflict with the facts and you will not question it.
> 
> dog·ma
> *noun* \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
> : a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's complete BS, and useless blabber. You don't get to define who or what I am.
Click to expand...

 
I am applying the definition you have accepted to the words you have written.  It's not my fault you don't fit the definition.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.  There is no dogma, there is no set of principles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see?  Tap dancing but not answering the question.  The definition means Dawkins is wrong, it excludes you from being an Atheist, and you still won't question it.
> 
> dog·ma
> *noun* \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
> : a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's where you're wrong.  I was an atheist long before I looked at Dawkins examples and nothing has changed. That Dawkins list is just an example, it's neither right or wrong.  That list is in no way or form a set of beliefs. Again, the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still not responding to the question.  The definition of Atheism being presented is that Atheism is an absence of belief.  You have clearly shown you do not have an absence of belief.  Ergo, you are not an Atheist.  Dawkins' list indicates someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, which is most certainly a belief.  Ergo, Dawkins is wrong.  You are faced with a definition which is in direct conflict with the facts and you will not question it.
> 
> dog·ma
> *noun* \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
> : a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's complete BS, and useless blabber. You don't get to define who or what I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am applying the definition you have accepted to the words you have written.  It's not my fault you don't fit the definition.
Click to expand...




You're making shit up as you go along.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see?  Tap dancing but not answering the question.  The definition means Dawkins is wrong, it excludes you from being an Atheist, and you still won't question it.
> 
> dog·ma
> *noun* \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
> : a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's where you're wrong.  I was an atheist long before I looked at Dawkins examples and nothing has changed. That Dawkins list is just an example, it's neither right or wrong.  That list is in no way or form a set of beliefs. Again, the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still not responding to the question.  The definition of Atheism being presented is that Atheism is an absence of belief.  You have clearly shown you do not have an absence of belief.  Ergo, you are not an Atheist.  Dawkins' list indicates someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, which is most certainly a belief.  Ergo, Dawkins is wrong.  You are faced with a definition which is in direct conflict with the facts and you will not question it.
> 
> dog·ma
> *noun* \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
> : a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's complete BS, and useless blabber. You don't get to define who or what I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am applying the definition you have accepted to the words you have written.  It's not my fault you don't fit the definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making shit up as you go along.
Click to expand...

 
Really.  Which part isn't true?  Did you not say you think it is probable there is no God (I am number 6)?  Do you disagree with the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief?


----------



## Carla_Danger




----------



## Derideo_Te

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see?  Tap dancing but not answering the question.  The definition means Dawkins is wrong, it excludes you from being an Atheist, and you still won't question it.
> 
> dog·ma
> *noun* \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
> : a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's where you're wrong.  I was an atheist long before I looked at Dawkins examples and nothing has changed. That Dawkins list is just an example, it's neither right or wrong.  That list is in no way or form a set of beliefs. Again, the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still not responding to the question.  The definition of Atheism being presented is that Atheism is an absence of belief.  You have clearly shown you do not have an absence of belief.  Ergo, you are not an Atheist.  Dawkins' list indicates someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, which is most certainly a belief.  Ergo, Dawkins is wrong.  You are faced with a definition which is in direct conflict with the facts and you will not question it.
> 
> dog·ma
> *noun* \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
> : a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's complete BS, and useless blabber. You don't get to define who or what I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am applying the definition you have accepted to the words you have written.  It's not my fault you don't fit the definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making shit up as you go along.
Click to expand...


Which is why I said that responding is futile to those incapable of learning. The Cyberia function works wonders. The ignorant are ignored which is as it should be and their made up shit doesn't even show up at all.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's where you're wrong.  I was an atheist long before I looked at Dawkins examples and nothing has changed. That Dawkins list is just an example, it's neither right or wrong.  That list is in no way or form a set of beliefs. Again, the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still not responding to the question.  The definition of Atheism being presented is that Atheism is an absence of belief.  You have clearly shown you do not have an absence of belief.  Ergo, you are not an Atheist.  Dawkins' list indicates someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, which is most certainly a belief.  Ergo, Dawkins is wrong.  You are faced with a definition which is in direct conflict with the facts and you will not question it.
> 
> dog·ma
> *noun* \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
> : a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's complete BS, and useless blabber. You don't get to define who or what I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am applying the definition you have accepted to the words you have written.  It's not my fault you don't fit the definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making shit up as you go along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really.  Which part isn't true?  Did you not say you think it is probable there is no God (I am number 6)?  Do you disagree with the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief?
Click to expand...




Derideo_Te said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's where you're wrong.  I was an atheist long before I looked at Dawkins examples and nothing has changed. That Dawkins list is just an example, it's neither right or wrong.  That list is in no way or form a set of beliefs. Again, the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still not responding to the question.  The definition of Atheism being presented is that Atheism is an absence of belief.  You have clearly shown you do not have an absence of belief.  Ergo, you are not an Atheist.  Dawkins' list indicates someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, which is most certainly a belief.  Ergo, Dawkins is wrong.  You are faced with a definition which is in direct conflict with the facts and you will not question it.
> 
> dog·ma
> *noun* \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
> : a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's complete BS, and useless blabber. You don't get to define who or what I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am applying the definition you have accepted to the words you have written.  It's not my fault you don't fit the definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making shit up as you go along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why I said that responding is futile to those incapable of learning. The Cyberia function works wonders. The ignorant are ignored which is as it should be and their made up shit doesn't even show up at all.
Click to expand...




And there are 51 pages that prove you are correct.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


>


 
So we are back to pretending the questions aren't there.


----------



## Carla_Danger

[QUOTE="PratchettFan, post: 9828388, member: 37752"
Really.  Which part isn't true?  Did you not say you think it is probable there is no God (I am number 6)?  Do you disagree with the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief?[/QUOTE]





I don't know why you're so fixated with that Dawkins list.  I just happened to come across it online. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm right in between a 5 and a 6.

     5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.                        6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable                                 and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.


----------



## emilynghiem

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...<snip>...
> 
> Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief.* I don't believe in unicorns. That is not a belief.* Seriously, think about what you write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It implies that you have a belief that unicorns do not exist.  It is not a non-belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That means Tuatara no longer follows the Unicornist doctrine, and is not affiliated with the Unicorn Church.  He/she does not share the unrealistic belief in Unicorns. Tuatara in now an Unicorneist. There is no doctrine for Unicorneism.
Click to expand...


Hi Carla_Danger:
Again, I see there are MULTIPLE types, not just either/or.
I will look up this Dawkins list and see if that is what my other Atheist friend used to explain
there were different TYPES of Atheist beliefs, similar to denominations in religion and politics.

To make a simple analogy, let's look at Democrats vs. liberals.

Some people argue Liberalism is a religion, a belief and movement.
Fine, that's what it looks like to those people and there is a collective "agenda or influence" 
in the "liberal media" that does seem to have a direction of its own.
You can blame it on Liberalism or Commercial media or whatever that pushes this trend.

Now, let's consider the FORMAL organized and registered Democrat PARTY.
Yes, this party has published principles, which include and Expressly State
the BELIEF that "health care is a right".  So I see and say this is a Political Religion.

The Liberalism in the media is not a formal religion and cannot be traced to any one group.

The Democrat Party principles are written and can be shown to contain
the terms WE BELIEVE that health care is a right.

Now let's also consider the independent liberals running around
who are neither controlling the Liberal bias in the media, nor are formal
members or leaders of the Democrat Party.

Can we have ALL THREE going on?
This loose unnamed "liberalism" in the media going on whatever you call it or blame it on.

The FORMAL Democrat party that is prochoice yet pushes health care through govt as a mandate.
Whatever.

And the informal liberal thinkers not affiliated directly with either one.

Can you see why some people will say that all that is combined as one political religious movement?
And others will say, hell no, I am NOT connected with the Democrats, I'm an independent
and don't AGREE with what the liberal politicians are doing!

So we have Greens, atheists, independents, anarchists and socialists
who are NOT party of the Democrat elite defining this "liberal media" and "agenda"
BLAMES on "ALL LIBERALS" under "Liberalism."

Isn't the same thing true with atheists?
Some are part of organizations that do publicly lobby to push some agenda.
So what.
That does not mean all atheists believe or do that!

So there are different levels and we don't have to waste
time arguing that these are all part of "one big movement"
based on only certain people or groups, when in fact
there are many "liberals" not associated or in agreement
with the "liberalism" seen in the media or pushed by the formally organized Democrat party.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> [QUOTE="PratchettFan, post: 9828388, member: 37752"
> Really.  Which part isn't true?  Did you not say you think it is probable there is no God (I am number 6)?  Do you disagree with the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief?


 




I don't know why you're so fixated with that Dawkins list.  I just happened to come across it online. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm right in between a 5 and a 6.

     5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.                        6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable                                 and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.[/QUOTE]

And once again, not answering the questions.  You said I was making shit up and I asked you to point out where.  You presented the list, not me.  Don't blame me for what you did.  You said you were a 6 and I took you at your word.  Don't blame me if you didn't mean it.  I have asked you if the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief and you have never once said it isn't.  In fact, you have never yet acknowledged the question.

Did you say you were a 6 on the Dawkins scale?  yes or no
Do you agree the definition of Atheism is an absence of belief?  yes or no

I'll bet I don't get an answer.  Please prove me wrong.


----------



## Derideo_Te

emilynghiem said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...<snip>...
> 
> Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief.* I don't believe in unicorns. That is not a belief.* Seriously, think about what you write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It implies that you have a belief that unicorns do not exist.  It is not a non-belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That means Tuatara no longer follows the Unicornist doctrine, and is not affiliated with the Unicorn Church.  He/she does not share the unrealistic belief in Unicorns. Tuatara in now an Unicorneist. There is no doctrine for Unicorneism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Carla_Danger:
> Again, I see there are MULTIPLE types, not just either/or.
> I will look up this Dawkins list and see if that is what my other Atheist friend used to explain
> there were different TYPES of Atheist beliefs, similar to denominations in religion and politics.
> 
> To make a simple analogy, let's look at Democrats vs. liberals.
> 
> Some people argue Liberalism is a religion, a belief and movement.
> Fine, that's what it looks like to those people and there is a collective "agenda or influence"
> in the "liberal media" that does seem to have a direction of its own.
> You can blame it on Liberalism or Commercial media or whatever that pushes this trend.
> 
> Now, let's consider the FORMAL organized and registered Democrat PARTY.
> Yes, this party has published principles, which include and Expressly State
> the BELIEF that "health care is a right".  So I see and say this is a Political Religion.
> 
> The Liberalism in the media is not a formal religion and cannot be traced to any one group.
> 
> The Democrat Party principles are written and can be shown to contain
> the terms WE BELIEVE that health care is a right.
> 
> Now let's also consider the independent liberals running around
> who are neither controlling the Liberal bias in the media, nor are formal
> members or leaders of the Democrat Party.
> 
> Can we have ALL THREE going on?
> This loose unnamed "liberalism" in the media going on whatever you call it or blame it on.
> 
> The FORMAL Democrat party that is prochoice yet pushes health care through govt as a mandate.
> Whatever.
> 
> And the informal liberal thinkers not affiliated directly with either one.
> 
> Can you see why some people will say that all that is combined as one political religious movement?
> And others will say, hell no, I am NOT connected with the Democrats, I'm an independent
> and don't AGREE with what the liberal politicians are doing!
> 
> So we have Greens, atheists, independents, anarchists and socialists
> who are NOT party of the Democrat elite defining this "liberal media" and "agenda"
> BLAMES on "ALL LIBERALS" under "Liberalism."
> 
> Isn't the same thing true with atheists?
> Some are part of organizations that do publicly lobby to push some agenda.
> So what.
> That does not mean all atheists believe or do that!
> 
> So there are different levels and we don't have to waste
> time arguing that these are all part of "one big movement"
> based on only certain people or groups, when in fact
> there are many "liberals" not associated or in agreement
> with the "liberalism" seen in the media or pushed by the formally organized Democrat party.
Click to expand...


You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="PratchettFan, post: 9828388, member: 37752"
> Really.  Which part isn't true?  Did you not say you think it is probable there is no God (I am number 6)?  Do you disagree with the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why you're so fixated with that Dawkins list.  I just happened to come across it online. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm right in between a 5 and a 6.
> 
> 5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.                        6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable                                 and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
Click to expand...


And once again, not answering the questions.  You said I was making shit up and I asked you to point out where.  You presented the list, not me.  Don't blame me for what you did.  You said you were a 6 and I took you at your word.  Don't blame me if you didn't mean it.  I have asked you if the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief and you have never once said it isn't.  In fact, you have never yet acknowledged the question.

Did you say you were a 6 on the Dawkins scale?  yes or no
Do you agree the definition of Atheism is an absence of belief?  yes or no

I'll bet I don't get an answer.  Please prove me wrong.[/QUOTE]


You're asking for something that isn't black and white, as you'd hoped.  Yes, I did say I was a 6, but now I think I'm between a 5 and 6, because this Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far. The Dawkins list is not going to fit every atheist like a glove, because all atheist are different.  No, I do not agree that the definition of atheism is an absence of belief.  I think it's a disbelief or doubt that there is a God/God's.


----------



## Carla_Danger

emilynghiem said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...<snip>...
> 
> Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief.* I don't believe in unicorns. That is not a belief.* Seriously, think about what you write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It implies that you have a belief that unicorns do not exist.  It is not a non-belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That means Tuatara no longer follows the Unicornist doctrine, and is not affiliated with the Unicorn Church.  He/she does not share the unrealistic belief in Unicorns. Tuatara in now an Unicorneist. There is no doctrine for Unicorneism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Carla_Danger:
> Again, I see there are MULTIPLE types, not just either/or.
> I will look up this Dawkins list and see if that is what my other Atheist friend used to explain
> there were different TYPES of Atheist beliefs, similar to denominations in religion and politics.
> 
> To make a simple analogy, let's look at Democrats vs. liberals.
> 
> Some people argue Liberalism is a religion, a belief and movement.
> Fine, that's what it looks like to those people and there is a collective "agenda or influence"
> in the "liberal media" that does seem to have a direction of its own.
> You can blame it on Liberalism or Commercial media or whatever that pushes this trend.
> 
> Now, let's consider the FORMAL organized and registered Democrat PARTY.
> Yes, this party has published principles, which include and Expressly State
> the BELIEF that "health care is a right".  So I see and say this is a Political Religion.
> 
> The Liberalism in the media is not a formal religion and cannot be traced to any one group.
> 
> The Democrat Party principles are written and can be shown to contain
> the terms WE BELIEVE that health care is a right.
> 
> Now let's also consider the independent liberals running around
> who are neither controlling the Liberal bias in the media, nor are formal
> members or leaders of the Democrat Party.
> 
> Can we have ALL THREE going on?
> This loose unnamed "liberalism" in the media going on whatever you call it or blame it on.
> 
> The FORMAL Democrat party that is prochoice yet pushes health care through govt as a mandate.
> Whatever.
> 
> And the informal liberal thinkers not affiliated directly with either one.
> 
> Can you see why some people will say that all that is combined as one political religious movement?
> And others will say, hell no, I am NOT connected with the Democrats, I'm an independent
> and don't AGREE with what the liberal politicians are doing!
> 
> So we have Greens, atheists, independents, anarchists and socialists
> who are NOT party of the Democrat elite defining this "liberal media" and "agenda"
> BLAMES on "ALL LIBERALS" under "Liberalism."
> 
> Isn't the same thing true with atheists?
> Some are part of organizations that do publicly lobby to push some agenda.
> So what.
> That does not mean all atheists believe or do that!
> 
> So there are different levels and we don't have to waste
> time arguing that these are all part of "one big movement"
> based on only certain people or groups, when in fact
> there are many "liberals" not associated or in agreement
> with the "liberalism" seen in the media or pushed by the formally organized Democrat party.
Click to expand...




Those people who say liberalism is a religion are stupid.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Derideo_Te said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...<snip>...
> 
> Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief.* I don't believe in unicorns. That is not a belief.* Seriously, think about what you write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It implies that you have a belief that unicorns do not exist.  It is not a non-belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That means Tuatara no longer follows the Unicornist doctrine, and is not affiliated with the Unicorn Church.  He/she does not share the unrealistic belief in Unicorns. Tuatara in now an Unicorneist. There is no doctrine for Unicorneism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Carla_Danger:
> Again, I see there are MULTIPLE types, not just either/or.
> I will look up this Dawkins list and see if that is what my other Atheist friend used to explain
> there were different TYPES of Atheist beliefs, similar to denominations in religion and politics.
> 
> To make a simple analogy, let's look at Democrats vs. liberals.
> 
> Some people argue Liberalism is a religion, a belief and movement.
> Fine, that's what it looks like to those people and there is a collective "agenda or influence"
> in the "liberal media" that does seem to have a direction of its own.
> You can blame it on Liberalism or Commercial media or whatever that pushes this trend.
> 
> Now, let's consider the FORMAL organized and registered Democrat PARTY.
> Yes, this party has published principles, which include and Expressly State
> the BELIEF that "health care is a right".  So I see and say this is a Political Religion.
> 
> The Liberalism in the media is not a formal religion and cannot be traced to any one group.
> 
> The Democrat Party principles are written and can be shown to contain
> the terms WE BELIEVE that health care is a right.
> 
> Now let's also consider the independent liberals running around
> who are neither controlling the Liberal bias in the media, nor are formal
> members or leaders of the Democrat Party.
> 
> Can we have ALL THREE going on?
> This loose unnamed "liberalism" in the media going on whatever you call it or blame it on.
> 
> The FORMAL Democrat party that is prochoice yet pushes health care through govt as a mandate.
> Whatever.
> 
> And the informal liberal thinkers not affiliated directly with either one.
> 
> Can you see why some people will say that all that is combined as one political religious movement?
> And others will say, hell no, I am NOT connected with the Democrats, I'm an independent
> and don't AGREE with what the liberal politicians are doing!
> 
> So we have Greens, atheists, independents, anarchists and socialists
> who are NOT party of the Democrat elite defining this "liberal media" and "agenda"
> BLAMES on "ALL LIBERALS" under "Liberalism."
> 
> Isn't the same thing true with atheists?
> Some are part of organizations that do publicly lobby to push some agenda.
> So what.
> That does not mean all atheists believe or do that!
> 
> So there are different levels and we don't have to waste
> time arguing that these are all part of "one big movement"
> based on only certain people or groups, when in fact
> there are many "liberals" not associated or in agreement
> with the "liberalism" seen in the media or pushed by the formally organized Democrat party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!
Click to expand...



I wonder if she knows that there are some atheist who happen to be Republican?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="PratchettFan, post: 9828388, member: 37752"
> Really.  Which part isn't true?  Did you not say you think it is probable there is no God (I am number 6)?  Do you disagree with the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why you're so fixated with that Dawkins list.  I just happened to come across it online. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm right in between a 5 and a 6.
> 
> 5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.                        6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable                                 and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again, not answering the questions.  You said I was making shit up and I asked you to point out where.  You presented the list, not me.  Don't blame me for what you did.  You said you were a 6 and I took you at your word.  Don't blame me if you didn't mean it.  I have asked you if the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief and you have never once said it isn't.  In fact, you have never yet acknowledged the question.
> 
> Did you say you were a 6 on the Dawkins scale?  yes or no
> Do you agree the definition of Atheism is an absence of belief?  yes or no
> 
> I'll bet I don't get an answer.  Please prove me wrong.
Click to expand...



You're asking for something that isn't black and white, as you'd hoped.  Yes, I did say I was a 6, but now I think I'm between a 5 and 6, because this Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far. The Dawkins list is not going to fit every atheist like a glove, because all atheist are different.  No, I do not agree that the definition of atheism is an absence of belief.  I think it's a disbelief or doubt that there is a God/God's.[/QUOTE]

Just to reinforce that point the absence of any evidence for a deity coupled with the laws of conservation of matter/energy and the logical paradox of omnipotence are enough to convince me that there has never been any need for a "creator". The universe exists, has always existed and will always exist. Nothing more or less is needed. Do beings with "godlike powers" exist somewhere in the universe. Statistically the likelihood is high but none of them would be a "creator" in the sense that theists define it.

So does any of that fit on Dawkins scale? I don't know and nor do I care. I am atheist because logic, knowledge and reason tell me that there is no "creator" and religion is man made. I have no need of any "beliefs" because I have knowledge, logic and reason instead. 

Those that insist that atheism is a "religion" are doing so out of their own insecurity, paranoia and fear. That is their problem, not mine.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief. I don't belive in unicorns. That is not a belief. Seriously, think about what you write.



You don't believe in something I already proved exists? How about this then?


I bet you are going to try to argue that is not what you mean when you say unicorn. Unfortunately, all the word means is one horned, so this is actually a unicorn.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Carla_Danger said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...<snip>...
> 
> Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief.* I don't believe in unicorns. That is not a belief.* Seriously, think about what you write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It implies that you have a belief that unicorns do not exist.  It is not a non-belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That means Tuatara no longer follows the Unicornist doctrine, and is not affiliated with the Unicorn Church.  He/she does not share the unrealistic belief in Unicorns. Tuatara in now an Unicorneist. There is no doctrine for Unicorneism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Carla_Danger:
> Again, I see there are MULTIPLE types, not just either/or.
> I will look up this Dawkins list and see if that is what my other Atheist friend used to explain
> there were different TYPES of Atheist beliefs, similar to denominations in religion and politics.
> 
> To make a simple analogy, let's look at Democrats vs. liberals.
> 
> Some people argue Liberalism is a religion, a belief and movement.
> Fine, that's what it looks like to those people and there is a collective "agenda or influence"
> in the "liberal media" that does seem to have a direction of its own.
> You can blame it on Liberalism or Commercial media or whatever that pushes this trend.
> 
> Now, let's consider the FORMAL organized and registered Democrat PARTY.
> Yes, this party has published principles, which include and Expressly State
> the BELIEF that "health care is a right".  So I see and say this is a Political Religion.
> 
> The Liberalism in the media is not a formal religion and cannot be traced to any one group.
> 
> The Democrat Party principles are written and can be shown to contain
> the terms WE BELIEVE that health care is a right.
> 
> Now let's also consider the independent liberals running around
> who are neither controlling the Liberal bias in the media, nor are formal
> members or leaders of the Democrat Party.
> 
> Can we have ALL THREE going on?
> This loose unnamed "liberalism" in the media going on whatever you call it or blame it on.
> 
> The FORMAL Democrat party that is prochoice yet pushes health care through govt as a mandate.
> Whatever.
> 
> And the informal liberal thinkers not affiliated directly with either one.
> 
> Can you see why some people will say that all that is combined as one political religious movement?
> And others will say, hell no, I am NOT connected with the Democrats, I'm an independent
> and don't AGREE with what the liberal politicians are doing!
> 
> So we have Greens, atheists, independents, anarchists and socialists
> who are NOT party of the Democrat elite defining this "liberal media" and "agenda"
> BLAMES on "ALL LIBERALS" under "Liberalism."
> 
> Isn't the same thing true with atheists?
> Some are part of organizations that do publicly lobby to push some agenda.
> So what.
> That does not mean all atheists believe or do that!
> 
> So there are different levels and we don't have to waste
> time arguing that these are all part of "one big movement"
> based on only certain people or groups, when in fact
> there are many "liberals" not associated or in agreement
> with the "liberalism" seen in the media or pushed by the formally organized Democrat party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if she knows that there are some atheist who happen to be Republican?
Click to expand...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> No, actually it is you, because it is what it is. There is no dogma in atheism. No, atheist cannot turn atheism into a religion, because it's not one.



Yet they have, despite your unwillingness to admit it.



> Maybe the best treatment on Earth of the question as to whether or not atheism is a religion came from music god Frank Zappa, founder of the Church of American Secular Humanism (CASH). Secular humanism is defined as reason rejecting dogma and supernaturalism, which is a fancy way of saying it’s atheists who believe in people and not God. I am down with reason, and although I think I have psychic powers that allow my friends' dead parents to take over my emotions, I respect those who don’t believe in the supernatural. It is a lot easier to believe in fewer things than to accept a host of others on faith alone, and humanists are intellectual minimalists. They are the Design Within Reach to Christianity's Shabby Chic, and no one was more ready to clean house than Frank Zappa.
> Maybe the best treatment on Earth of the question as to whether or not atheism is a religion came from music god Frank Zappa, founder of the Church of American Secular Humanism (CASH). Secular humanism is defined as reason rejecting dogma and supernaturalism, which is a fancy way of saying it’s atheists who believe in people and not God. I am down with reason, and although I think I have psychic powers that allow my friends' dead parents to take over my emotions, I respect those who don’t believe in the supernatural. It is a lot easier to believe in fewer things than to accept a host of others on faith alone, and humanists are intellectual minimalists. They are the Design Within Reach to Christianity's Shabby Chic, and no one was more ready to clean house than Frank Zappa.



Atheism Is a Religion - Reason.com

Before the usual idiots come in and say this is just a tax dodge I want to point out that Scientology is the biggest tax dodge ever created, and no one I have seen denies that it is also a religion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Derideo_Te said:


> Have you ever noticed that you can't define these "beliefs" that you erroneously allege that atheists have?
> 
> Do you even know what the definition of the term belief?



Do you?

Belief is an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.​In other words, if you accept that the statement "There is no evidence that God exists" as true you have a belief. That is not a non belief, despite myraid attempts to define it that way.



Derideo_Te said:


> Did you even think through what you were posting before you hit reply?



You obviously didn't.



Derideo_Te said:


> Did you understand that you would assume the onus of having to prove not only these "beliefs" but that atheists actually have them?
> 
> So now that you have covered your face with egg how do you intend to wipe it off?



The only egg on anyone's face is on the idiots that claim they don't believe anything when they do.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sure, Carla.
And I know an atheist personally who STILL teaches the concepts of forgiveness, abundance of free grace,
etc. just the same message as taught in Christianity, does NOT reject Christians, supports people to follow what works
for them, and is an atheist, does not believe in a personified God but does not go around arguing with people who do.

So yes, he is an atheist, but no, he has no issues with Christians and even refers people to local churches for support.

Carla, my point is I have no problem with people who consider atheism a religion,
just like people do with Buddhism or Hinduism while many followers will say no, it is not a religion.

same with Constitutionalism that to some is a religion with followers and leaders preaching principles as mandatory.

So what?

Why can't we have DIFFERENT types going on?

Just because SOME people AREN'T following these things "like a religion"
does NOT mean there aren't THOSE WHO DO make a RELIGION out of it.

What harm is caused by acknowledging all these types exist, and do not have to "be each other"?

If you want so BADLY for people to see that SOME are NOT religious or a religion in any way.
why can't you be equally as open that some ARE?

I am perfectly open to understand that some are and some aren't!
So what? why does it have to be one side saying NONE are that way, and one side saying ALL are that way.

And if people believe it IS all one way, well, as many people believe the opposite,
so they balance each other out. I can see all these different ways are going on.

I have atheist friends who are perfectly at peace knowing some people can only see it their one way.
So let those people keep doing that for themselves.

Just make sure you aren't doing that, and I make sure I'm not. That's all we can do.
I am just fortunate to have such diverse friends I recognize these generalizations have holes in them.
I likely know exceptions to just about every rule. 

My atheist friend who believes and teaches free grace is proof that you can totally agree
on the meaning and message taught in Christianity and still be atheist or secular gentile and not have an issue.

The key is FORGIVENESS. As long as you can forgive differences, they don't have to be
fully changed or resolved to work out what really is important underneath. That's the common factor
I have found that helps people align "faith" regardless of political, religious or areligious viewpoint.

If you don't have forgiveness, but impose conditions on each other, 
then even people of the same religion or party will clash.

It's not a matter of having the same beliefs or labels, because there will always be conflicts.
It's a matter of being able to forgive and include each other's views in order to work through whatever issues come up.

Thanks, Carla
The world is probably a mix of all the above, not either/or, where everyone is right about their parts of the puzzle.



Carla_Danger said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...<snip>...
> 
> Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief.* I don't believe in unicorns. That is not a belief.* Seriously, think about what you write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It implies that you have a belief that unicorns do not exist.  It is not a non-belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That means Tuatara no longer follows the Unicornist doctrine, and is not affiliated with the Unicorn Church.  He/she does not share the unrealistic belief in Unicorns. Tuatara in now an Unicorneist. There is no doctrine for Unicorneism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Carla_Danger:
> Again, I see there are MULTIPLE types, not just either/or.
> I will look up this Dawkins list and see if that is what my other Atheist friend used to explain
> there were different TYPES of Atheist beliefs, similar to denominations in religion and politics.
> 
> To make a simple analogy, let's look at Democrats vs. liberals.
> 
> Some people argue Liberalism is a religion, a belief and movement.
> Fine, that's what it looks like to those people and there is a collective "agenda or influence"
> in the "liberal media" that does seem to have a direction of its own.
> You can blame it on Liberalism or Commercial media or whatever that pushes this trend.
> 
> Now, let's consider the FORMAL organized and registered Democrat PARTY.
> Yes, this party has published principles, which include and Expressly State
> the BELIEF that "health care is a right".  So I see and say this is a Political Religion.
> 
> The Liberalism in the media is not a formal religion and cannot be traced to any one group.
> 
> The Democrat Party principles are written and can be shown to contain
> the terms WE BELIEVE that health care is a right.
> 
> Now let's also consider the independent liberals running around
> who are neither controlling the Liberal bias in the media, nor are formal
> members or leaders of the Democrat Party.
> 
> Can we have ALL THREE going on?
> This loose unnamed "liberalism" in the media going on whatever you call it or blame it on.
> 
> The FORMAL Democrat party that is prochoice yet pushes health care through govt as a mandate.
> Whatever.
> 
> And the informal liberal thinkers not affiliated directly with either one.
> 
> Can you see why some people will say that all that is combined as one political religious movement?
> And others will say, hell no, I am NOT connected with the Democrats, I'm an independent
> and don't AGREE with what the liberal politicians are doing!
> 
> So we have Greens, atheists, independents, anarchists and socialists
> who are NOT party of the Democrat elite defining this "liberal media" and "agenda"
> BLAMES on "ALL LIBERALS" under "Liberalism."
> 
> Isn't the same thing true with atheists?
> Some are part of organizations that do publicly lobby to push some agenda.
> So what.
> That does not mean all atheists believe or do that!
> 
> So there are different levels and we don't have to waste
> time arguing that these are all part of "one big movement"
> based on only certain people or groups, when in fact
> there are many "liberals" not associated or in agreement
> with the "liberalism" seen in the media or pushed by the formally organized Democrat party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if she knows that there are some atheist who happen to be Republican?
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

Not to worry QW. There are already "atheist churches" and atheist "nonprofit organizations" doing tax-exempt outreach just like any other religious charity would. There is a college campus group that serves nonchristian or atheist students similar to Christian ministries. If people want that choice, they already have it, and some groups already exercise it. That isn't the issue.

What I think the issue is 
is failing to make a distinction between two different approaches to atheism:
1. One is actively BELIEVING there is no god or gods (with or without proof)
2. The other is NOT BELIEVING there is, which is either equal to or at least closer to agnosticism

The problem is a lot of people are really agnostic
(and WILL admit that God can neither be proven nor disproven because we don't know absolutely,
anything could turn out to be false, or could change and is not absolute)

And the REAL issue is not that anyway.

It is the LANGUAGE we use where we THINK in those terms.

Even if someone like my friend Ray believes in all the same things that God and Jesus represent,
he doesn't THINK or DESCRIBE these concepts in religious terms of a personified God and Jesus.

So it is his LANGUAGE and PERCEPTION that is secular or NONTHEISTIC.

Many people are NONTHEISTIC, and within that group,
there are people who work along with the same people and principles as in Christianity or religion
but just don't use the same terms. 

And there are people who REJECT not just the language but the CONCEPTS of forgiveness
and restorative justice that Christianity and religions are teaching.

I think we can learn to AGREE about the SECULAR/NONTHEISTIC language part.

As for people's beliefs underneath that NONTHEISTIC culture or language,
there are those whose beliefs are consistent with Christianity and other religions, and just need translation
back and forth into secular terms,
and there are those who REJECT the spiritual concepts that forgiveness and good will can overcome
the cycles of retribution, judgment and punishment keeping humanity stuck in conditions of suffering.

My friend Ray happens to be one of those "secular gentiles" or atheists/nontheists
who are nontheistic/atheistic in language, thinking, perception and culture; but no, he does not reject the concepts in Christianity even though he doesn't relate to the language used to teach it religiously.

In order to distinguish which people are which, it helps to reconcile the concepts
first. And then it becomes more clear that the NONTHEISTIC language and worldview
is just how these same universal concepts are EXPRESSED.

So that is another issue causing confusion. 
The NONTHEISTIC language is one level,
and the concepts or beliefs (regardless of religion or lack thereof) is a separate level.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually it is you, because it is what it is. There is no dogma in atheism. No, atheist cannot turn atheism into a religion, because it's not one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they have, despite your unwillingness to admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the best treatment on Earth of the question as to whether or not atheism is a religion came from music god Frank Zappa, founder of the Church of American Secular Humanism (CASH). Secular humanism is defined as reason rejecting dogma and supernaturalism, which is a fancy way of saying it’s atheists who believe in people and not God. I am down with reason, and although I think I have psychic powers that allow my friends' dead parents to take over my emotions, I respect those who don’t believe in the supernatural. It is a lot easier to believe in fewer things than to accept a host of others on faith alone, and humanists are intellectual minimalists. They are the Design Within Reach to Christianity's Shabby Chic, and no one was more ready to clean house than Frank Zappa.
> Maybe the best treatment on Earth of the question as to whether or not atheism is a religion came from music god Frank Zappa, founder of the Church of American Secular Humanism (CASH). Secular humanism is defined as reason rejecting dogma and supernaturalism, which is a fancy way of saying it’s atheists who believe in people and not God. I am down with reason, and although I think I have psychic powers that allow my friends' dead parents to take over my emotions, I respect those who don’t believe in the supernatural. It is a lot easier to believe in fewer things than to accept a host of others on faith alone, and humanists are intellectual minimalists. They are the Design Within Reach to Christianity's Shabby Chic, and no one was more ready to clean house than Frank Zappa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism Is a Religion - Reason.com
> 
> Before the usual idiots come in and say this is just a tax dodge I want to point out that Scientology is the biggest tax dodge ever created, and no one I have seen denies that it is also a religion.
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

Derideo_Te said:


> You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!



Yes No and Yes

The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
"that group" to be acting in concert with each other.

So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
the same way people say about "liberalism".

Now, you can also divide into
WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
and point to the GOP.  This has been causing issues because, for example,
the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
did not represent all the members.

Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.

So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.

Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
Some ARE making it their religion
Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!

So yes, yes, and no.


----------



## Derideo_Te

emilynghiem said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes No and Yes
> 
> The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
> their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
> that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
> acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
> "that group" to be acting in concert with each other.
> 
> So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
> the same way people say about "liberalism".
> 
> Now, you can also divide into
> WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
> and point to the GOP.  This has been causing issues because, for example,
> the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
> did not represent all the members.
> 
> Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
> WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
> as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.
> 
> So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
> and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.
> 
> Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
> Some ARE making it their religion
> Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
> Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!
> 
> So yes, yes, and no.
Click to expand...


Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".

She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.

Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".

Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi Derideo_Te and Carla:
And likewise, for the other two cases
1. for those who DO make it their religion,
you and I cannot define it for them as NOT being one
2. for those who see the "collective level" (mixing any of these together)
and BELIEVE that is a religion,
you and I cannot tell them not to call it that either!

So the independent folks can fall under one type of case,
and that does not negate the other two still going on, whether we agree or not.

If that's how people see it, why not just work with how they see it.

The same way I would work with you the way you see things.
And just understand we are not going to see other people the same way.

At least we can work with each other!



Derideo_Te said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes No and Yes
> 
> The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
> their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
> that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
> acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
> "that group" to be acting in concert with each other.
> 
> So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
> the same way people say about "liberalism".
> 
> Now, you can also divide into
> WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
> and point to the GOP.  This has been causing issues because, for example,
> the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
> did not represent all the members.
> 
> Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
> WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
> as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.
> 
> So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
> and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.
> 
> Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
> Some ARE making it their religion
> Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
> Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!
> 
> So yes, yes, and no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
> 
> She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
> 
> Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
> 
> Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
Click to expand...


----------



## Derideo_Te

emilynghiem said:


> Hi Derideo_Te and Carla:
> And likewise, for the other two cases
> 1. for those who DO make it their religion,
> you and I cannot define it for them as NOT being one
> 2. for those who see the "collective level" (mixing any of these together)
> and BELIEVE that is a religion,
> you and I cannot tell them not to call it that either!
> 
> So the independent folks can fall under one type of case,
> and that does not negate the other two still going on, whether we agree or not.
> 
> If that's how people see it, why not just work with how they see it.
> 
> The same way I would work with you the way you see things.
> And just understand we are not going to see other people the same way.
> 
> At least we can work with each other!
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes No and Yes
> 
> The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
> their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
> that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
> acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
> "that group" to be acting in concert with each other.
> 
> So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
> the same way people say about "liberalism".
> 
> Now, you can also divide into
> WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
> and point to the GOP.  This has been causing issues because, for example,
> the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
> did not represent all the members.
> 
> Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
> WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
> as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.
> 
> So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
> and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.
> 
> Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
> Some ARE making it their religion
> Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
> Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!
> 
> So yes, yes, and no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
> 
> She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
> 
> Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
> 
> Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Those other 2 cases don't exist according to the definition of the term atheist.

If they have beliefs in the existence of a deity then they don't fit the definition of being an atheist


----------



## asaratis

Derideo_Te said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes No and Yes
> 
> The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
> their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
> that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
> acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
> "that group" to be acting in concert with each other.
> 
> So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
> the same way people say about "liberalism".
> 
> Now, you can also divide into
> WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
> and point to the GOP.  This has been causing issues because, for example,
> the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
> did not represent all the members.
> 
> Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
> WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
> as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.
> 
> So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
> and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.
> 
> Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
> Some ARE making it their religion
> Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
> Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!
> 
> So yes, yes, and no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
> 
> She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
> 
> Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
> 
> Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
Click to expand...

No.
Atheists believe that there are no deities.

Lack of belief either way makes one agnostic.


----------



## Derideo_Te

asaratis said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes No and Yes
> 
> The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
> their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
> that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
> acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
> "that group" to be acting in concert with each other.
> 
> So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
> the same way people say about "liberalism".
> 
> Now, you can also divide into
> WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
> and point to the GOP.  This has been causing issues because, for example,
> the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
> did not represent all the members.
> 
> Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
> WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
> as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.
> 
> So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
> and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.
> 
> Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
> Some ARE making it their religion
> Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
> Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!
> 
> So yes, yes, and no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
> 
> She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
> 
> Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
> 
> Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> *Atheists believe that there are no deities.*
> 
> Lack of belief either way makes one agnostic.
Click to expand...


BZZZT Wrong!

Google



> a·the·ist
> ˈāTHēˌist/
> _noun_
> 
> a person who disbelieves or* lacks belief in the existence of God or gods*.



A lack of belief is not a a belief.


----------



## emilynghiem

With Atheism the three levels would be
1. people who are independent nontheistic thinkers
who do not make a religion of their views and do not relate to that way of looking at it
2. people who are Atheists and do make a religion or the "equivalent" of one, even an organization
that pushes an agenda, and/or someone who promotes this belief actively
trying to convert other people to understand there is no such god and it is impossible, etc.
3. the general collective of all nontheistic groups or people
combined as one identity for that "secular" approach to life,
which some people here are arguing "is a religion or acting as the equivalent of one"

So if people label 2 and 3 as a religion,
I don't see that as conflicting with 1.

All three can be going on, people can see them differently, and argue
which if any of these levels constitutes a religion, and the three
levels are STILL going on, even if we use conflicting terms for them.

They are still happening. We just don't all agree how to use or how NOT to use "religion"
to describe these three levels that people see as involving atheism or nontheistic approaches, people or groups.



Derideo_Te said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Derideo_Te and Carla:
> And likewise, for the other two cases
> 1. for those who DO make it their religion,
> you and I cannot define it for them as NOT being one
> 2. for those who see the "collective level" (mixing any of these together)
> and BELIEVE that is a religion,
> you and I cannot tell them not to call it that either!
> 
> So the independent folks can fall under one type of case,
> and that does not negate the other two still going on, whether we agree or not.
> 
> If that's how people see it, why not just work with how they see it.
> 
> The same way I would work with you the way you see things.
> And just understand we are not going to see other people the same way.
> 
> At least we can work with each other!
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes No and Yes
> 
> The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
> their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
> that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
> acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
> "that group" to be acting in concert with each other.
> 
> So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
> the same way people say about "liberalism".
> 
> Now, you can also divide into
> WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
> and point to the GOP.  This has been causing issues because, for example,
> the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
> did not represent all the members.
> 
> Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
> WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
> as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.
> 
> So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
> and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.
> 
> Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
> Some ARE making it their religion
> Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
> Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!
> 
> So yes, yes, and no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
> 
> She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
> 
> Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
> 
> Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those other 2 cases don't exist according to the definition of the term atheist.
> 
> If they have beliefs in the existence of a deity then they don't fit the definition of being an atheist
Click to expand...


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="PratchettFan, post: 9828388, member: 37752"
> Really.  Which part isn't true?  Did you not say you think it is probable there is no God (I am number 6)?  Do you disagree with the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why you're so fixated with that Dawkins list.  I just happened to come across it online. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm right in between a 5 and a 6.
> 
> 5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.                        6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable                                 and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again, not answering the questions.  You said I was making shit up and I asked you to point out where.  You presented the list, not me.  Don't blame me for what you did.  You said you were a 6 and I took you at your word.  Don't blame me if you didn't mean it.  I have asked you if the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief and you have never once said it isn't.  In fact, you have never yet acknowledged the question.
> 
> Did you say you were a 6 on the Dawkins scale?  yes or no
> Do you agree the definition of Atheism is an absence of belief?  yes or no
> 
> I'll bet I don't get an answer.  Please prove me wrong.
Click to expand...



You're asking for something that isn't black and white, as you'd hoped.  Yes, I did say I was a 6, but now I think I'm between a 5 and 6, because this Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far. The Dawkins list is not going to fit every atheist like a glove, because all atheist are different.  No, I do not agree that the definition of atheism is an absence of belief.  I think it's a disbelief or doubt that there is a God/God's.[/QUOTE]

It was black and white because you claimed I had made it up.  I didn't.  And you were able to give me yes or no answers.  Not hard at all.

It doesn't matter to me where you fall on the scale.  Let's say you're a 5.5.  Sealybobo looks to be a 6.9.  I'm probably a 3.8.  All that shows is that Atheism is not a narrow concept as Pogo claims.  For that matter, neither is Theism.  Atheism entails a wide variance of belief from "eh" to "not a chance".  I'm at "yeah, I think there might be but I don't particularly give a damn".  There is nothing wrong with the belief at all.  It is just as valid as any theistic belief.  Nor does that belief make it a religion.

What makes something a religion is not the belief but the construct built around the belief.  If I say that I am certain there is no God, that is a statement of pure belief but that doesn't make it a religion.  However, if I say I am certain there is no God and anyone who thinks there might even be a chance there is a God isn't a true Atheist, then I am turning Atheism into a religion.  I am creating dogma.


----------



## asaratis

Derideo_Te said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes No and Yes
> 
> The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
> their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
> that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
> acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
> "that group" to be acting in concert with each other.
> 
> So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
> the same way people say about "liberalism".
> 
> Now, you can also divide into
> WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
> and point to the GOP.  This has been causing issues because, for example,
> the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
> did not represent all the members.
> 
> Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
> WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
> as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.
> 
> So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
> and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.
> 
> Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
> Some ARE making it their religion
> Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
> Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!
> 
> So yes, yes, and no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
> 
> She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
> 
> Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
> 
> Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> *Atheists believe that there are no deities.*
> 
> Lack of belief either way makes one agnostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BZZZT Wrong!
> 
> Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a·the·ist
> ˈāTHēˌist/
> _noun_
> 
> a person who disbelieves or* lacks belief in the existence of God or gods*.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lack of belief is not a a belief.
Click to expand...

Bzzzzzt. Wrong! A redefining of _atheism _to keep from being labeled a religion is the relatively recent trick perpetuated by Atheists. Dawkins did this with his 7 level scale and your source did it also.

If Atheists simply had a lack of belief in deities, they would not argue so verociously with those that believe.

If you have a lack of belief, you are agnostic.  Atheists believe that deities do not exist.


----------



## emilynghiem

asaratis said:


> No.
> Atheists believe that there are no deities.
> 
> Lack of belief either way makes one agnostic.



How about this
1. Atheists BELIEVE absolutely there are no god, gods or deities.
And anyone who is open to admitting there is even a small chance
that could be otherwise is TECHNICALLY agnostic, though many
call themselves Atheist if they just don't believe this could be so
"even though technically yes they agree there is always a chance"

2. NONTHEISTS don't think or believe in terms of a personified God or deities.
It doesn't matter if these turn out to exist or not, they don't THINK in those terms.

Asaratis, if we focused on the point that
NEITHER side can either prove or disprove either way,
then EVERYONE would be Agnostic which is basically accurate.

NONE of us know and ALL of us must admit at some level NONE of us knows.

But that doesn't help us to distinguish anyone from anyone else.

What I find to be the REAL issue is how someone THINKS and Speaks.
* in religious terms
* in secular terms

So we can communicate.

In both cases, religious or nonreligious, theistic or nontheistic,
NONE of us can know anything absolutely. That cannot be the deciding point.

What matters to people, regardless what we believe can or cannot be  proven or disproven,
is our manner of thinking, speaking and perceiving.

What LANGUAGE do we relate to and use?

* If we use religious/spiritual laws from the Bible, Torah, Quran, etc.
* If we use natural/secular laws from science, sociology, psychology, civil govt.

I am more concerned with what language someone uses so we can communicate.
I see no reason to judge people for that, any more than judging people
for being left handed or righthanded, red-green colorblind or completely colorblind,
being tone deaf or hearing perfect pitch. 

If people are "theistic" that's how they relate to laws, the world and people.
If people are "nontheistic" they may relate in secular ways to people, society and life.

The language is one level to get straight.

If we can get over the fact people may be different and
may not be able to communicate or change to other languages,
we can talk about the concepts and principles underneath.

And that's where discussing approaches to justice
REALLY distinguishes who has "faith" and who does not.
That faith is also independent of one's religious and political affiliation.
If you can forgive all other groups and work with anyone,
you will get along with people from all other groups.

If you cannot forgive all others, but judge and exclude or reject certain ones,
when they do the same with you, it causes mutual conflict.

I find it is more important to have faith in forgiveness
and corrections than to haggle over religious terms for these things.

We can't even get to that level yet,
if we aren't over our differences about the language we use!


----------



## emilynghiem

Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

BTW on this scale
What I DO believe is that humanity is meant to reach a consensus on whatever God means.
And if it means different things to different people, ALL those meanings must be included in the final agreement
to explain each case where there are no conflicts that cannot be resolved directly or indirectly.

So I am open to any and all these levels, and just working with people wherever they are coming from.

Agreeing on truth that matters DOES NOT DEPEND on agreeing or proving whether or not God exists.
If we are truly to act unconditionally and inclusively, then we should remain open to any of these
so it doesn't become a condition to divide people and prevent us from working together as needed.

Whatever is meant by GOD I believe we will reach an agreement on it.

In the meantime, I work with each person on what they call things and that's good enough.

I think it is more important to prove the effect and process of FORGIVENESS
and Spiritual Healing. And in that process we resolve whatever issues we have about this God business as a result.

I am not so worried about proving or disproving God since that relies on faith that
whatever we agree on is sound and consistent. We need to be on the same page
with forgiveness and healing BEFORE we can make such an agreement anyway.

I am more concerned with proving the profound impact that forgiveness and spiritual healing
have on human health, relations and society, since that can change the face of politics and medicine, crime and punishment, prisons and govt worldwide. Collective healing can fulfill all the ideal goals taught in religions, without arguing over God or even agreeing on the same beliefs about it. So why not fulfill the common purpose, where any other conflicts will be resolved in the process.


----------



## emilynghiem

asaratis said:


> If you have a lack of belief, you are agnostic.  Atheists believe that deities do not exist.



Technically, yes.
But by that, even people who are mostly sure and believe there is a God
but admit they aren't completely 100% because of course our knowledge is human and not absolute,
would also have to be agnostic, because on some level "we don't know."

So this would not help us distinguish the theistic from the nontheistic
if we all technically admit we fall under agnostic or "not knowing" which is true by our human limitations.


----------



## Derideo_Te

asaratis said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes No and Yes
> 
> The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
> their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
> that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
> acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
> "that group" to be acting in concert with each other.
> 
> So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
> the same way people say about "liberalism".
> 
> Now, you can also divide into
> WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
> and point to the GOP.  This has been causing issues because, for example,
> the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
> did not represent all the members.
> 
> Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
> WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
> as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.
> 
> So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
> and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.
> 
> Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
> Some ARE making it their religion
> Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
> Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!
> 
> So yes, yes, and no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
> 
> She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
> 
> Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
> 
> Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> *Atheists believe that there are no deities.*
> 
> Lack of belief either way makes one agnostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BZZZT Wrong!
> 
> Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a·the·ist
> ˈāTHēˌist/
> _noun_
> 
> a person who disbelieves or* lacks belief in the existence of God or gods*.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lack of belief is not a a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bzzzzzt. Wrong! A redefining of _atheism _to keep from being labeled a religion is the relatively recent trick perpetuated by Atheists. Dawkins did this with his 7 level scale and your source did it also.
> 
> If Atheists simply had a lack of belief in deities, they would not argue so verociously with those that believe.
> 
> If you have a lack of belief, you are agnostic.  Atheists believe that deities do not exist.
Click to expand...


You don't get to define what I "believe".

You don't get to impose your muddled excuse for "thinking" on me either.

I don't believe that the sun will rise tomorrow because I understand the laws that govern the orbit of the planets. I use knowledge, reason and logic so I have no need of your "beliefs".

That same knowledge, reason and logic tells me that it is a waste of my time arguing with someone who makes absurd allegations that atheism was "redefined" recently in order to "keep from being labeled a religion".

Sheer stupidity on that scale cannot be reasoned with so instead you have earned yourself a one way ticket to Cyberia.

[People that you ignore] *click* [Member to ignore] "asaratis" [Save Changes] *click*


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Derideo_Te: Thank you for your clarifying statement.
I wish all people would EXPLAIN as you did what the problem is.
That way at least we know what is going wrong and have a chance to address it.

In this case, it may be this is just an exercise in learning to forgive unconditionally.
If Asaratis does not define your beliefs, then don't let him.
There is no need to ignore or cut him off to make this not so.

If it is truly independent, then he should be able to keep thinking what he does
and not affect you.  Let him be wrong.

So this could be one of those exercises in how to really stop this nonsense of
associating people by label. 

As Eleanor Roosevelt said, that no one can make you feel inferior without your consent,
nobody can define you or your beliefs either.  If we do not agree, then that belief belongs
to the other person not to us. We shouldn't have to react negatively to make it clear. It already is their belief!

How can we agree to separate, so we don't end up like
fingers stuck in Chinese finger traps, the harder we fight to repel each
other the more we remain stuck. How do we free ourselves from this
mindset and truly not let it affect us what other people believe?



Derideo_Te said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes No and Yes
> 
> The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
> their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
> that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
> acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
> "that group" to be acting in concert with each other.
> 
> So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
> the same way people say about "liberalism".
> 
> Now, you can also divide into
> WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
> and point to the GOP.  This has been causing issues because, for example,
> the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
> did not represent all the members.
> 
> Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
> WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
> as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.
> 
> So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
> and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.
> 
> Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
> Some ARE making it their religion
> Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
> Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!
> 
> So yes, yes, and no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
> 
> She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
> 
> Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
> 
> Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> *Atheists believe that there are no deities.*
> 
> Lack of belief either way makes one agnostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BZZZT Wrong!
> 
> Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a·the·ist
> ˈāTHēˌist/
> _noun_
> 
> a person who disbelieves or* lacks belief in the existence of God or gods*.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lack of belief is not a a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bzzzzzt. Wrong! A redefining of _atheism _to keep from being labeled a religion is the relatively recent trick perpetuated by Atheists. Dawkins did this with his 7 level scale and your source did it also.
> 
> If Atheists simply had a lack of belief in deities, they would not argue so verociously with those that believe.
> 
> If you have a lack of belief, you are agnostic.  Atheists believe that deities do not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to define what I "believe".
> 
> You don't get to impose your muddled excuse for "thinking" on me either.
> 
> I don't believe that the sun will rise tomorrow because I understand the laws that govern the orbit of the planets. I use knowledge, reason and logic so I have no need of your "beliefs".
> 
> That same knowledge, reason and logic tells me that it is a waste of my time arguing with someone who makes absurd allegations that atheism was "redefined" recently in order to "keep from being labeled a religion".
> 
> Sheer stupidity on that scale cannot be reasoned with so instead you have earned yourself a one way ticket to Cyberia.
> 
> [People that you ignore] *click* [Member to ignore] "asaratis" [Save Changes] *click*
> 
> View attachment 32134
Click to expand...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Derideo_Te said:


> Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
> 
> She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
> 
> Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
> 
> Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.



The fact that you continue to argue what your beliefs actually are definitively establishes the fact that you actually have a belief.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Derideo_Te said:


> Those other 2 cases don't exist according to the definition of the term atheist.
> 
> If they have beliefs in the existence of a deity then they don't fit the definition of being an atheist



Modern definition?

Let us examine the "modern" definition that everyone who argues that they don't believe something.

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.​
I think the keyword in that definition is disbelief.

inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real​Disbelief is a refusal to believe, not a lack of belief. Like it or not, disbelief is not the same as non belief. The evidence of that is obvious, but I think some people cannot see it, so I will point out that the word or in the "modern" definition actually means something. Hopefully, I don't have to explain the meaning.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Derideo_Te said:


> BZZZT Wrong!
> 
> Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a·the·ist
> ˈāTHēˌist/
> _noun_
> 
> a person who *disbelieves* or* lacks belief in the existence of God or gods*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lack of belief is not a a belief.
Click to expand...


Yet disbelief is.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Derideo_Te said:


> You don't get to define what I "believe".



You are the one defining your beliefs by arguing that god cannot exist. If you really had non belief you wouldn't feel the need to argue about that simple concept.


----------



## emilynghiem

Quantum Windbag said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to define what I "believe".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one defining your beliefs by arguing that god cannot exist. If you really had non belief you wouldn't feel the need to argue about that simple concept.
Click to expand...


Dear QW: From my discussions with Derideo_Te, we are generally able to agree by focusing more on NONTHEISTIC approaches (not haggling over atheism)
including ALIGNING the meanings and values of what people MEAN by God, Jesus, religion etc.
Such alignment on principles can be done even if we disagree on theism/atheism etc.

You don't have to BELIEVE in these things to agree on certain meanings behind them or associated
which ARE important and universal, even between theists and nontheists! That is what it takes
to count as universal, by definition, right? if a truth is absolute it must be so for all people and not relative to some!

I guess I could compare it to how Global Warming has people up in arms.

We can argue back and forth, night and day, if Global Warming is proven or disproven, true or false.

or we can AGREE the issue is environmental preservation and protection from pollution and destruction.

We DON'T have to agree if Global Warming is or isn't, proven or disproven,
to AGREE not to destroy the planet with careless chemical or corporate abuses.

Same with approaches to God. If we focus on what is the real critical factors,
we can agree on all the same content and principles, and not have to worry
if we talk about these in terms of God, or if we believe it or not, or if we can prove/disprove or not.

We would be too busy focused on what we CAN agree on that is key, regardless of the other beliefs we may conflict with.

So to me, what is important is that Derideo_Te is NONTHEIST
and does not relate to talking about God as personified or making this a condition!

All other things I can work out with Derideo who is forgiving and seeks to
correct problems that are preventing agreement on true and accurate points.

Derideo believes in seeking a just path to establishing truth, by conscience,
and is completely compatible with Christian faith in seeking the Kingdom of God,
the truth that shall set us free.  Insulting Derideo's NONTHEIST approach distracts
from our common goals to clarify what is true, consistent and effective
and to correct what is unfair, false or ineffective in resolving conflicts.

I don't have to question whether Derideo believes or not, because the truth
and proof of what matters does not depend on that anyway.

In fact, it is the opposite. By working together to reach an agreed understanding,
independent of whether I am theistic and Derideo is nontheistic, then we end
up proving what is meant by God's truth anyway. So we achieve the goal by not making a mess trying to get there.
Let us work through the proof process, that consensus can be reached between theist and nontheists
approaches, and that will lead to whatever we need to "prove or disprove" whatever it is
that we question, debate, or outright disagree on about God. It will take care of itself if we focus on what we do
follow in common.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief. I don't belive in unicorns. That is not a belief. Seriously, think about what you write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't believe in something I already proved exists? How about this then?
> 
> 
> I bet you are going to try to argue that is not what you mean when you say unicorn. Unfortunately, all the word means is one horned, so this is actually a unicorn.
Click to expand...



Are you going to build Tuatara a Unicorn Church?


----------



## Carla_Danger

Derideo_Te said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes No and Yes
> 
> The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
> their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
> that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
> acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
> "that group" to be acting in concert with each other.
> 
> So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
> the same way people say about "liberalism".
> 
> Now, you can also divide into
> WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
> and point to the GOP.  This has been causing issues because, for example,
> the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
> did not represent all the members.
> 
> Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
> WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
> as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.
> 
> So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
> and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.
> 
> Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
> Some ARE making it their religion
> Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
> Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!
> 
> So yes, yes, and no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
> 
> She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
> 
> Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
> 
> Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> *Atheists believe that there are no deities.*
> 
> Lack of belief either way makes one agnostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BZZZT Wrong!
> 
> Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a·the·ist
> ˈāTHēˌist/
> _noun_
> 
> a person who disbelieves or* lacks belief in the existence of God or gods*.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lack of belief is not a a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bzzzzzt. Wrong! A redefining of _atheism _to keep from being labeled a religion is the relatively recent trick perpetuated by Atheists. Dawkins did this with his 7 level scale and your source did it also.
> 
> If Atheists simply had a lack of belief in deities, they would not argue so verociously with those that believe.
> 
> If you have a lack of belief, you are agnostic.  Atheists believe that deities do not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to define what I "believe".
> 
> You don't get to impose your muddled excuse for "thinking" on me either.
> 
> I don't believe that the sun will rise tomorrow because I understand the laws that govern the orbit of the planets. I use knowledge, reason and logic so I have no need of your "beliefs".
> 
> That same knowledge, reason and logic tells me that it is a waste of my time arguing with someone who makes absurd allegations that atheism was "redefined" recently in order to "keep from being labeled a religion".
> 
> Sheer stupidity on that scale cannot be reasoned with so instead you have earned yourself a one way ticket to Cyberia.
> 
> [People that you ignore] *click* [Member to ignore] "asaratis" [Save Changes] *click*
> 
> View attachment 32134
Click to expand...



Can you tell me how to put people on ignore?

Thank you kindly!


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Carla_Danger, Tuatara
and QuantumWindbag:

How about this, would it help to distinguish:
A. people who don't believe that belief in God is true for ANYONE
B. people who don't believe that such belief applies to THEM

So people can be B without being A.

Isn't that the real issue?

It is one thing if I say "No thanks, I don't believe I will eat anything, but you may or others may if they want.
I don't believe I need to myself."

And another to say "No, I don't believe I should eat, nor should anyone else for that matter!"
The people who preach that a certain way "should be for all others because it is the absolute truth"
isn't THAT what makes it a religion in the sense that matters (not the other definitions that aren't so critical)



Tuatara said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> *
> number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.*
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief. I don't belive in unicorns. That is not a belief. Seriously, think about what you write.
Click to expand...


----------



## Carla_Danger

Quantum Windbag said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually it is you, because it is what it is. There is no dogma in atheism. No, atheist cannot turn atheism into a religion, because it's not one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they have, despite your unwillingness to admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the best treatment on Earth of the question as to whether or not atheism is a religion came from music god Frank Zappa, founder of the Church of American Secular Humanism (CASH). Secular humanism is defined as reason rejecting dogma and supernaturalism, which is a fancy way of saying it’s atheists who believe in people and not God. I am down with reason, and although I think I have psychic powers that allow my friends' dead parents to take over my emotions, I respect those who don’t believe in the supernatural. It is a lot easier to believe in fewer things than to accept a host of others on faith alone, and humanists are intellectual minimalists. They are the Design Within Reach to Christianity's Shabby Chic, and no one was more ready to clean house than Frank Zappa.
> Maybe the best treatment on Earth of the question as to whether or not atheism is a religion came from music god Frank Zappa, founder of the Church of American Secular Humanism (CASH). Secular humanism is defined as reason rejecting dogma and supernaturalism, which is a fancy way of saying it’s atheists who believe in people and not God. I am down with reason, and although I think I have psychic powers that allow my friends' dead parents to take over my emotions, I respect those who don’t believe in the supernatural. It is a lot easier to believe in fewer things than to accept a host of others on faith alone, and humanists are intellectual minimalists. They are the Design Within Reach to Christianity's Shabby Chic, and no one was more ready to clean house than Frank Zappa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism Is a Religion - Reason.com
> 
> Before the usual idiots come in and say this is just a tax dodge I want to point out that Scientology is the biggest tax dodge ever created, and no one I have seen denies that it is also a religion.
Click to expand...





Wndbag, I just clicked on your link, and that's a NeoClown opinion piece.  Not only that, but the author is a complete idiot. He said he was attacked on Twitter for posting his drivel, and I can't imagine why...

Here's my favorite part of the article...

*"Secular humanism is defined as reason rejecting dogma and supernaturalism, which is a fancy way of saying it’s atheists who believe in people and not God. I am down with reason, and although I think I have psychic powers that allow my friends' dead parents to take over my emotions, I respect those who don’t believe in the supernatural." 
*
"I'm down with that?..and you take this as a serious researched information? They guy sounds like he's 12. And then he says Secular humanism is a fancy way to say atheist believe in people, not God.

I've got news for you DingDong, believing in people is not a religion.  Do you believe in people?  Do you see or have physical contact with people?  I believe that people exist....I SEE THEM EVERY DAY!!! I do not believe they have super powers though.

What an ignorant article!!!


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes No and Yes
> 
> The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
> their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
> that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
> acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
> "that group" to be acting in concert with each other.
> 
> So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
> the same way people say about "liberalism".
> 
> Now, you can also divide into
> WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
> and point to the GOP.  This has been causing issues because, for example,
> the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
> did not represent all the members.
> 
> Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
> WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
> as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.
> 
> So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
> and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.
> 
> Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
> Some ARE making it their religion
> Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
> Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!
> 
> So yes, yes, and no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
> 
> She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
> 
> Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
> 
> Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> *Atheists believe that there are no deities.*
> 
> Lack of belief either way makes one agnostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BZZZT Wrong!
> 
> Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a·the·ist
> ˈāTHēˌist/
> _noun_
> 
> a person who disbelieves or* lacks belief in the existence of God or gods*.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lack of belief is not a a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bzzzzzt. Wrong! A redefining of _atheism _to keep from being labeled a religion is the relatively recent trick perpetuated by Atheists. Dawkins did this with his 7 level scale and your source did it also.
> 
> If Atheists simply had a lack of belief in deities, they would not argue so verociously with those that believe.
> 
> If you have a lack of belief, you are agnostic.  Atheists believe that deities do not exist.
Click to expand...





You are the only person who's redefining anything.


----------



## asaratis

Derideo_Te said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes No and Yes
> 
> The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
> their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
> that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
> acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
> "that group" to be acting in concert with each other.
> 
> So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
> the same way people say about "liberalism".
> 
> Now, you can also divide into
> WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
> and point to the GOP.  This has been causing issues because, for example,
> the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
> did not represent all the members.
> 
> Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
> WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
> as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.
> 
> So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
> and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.
> 
> Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
> Some ARE making it their religion
> Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
> Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!
> 
> So yes, yes, and no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
> 
> She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
> 
> Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
> 
> Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> *Atheists believe that there are no deities.*
> 
> Lack of belief either way makes one agnostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BZZZT Wrong!
> 
> Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a·the·ist
> ˈāTHēˌist/
> _noun_
> 
> a person who disbelieves or* lacks belief in the existence of God or gods*.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lack of belief is not a a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bzzzzzt. Wrong! A redefining of _atheism _to keep from being labeled a religion is the relatively recent trick perpetuated by Atheists. Dawkins did this with his 7 level scale and your source did it also.
> 
> If Atheists simply had a lack of belief in deities, they would not argue so verociously with those that believe.
> 
> If you have a lack of belief, you are agnostic.  Atheists believe that deities do not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to define what I "believe".
> 
> You don't get to impose your muddled excuse for "thinking" on me either.
> 
> I don't believe that the sun will rise tomorrow because I understand the laws that govern the orbit of the planets. I use knowledge, reason and logic so I have no need of your "beliefs".
> 
> That same knowledge, reason and logic tells me that it is a waste of my time arguing with someone who makes absurd allegations that atheism was "redefined" recently in order to "keep from being labeled a religion".
> 
> Sheer stupidity on that scale cannot be reasoned with so instead you have earned yourself a one way ticket to Cyberia.
> 
> [People that you ignore] *click* [Member to ignore] "asaratis" [Save Changes] *click*
> 
> View attachment 32134
Click to expand...

You don't get to redefine terms that have been defined for decades.  All you Atheists want to do is weasel out of being called religious.  Over the past recent years, Atheists have attempted to redefine their cult-like religion by listening to their Chief Minister of Atheist Dogma, Richard Dawkins and other weasels that do not wish to be called "religious".

Your posted "definition" comes from AtheistsUnited.com.  Who would have guessed?

Try this:
Atheism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings.* Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial.* It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Democritus and Epicurus argued for it in the context of materialism. In the 18th century David Hume and Immanuel Kant, though not atheists, argued against traditional proofs for God's existence, making belief a matter of faith alone. Atheists such as Ludwig Feuerbach held that God was a projection of human ideals and that recognizing this fiction made self-realization possible. Marxism exemplified modern materialism. Beginning with Friedrich Nietzsche, existentialist atheism proclaimed the death of God and the human freedom to determine value and meaning. Logical positivism holds that propositions concerning the existence or nonexistence of God are nonsensical or meaningless.

*atheist*

[ey-thee-ist]

 Synonyms 
 Examples 
 Word Origin 
noun
1.
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

...and here's another:
*Atheism*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Atheist" redirects here. For other uses, see Atheist (disambiguation).







Part of a series on*Atheism*

Types and concepts[show]History and criticism[show]Arguments for atheism[show]People[show]Related concepts[show]



 Atheism portal
WikiProject

v
t
e

[TBODY]
[/TBODY]*Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2]* In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.*[3][4][5]
*************************************

Any belief related to deities is a religion.  Atheism espouses that there are none.  THAT is a religious belief.  If Atheists simply had a lack of belief, they would not be posting in this thread, would not be attacking Christians and other theists incessantly, would not be demanding that religious symbols be removed from society....

All this jabbering about someone having defined conservatism as a religion is strawman bullshit.  Religion relates to deities.  A belief in a deity (or deities) is a religious belief.  A belief that deities do not exist is a religious belief..  Atheism is a religion.

If we could all redefine ourselves, I would be a Saint.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> Are you going to build Tuatara a Unicorn Church?



Why would I do that? I am just pointing out that people who compare religion to unicorns are idiots.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> ...<snip>...
> 
> 
> Can you tell me how to put people on ignore?
> 
> Thank you kindly!


Just don't bother reading their posts!

Actually, just go to your Personal Details and look on the left side...scroll down to People You Ignore...enter my user name!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> Wndbag, I just clicked on your link, and that's a NeoClown opinion piece.  Not only that, but the author is a complete idiot. He said he was attacked on Twitter for posting his drivel, and I can't imagine why...



For the same reason you keep attacking me for pointing out that atheism can be a religion, because idiots hate the truth.



Carla_Danger said:


> Here's my favorite part of the article...
> 
> *"Secular humanism is defined as reason rejecting dogma and supernaturalism, which is a fancy way of saying it’s atheists who believe in people and not God. I am down with reason, and although I think I have psychic powers that allow my friends' dead parents to take over my emotions, I respect those who don’t believe in the supernatural."
> *
> "I'm down with that?..and you take this as a serious researched information? They guy sounds like he's 12. And then he says Secular humanism is a fancy way to say atheist believe in people, not God.
> 
> I've got news for you DingDong, believing in people is not a religion.  Do you believe in people?  Do you see or have physical contact with people?  I believe that people exist....I SEE THEM EVERY DAY!!! I do not believe they have super powers though.
> 
> What an ignorant article!!!



I am sure you thought you made a point there.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> You are the only person who's redefining anything.


Right!

I cite Merriam Webster and Wikipedia and you think I redefined something!  Try again, please.


----------



## Derideo_Te

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Derideo_Te: Thank you for your clarifying statement.
> I wish all people would EXPLAIN as you did what the problem is.
> That way at least we know what is going wrong and have a chance to address it.
> 
> In this case, it may be this is just an exercise in learning to forgive unconditionally.
> If Asaratis does not define your beliefs, then don't let him.
> There is no need to ignore or cut him off to make this not so.
> 
> If it is truly independent, then he should be able to keep thinking what he does
> and not affect you.  Let him be wrong.
> 
> So this could be one of those exercises in how to really stop this nonsense of
> associating people by label.
> 
> As Eleanor Roosevelt said, that no one can make you feel inferior without your consent,
> nobody can define you or your beliefs either.  If we do not agree, then that belief belongs
> to the other person not to us. We shouldn't have to react negatively to make it clear. It already is their belief!
> 
> How can we agree to separate, so we don't end up like
> fingers stuck in Chinese finger traps, the harder we fight to repel each
> other the more we remain stuck. How do we free ourselves from this
> mindset and truly not let it affect us what other people believe?
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
> 
> She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
> 
> Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
> 
> Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> *Atheists believe that there are no deities.*
> 
> Lack of belief either way makes one agnostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BZZZT Wrong!
> 
> Google
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a·the·ist
> ˈāTHēˌist/
> _noun_
> 
> a person who disbelieves or* lacks belief in the existence of God or gods*.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lack of belief is not a a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bzzzzzt. Wrong! A redefining of _atheism _to keep from being labeled a religion is the relatively recent trick perpetuated by Atheists. Dawkins did this with his 7 level scale and your source did it also.
> 
> If Atheists simply had a lack of belief in deities, they would not argue so verociously with those that believe.
> 
> If you have a lack of belief, you are agnostic.  Atheists believe that deities do not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to define what I "believe".
> 
> You don't get to impose your muddled excuse for "thinking" on me either.
> 
> I don't believe that the sun will rise tomorrow because I understand the laws that govern the orbit of the planets. I use knowledge, reason and logic so I have no need of your "beliefs".
> 
> That same knowledge, reason and logic tells me that it is a waste of my time arguing with someone who makes absurd allegations that atheism was "redefined" recently in order to "keep from being labeled a religion".
> 
> Sheer stupidity on that scale cannot be reasoned with so instead you have earned yourself a one way ticket to Cyberia.
> 
> [People that you ignore] *click* [Member to ignore] "asaratis" [Save Changes] *click*
> 
> View attachment 32134
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


My dear Emily,

My time is my own and I am under no obligation to suffer fools gladly around here. Those who prove themselves to be a complete and utter waste of my time don't deserve the privilege of wasting my time so that is why I consign them to Cyberia. The feature is there for a reason and I make good use of it because the value I place on my time far exceeds the vacuity of the posters who now reside in Cyberia.

They can still post their mindless drivel as much as they wish but it won't interfere with my time in this forum in the future. I am the one and only master of my time and when I decide that they are not worth it that is the result. I don't make this decision lightly because I consider a number of factors before I issue the one way ticket. Essentially when I see no redeeming value at all in the posts of someone I push them out of my time slot.

There is no shortage of posters either so it isn't as though I won't have anyone else to exchange ideas with. The abundance of fools though can make it tedious wading through their blather. Going by Carla's recent response to QW in this thread I am glad that he was the very first poster that I ignored when I first arrived here about 18 months ago. I must have saved many hours of my time by now not reading his claptrap.

So yes, the ignore system works perfectly. I get to control who I read and respond to and that improves the USMB experience. The Cyberians might as well be speaking another language or residing on a different planet as far as I am concerned because what they have to say is just meaningless noise since it contains nothing of any value whatsoever.

Peace
DT


----------



## asaratis

Derideo_Te said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Derideo_Te: Thank you for your clarifying statement.
> I wish all people would EXPLAIN as you did what the problem is.
> That way at least we know what is going wrong and have a chance to address it.
> 
> In this case, it may be this is just an exercise in learning to forgive unconditionally.
> If Asaratis does not define your beliefs, then don't let him.
> There is no need to ignore or cut him off to make this not so.
> 
> If it is truly independent, then he should be able to keep thinking what he does
> and not affect you.  Let him be wrong.
> 
> So this could be one of those exercises in how to really stop this nonsense of
> associating people by label.
> ...<snip>...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dear Emily,
> 
> My time is my own and I am under no obligation to suffer fools gladly around here. Those who prove themselves to be a complete and utter waste of my time don't deserve the privilege of wasting my time so that is why I consign them to Cyberia. The feature is there for a reason and I make good use of it because the value I place on my time far exceeds the vacuity of the posters who now reside in Cyberia.
> 
> They can still post their mindless drivel as much as they wish but it won't interfere with my time in this forum in the future. I am the one and only master of my time and when I decide that they are not worth it that is the result. I don't make this decision lightly because I consider a number of factors before I issue the one way ticket. Essentially when I see no redeeming value at all in the posts of someone I push them out of my time slot.
> 
> There is no shortage of posters either so it isn't as though I won't have anyone else to exchange ideas with. The abundance of fools though can make it tedious wading through their blather. Going by Carla's recent response to QW in this thread I am glad that he was the very first poster that I ignored when I first arrived here about 18 months ago. I must have saved many hours of my time by now not reading his claptrap.
> 
> So yes, the ignore system works perfectly. I get to control who I read and respond to and that improves the USMB experience. The Cyberians might as well be speaking another language or residing on a different planet as far as I am concerned because what they have to say is just meaningless noise since it contains nothing of any value whatsoever.
> 
> Peace
> DT
Click to expand...



Dear @*emilynghiem ,*

DT above expresses nothing more than self aggrandizement coupled with intentional veiling of his apparent inability to cope with those "beneath him" that logically challenge his errant postings and surreal re-definitions of terms that have been accepted for decades.  This is very much akin to the liberals changing their own label from_ liberal_ to _progressive _in an attempt to escape the negative connotations now attached to _liberal.  _Ignoring the opposition is also another tactic used exhaustively by liberals.  It bears no resemblance to that which it precludes; productive dialog that often leads to self improvement and understanding.

Just as does hatred, ignoring people has little effect on the target.

Regards,

asaratis


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Derideo_Te: Thank you for your clarifying statement.
> I wish all people would EXPLAIN as you did what the problem is.
> That way at least we know what is going wrong and have a chance to address it.
> 
> In this case, it may be this is just an exercise in learning to forgive unconditionally.
> If Asaratis does not define your beliefs, then don't let him.
> There is no need to ignore or cut him off to make this not so.
> 
> If it is truly independent, then he should be able to keep thinking what he does
> and not affect you.  Let him be wrong.
> 
> So this could be one of those exercises in how to really stop this nonsense of
> associating people by label.
> ...<snip>...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dear Emily,
> 
> My time is my own and I am under no obligation to suffer fools gladly around here. Those who prove themselves to be a complete and utter waste of my time don't deserve the privilege of wasting my time so that is why I consign them to Cyberia. The feature is there for a reason and I make good use of it because the value I place on my time far exceeds the vacuity of the posters who now reside in Cyberia.
> 
> They can still post their mindless drivel as much as they wish but it won't interfere with my time in this forum in the future. I am the one and only master of my time and when I decide that they are not worth it that is the result. I don't make this decision lightly because I consider a number of factors before I issue the one way ticket. Essentially when I see no redeeming value at all in the posts of someone I push them out of my time slot.
> 
> There is no shortage of posters either so it isn't as though I won't have anyone else to exchange ideas with. The abundance of fools though can make it tedious wading through their blather. Going by Carla's recent response to QW in this thread I am glad that he was the very first poster that I ignored when I first arrived here about 18 months ago. I must have saved many hours of my time by now not reading his claptrap.
> 
> So yes, the ignore system works perfectly. I get to control who I read and respond to and that improves the USMB experience. The Cyberians might as well be speaking another language or residing on a different planet as far as I am concerned because what they have to say is just meaningless noise since it contains nothing of any value whatsoever.
> 
> Peace
> DT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dear @*emilynghiem ,*
> 
> DT above expresses nothing more than self aggrandizement coupled with intentional veiling of his apparent inability to cope with those "beneath him" that logically challenge his errant postings and surreal re-definitions of terms that have been accepted for decades.  This is very much akin to the liberals changing their own label from_ liberal_ to _progressive _in an attempt to escape the negative connotations now attached to _liberal.  _Ignoring the opposition is also another tactic used exhaustively by liberals.  It bears no resemblance to that which it precludes; productive dialog that often leads to self improvement and understanding.
> 
> Just as does hatred, ignoring people has little effect on the target.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> asaratis
Click to expand...


Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion. 

Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="PratchettFan, post: 9828388, member: 37752"
> Really.  Which part isn't true?  Did you not say you think it is probable there is no God (I am number 6)?  Do you disagree with the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why you're so fixated with that Dawkins list.  I just happened to come across it online. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm right in between a 5 and a 6.
> 
> 5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.                        6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable                                 and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again, not answering the questions.  You said I was making shit up and I asked you to point out where.  You presented the list, not me.  Don't blame me for what you did.  You said you were a 6 and I took you at your word.  Don't blame me if you didn't mean it.  I have asked you if the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief and you have never once said it isn't.  In fact, you have never yet acknowledged the question.
> 
> Did you say you were a 6 on the Dawkins scale?  yes or no
> Do you agree the definition of Atheism is an absence of belief?  yes or no
> 
> I'll bet I don't get an answer.  Please prove me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking for something that isn't black and white, as you'd hoped.  Yes, I did say I was a 6, but now I think I'm between a 5 and 6, because this Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far. The Dawkins list is not going to fit every atheist like a glove, because all atheist are different.  No, I do not agree that the definition of atheism is an absence of belief.  I think it's a disbelief or doubt that there is a God/God's.
Click to expand...


It was black and white because you claimed I had made it up.  I didn't.  And you were able to give me yes or no answers.  Not hard at all.

It doesn't matter to me where you fall on the scale.  Let's say you're a 5.5.  Sealybobo looks to be a 6.9.  I'm probably a 3.8.  All that shows is that Atheism is not a narrow concept as Pogo claims.  For that matter, neither is Theism.  Atheism entails a wide variance of belief from "eh" to "not a chance".  I'm at "yeah, I think there might be but I don't particularly give a damn".  There is nothing wrong with the belief at all.  It is just as valid as any theistic belief.  Nor does that belief make it a religion.

*What makes something a religion is not the belief but the construct built around the belief.*  If I say that I am certain there is no God, that is a statement of pure belief but that doesn't make it a religion.  However, if I say I am certain there is no God and anyone who thinks there might even be a chance there is a God isn't a true Atheist, then I am turning Atheism into a religion.  I am creating dogma.[/QUOTE]




That's totally incorrect, because religion is the belief and worship of a superhuman power.  What you're saying is that religion is simply a belief, which is ridiculous. You're making up your own definition.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Quantum Windbag said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
> 
> She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
> 
> Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
> 
> Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you continue to argue what your beliefs actually are definitively establishes the fact that you actually have a belief.
Click to expand...



A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.

Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
> 
> She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
> 
> Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
> 
> Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you continue to argue what your beliefs actually are definitively establishes the fact that you actually have a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.
> 
> Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.
Click to expand...

A tree is not a deity.  Religions deal with deities.  Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.

DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.

No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs.   Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist.  DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster.  Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.

If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic.  If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist.  The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.

Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion.  I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God.  I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me.  If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
> 
> She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
> 
> Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
> 
> Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you continue to argue what your beliefs actually are definitively establishes the fact that you actually have a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.
> 
> Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A tree is not a deity.  Religions deal with deities.  Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.
> 
> DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.
> 
> No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs.   Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist.  DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster.  Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.
> 
> If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic.  If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist.  The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.
> 
> Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion.  I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God.  I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me.  If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.
Click to expand...




asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
> 
> She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
> 
> Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
> 
> Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you continue to argue what your beliefs actually are definitively establishes the fact that you actually have a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.
> 
> Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A tree is not a deity.  Religions deal with deities.  Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.
> 
> DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.
> 
> No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs.   Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist.  DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster.  Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.
> 
> If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic.  If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist.  The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.
> 
> Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion.  I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God.  I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me.  If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.
Click to expand...


You make a number of false statements. As usual, your hate and intolerance won't allow you to make rational judgments outside of your cult's indoctrination.

Your religion fits the definition of a cult, BTW.

Christianity is by definition, a cult. CULT - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top.

Catholicism falls prey to this. It has a Pope and a structure of Bishops and priests, each a lower level of authority with all the teaching "at the top". By definition, it is a cult.

Let me toss out Scientology here, where all its teaching comes from L Ron Hubbard (Scientology has been decreed a _bona fide_ religion based on .... finances and headcount). I bring this up because its Leader is dead but _still_ the teaching comes from one person at the top.

All Christianity is a cult as well under these strictures. There is a hierarchy of authority not in any way different from Scientology. Jesus is the authority who is dead, as well as the apostle Paul (who really established the founding of Christianity as a religion). But the _authority_ still comes from the "top" through these two individuals who are no more or less dead than L Ron Hubbard (except they have been dead a lot longer). That the religion confers a special status to these two authorities is of no consequence, as Scientologists confer a special status to their "spiritual leader" as well. Neither this fact nor the antiquity of the Christian folk being dead (or for that matter Mohammed or David Koresh or Jim Jones, etc.) is in anyway legitimized one over the other.

BTW, each of these men have made grandiose claims of self-importance, each claiming those who follow different paths are doomed to eternal torment.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
> 
> She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
> 
> Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
> 
> Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you continue to argue what your beliefs actually are definitively establishes the fact that you actually have a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.
> 
> Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A tree is not a deity.  *Religions deal with deities.*  Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.
> 
> DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.
> 
> No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs.   Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist.  DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster.  Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.
> 
> If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic.  If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist.  The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.
> 
> Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion.  I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God.  I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me.  If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.
Click to expand...




You're right, religions deal with deities, atheism does not.  Hope that helps.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:
			
		

> A tree is not a deity.  Religions deal with deities.  Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God..



False. A tree certainly can be a deity

God and Gods dictionary definition God and Gods defined

zoomorphism

the attribution of animal form or nature to a deity.

Lots of things can be Deities, ranging from incorporeal entities to long haired hippies walking around in sandals.


----------



## sealybobo

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
> 
> She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
> 
> Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
> 
> Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you continue to argue what your beliefs actually are definitively establishes the fact that you actually have a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.
> 
> Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A tree is not a deity.  Religions deal with deities.  Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.
> 
> DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.
> 
> No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs.   Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist.  DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster.  Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.
> 
> If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic.  If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist.  The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.
> 
> Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion.  I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God.  I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me.  If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.
Click to expand...


How can I make you understand?  Most atheists will admit that the most logical position to have is actually an agnostic atheist.  Most atheists don't claim to know for certain that there isn't a god.  What we know for certain, or at least as certain as we can be, is that the organized religions stories of god are all made up, fake or lies.  

So as far as the Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Jewish, Greek God stories?  I would still call myself an agnostic atheist but only because I wasn't there.  I would say 99.9999% those stories are made up.  Since I wasn't there I won't say 100% but pretty freakin sure non the less.  We disbelieve enough that we aren't scared into going along with the stories of hell.  Lets just put it that way.  

Now, as far as there being a generic "creator"?  The kind that Boss talks about?  The idea that "something" might have created us but has never spoke to anyone and doesn't care about you?  That is possible.  We don't know what is on the other side of black holes.  Maybe our universe was made from god spunk when he used a black hole like a glory hole.  How can we say 100% for sure that we were not created by something intelligent?  We can't.  But, you can't either.  

So as far as all the theist stories, we give those a .000001% chance of being true.  

Do you believe in magic?  Do you think those magicians are really doing magic or is it a trick?  If you are like most, you know those are just tricks or illusions.  So, is this a religion?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> That's totally incorrect, because religion is the belief and worship of a superhuman power.  What you're saying is that religion is simply a belief, which is ridiculous. You're making up your own definition.



Why do you keep insisting on a definition of religion that excludes a number of the worlds religions? By your wacky definition Bön, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Unitarianism, to name just a few, are not religions. What the fuck gives you the power to tell other people what they believe?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.
> 
> Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.



Never said it was, oh she who thinks she can tell others what they believe. What I said is that atheism is a belief. You can attempt to pretend that it isn't all fucking day long, and you will always be fucking wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> You make a number of false statements. As usual, your hate and intolerance won't allow you to make rational judgments outside of your cult's indoctrination.
> 
> Your religion fits the definition of a cult, BTW.
> 
> Christianity is by definition, a cult. CULT - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top.
> 
> Catholicism falls prey to this. It has a Pope and a structure of Bishops and priests, each a lower level of authority with all the teaching "at the top". By definition, it is a cult.
> 
> Let me toss out Scientology here, where all its teaching comes from L Ron Hubbard (Scientology has been decreed a _bona fide_ religion based on .... finances and headcount). I bring this up because its Leader is dead but _still_ the teaching comes from one person at the top.
> 
> All Christianity is a cult as well under these strictures. There is a hierarchy of authority not in any way different from Scientology. Jesus is the authority who is dead, as well as the apostle Paul (who really established the founding of Christianity as a religion). But the _authority_ still comes from the "top" through these two individuals who are no more or less dead than L Ron Hubbard (except they have been dead a lot longer). That the religion confers a special status to these two authorities is of no consequence, as Scientologists confer a special status to their "spiritual leader" as well. Neither this fact nor the antiquity of the Christian folk being dead (or for that matter Mohammed or David Koresh or Jim Jones, etc.) is in anyway legitimized one over the other.
> 
> BTW, each of these men have made grandiose claims of self-importance, each claiming those who follow different paths are doomed to eternal torment.



That was hilarious, thanks for the laugh.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> How can I make you understand?  Most atheists will admit that the most logical position to have is actually an agnostic atheist.  Most atheists don't claim to know for certain that there isn't a god.  What we know for certain, or at least as certain as we can be, is that the organized religions stories of god are all made up, fake or lies.



Even if you are correct that most, as in more than half, of atheist will admit they don't really know, that does not change the fact that, to be an atheist, you have to believe that there is no god. I know Christians, and Muslims, that will admit they might be wrong about the existence of God or Allah, that does not change the fact that they believe. 

On top of that, most is not all. That means that, even if I give you the most generous interpretation of your post possible, you are still arguing against reality.



sealybobo said:


> So as far as the Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Jewish, Greek God stories?  I would still call myself an agnostic atheist but only because I wasn't there.  I would say 99.9999% those stories are made up.  Since I wasn't there I won't say 100% but pretty freakin sure non the less.  We disbelieve enough that we aren't scared into going along with the stories of hell.  Lets just put it that way.
> 
> Now, as far as there being a generic "creator"?  The kind that Boss talks about?  The idea that "something" might have created us but has never spoke to anyone and doesn't care about you?  That is possible.  We don't know what is on the other side of black holes.  Maybe our universe was made from god spunk when he used a black hole like a glory hole.  How can we say 100% for sure that we were not created by something intelligent?  We can't.  But, you can't either.
> 
> So as far as all the theist stories, we give those a .000001% chance of being true.
> 
> Do you believe in magic?  Do you think those magicians are really doing magic or is it a trick?  If you are like most, you know those are just tricks or illusions.  So, is this a religion?



Sorry, but what you said is not an expression of disbelief, it was an expression of belief. The fact that you are so stupid you don't understand that fact is not proof you are correct.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.
> 
> Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said it was, oh she who thinks she can tell others what they believe. What I said is that atheism is a belief. You can attempt to pretend that it isn't all fucking day long, and you will always be fucking wrong.
Click to expand...


Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. 

It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. 

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.
> 
> It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.



All of your arguments are based on your belief system, which means you are not a person who has a lack of belief. Therefore, all your arguments in favor of defining atheism as a lack of belief are based on the delusion that you lack belief, and are thus untrue.

Don't believe me? Prove that people are born atheists. Keep in mind before you start that I can provide actual scientific studies that prove people are actually born with an neurologically hard wired system that defines them as believers.

Got anything else to say?


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make a number of false statements. As usual, your hate and intolerance won't allow you to make rational judgments outside of your cult's indoctrination.
> 
> Your religion fits the definition of a cult, BTW.
> 
> Christianity is by definition, a cult. CULT - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top.
> 
> Catholicism falls prey to this. It has a Pope and a structure of Bishops and priests, each a lower level of authority with all the teaching "at the top". By definition, it is a cult.
> 
> Let me toss out Scientology here, where all its teaching comes from L Ron Hubbard (Scientology has been decreed a _bona fide_ religion based on .... finances and headcount). I bring this up because its Leader is dead but _still_ the teaching comes from one person at the top.
> 
> All Christianity is a cult as well under these strictures. There is a hierarchy of authority not in any way different from Scientology. Jesus is the authority who is dead, as well as the apostle Paul (who really established the founding of Christianity as a religion). But the _authority_ still comes from the "top" through these two individuals who are no more or less dead than L Ron Hubbard (except they have been dead a lot longer). That the religion confers a special status to these two authorities is of no consequence, as Scientologists confer a special status to their "spiritual leader" as well. Neither this fact nor the antiquity of the Christian folk being dead (or for that matter Mohammed or David Koresh or Jim Jones, etc.) is in anyway legitimized one over the other.
> 
> BTW, each of these men have made grandiose claims of self-importance, each claiming those who follow different paths are doomed to eternal torment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was hilarious, thanks for the laugh.
Click to expand...

You're welcome. 

Per standard windbaggery, you can't refute the claim so you're left to stutter and mumble.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.
> 
> Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said it was, oh she who thinks she can tell others what they believe. What I said is that atheism is a belief. You can attempt to pretend that it isn't all fucking day long, and you will always be fucking wrong.
Click to expand...

Your false claim that atheism is a belief is simply the ranting that you and the other fundie extremists rattle on with, utterly unsupported and indefensible. 

That others reject your polytheistic traditions is no excuse to use your beliefs to promote lies and falsehoods.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I make you understand?  Most atheists will admit that the most logical position to have is actually an agnostic atheist.  Most atheists don't claim to know for certain that there isn't a god.  What we know for certain, or at least as certain as we can be, is that the organized religions stories of god are all made up, fake or lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you are correct that most, as in more than half, of atheist will admit they don't really know, that does not change the fact that, to be an atheist, you have to believe that there is no god. I know Christians, and Muslims, that will admit they might be wrong about the existence of God or Allah, that does not change the fact that they believe.
> 
> On top of that, most is not all. That means that, even if I give you the most generous interpretation of your post possible, you are still arguing against reality.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as far as the Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Jewish, Greek God stories?  I would still call myself an agnostic atheist but only because I wasn't there.  I would say 99.9999% those stories are made up.  Since I wasn't there I won't say 100% but pretty freakin sure non the less.  We disbelieve enough that we aren't scared into going along with the stories of hell.  Lets just put it that way.
> 
> Now, as far as there being a generic "creator"?  The kind that Boss talks about?  The idea that "something" might have created us but has never spoke to anyone and doesn't care about you?  That is possible.  We don't know what is on the other side of black holes.  Maybe our universe was made from god spunk when he used a black hole like a glory hole.  How can we say 100% for sure that we were not created by something intelligent?  We can't.  But, you can't either.
> 
> So as far as all the theist stories, we give those a .000001% chance of being true.
> 
> Do you believe in magic?  Do you think those magicians are really doing magic or is it a trick?  If you are like most, you know those are just tricks or illusions.  So, is this a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but what you said is not an expression of disbelief, it was an expression of belief. The fact that you are so stupid you don't understand that fact is not proof you are correct.
Click to expand...


If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge.


Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.
> 
> It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of your arguments are based on your belief system, which means you are not a person who has a lack of belief. Therefore, all your arguments in favor of defining atheism as a lack of belief are based on the delusion that you lack belief, and are thus untrue.
> 
> Don't believe me? Prove that people are born atheists. Keep in mind before you start that I can provide actual scientific studies that prove people are actually born with an neurologically hard wired system that defines them as believers.
> 
> Got anything else to say?
Click to expand...


We are hardwired to wonder/ponder these things but the fact is you didn't come out of your moms womb believing in god and you didn't come up with it on your own either.  When you were 3 or 4, you had to be told about god/jesus/mohammad.  If no one ever mentioned god to you or any other child, eventually someone might come up with the concept again so while it might be true that we are hard wired to be curious/spiritual, it would not be the exact same story the next time.  You may not come up with the concept of hell but someone else might.  Why?  Because our unintelligent ancestors sat around the fire and asked a lot of questions.  What happens when you die?  And someone came up with heaven.  What happens if you were a bad person?  Well a bad person can't also go to heaven.  What would be the point?  So, you might come up with hell.  

You could even come up with the Budda or Hindu story.  Does the fact that humans invented the Greek gods mean god exists?  No.  

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

_Implicit atheism_ is defined as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". _Explicit atheism_ is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it".  Explicit atheists have considered the idea of deities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists thus either have not given the idea of deities much consideration, or, though they do not believe, have not rejected belief.

Do I have anything else to say?  Just that I agree with Hollie.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.
> 
> It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of your arguments are based on your belief system, which means you are not a person who has a lack of belief. Therefore, all your arguments in favor of defining atheism as a lack of belief are based on the delusion that you lack belief, and are thus untrue.
> 
> Don't believe me? Prove that people are born atheists. Keep in mind before you start that I can provide actual scientific studies that prove people are actually born with an neurologically hard wired system that defines them as believers.
> 
> Got anything else to say?
Click to expand...


I believe in the ocean there are men who can breathe water.  Is your lack of belief in these men a belief?  Ok, then I guess me not believing in god(s) is a belief too.  So what?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> You're welcome.
> 
> Per standard windbaggery, you can't refute the claim so you're left to stutter and mumble.



Did you make a claim? I must have missed because of the tears in my eyes from laughing at your post.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> Your false claim that atheism is a belief is simply the ranting that you and the other fundie extremists rattle on with, utterly unsupported and indefensible.
> 
> That others reject your polytheistic traditions is no excuse to use your beliefs to promote lies and falsehoods.



Excuse me?

Do you know what belief means?

*An acceptance that a statement is true* or that something exists​You have repeatedly demonstrated that you accept the statement that god does not exist as true. That means you have a belief. You might like to pretend you do not, but the rest of the universe knows you do.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your false claim that atheism is a belief is simply the ranting that you and the other fundie extremists rattle on with, utterly unsupported and indefensible.
> 
> That others reject your polytheistic traditions is no excuse to use your beliefs to promote lies and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me?
> 
> Do you know what belief means?
> 
> *An acceptance that a statement is true* or that something exists​You have repeatedly asserted that you accept the statement that god does not exist as true. That means you have a belief. You might like to pretend you do not, but the rest of the universe knows you do.
Click to expand...

There's no excuse for you. 

Sorry, but your being incensed that others conclude your gods are no more true than tales and fables of other inventions of gods is something you will have to learn to live with. 

You're in denial of that objective reality but such is the case for so many religious extremists.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> Per standard windbaggery, you can't refute the claim so you're left to stutter and mumble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you make a claim? I must have missed because of the tears in my eyes from laughing at your post.
Click to expand...

Did you write a coherent comment? That's a rhetorical question because your pointless babble never gets beyond spam.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your false claim that atheism is a belief is simply the ranting that you and the other fundie extremists rattle on with, utterly unsupported and indefensible.
> 
> That others reject your polytheistic traditions is no excuse to use your beliefs to promote lies and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me?
> 
> Do you know what belief means?
> 
> *An acceptance that a statement is true* or that something exists​You have repeatedly demonstrated that you accept the statement that god does not exist as true. That means you have a belief. You might like to pretend you do not, but the rest of the universe knows you do.
Click to expand...


She doesn't believe.  Doesn't.  No belief.  Nada.  Semantics really.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your false claim that atheism is a belief is simply the ranting that you and the other fundie extremists rattle on with, utterly unsupported and indefensible.
> 
> That others reject your polytheistic traditions is no excuse to use your beliefs to promote lies and falsehoods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me?
> 
> Do you know what belief means?
> 
> *An acceptance that a statement is true* or that something exists​You have repeatedly asserted that you accept the statement that god does not exist as true. That means you have a belief. You might like to pretend you do not, but the rest of the universe knows you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no excuse for you.
> 
> Sorry, but your being incensed that others conclude your gods are no more true than tales and fables of other inventions of gods is something you will have to learn to live with.
> 
> You're in denial of that objective reality but such is the case for so many religious extremists.
Click to expand...


Thank god(s) for the internets huh?  I would have never been able to do the amount of research on this subject as I have now that we have the net.  My friend showed me a million great atheist debates, blablabla.

Without the net it wouldn't be this easy to share stuff like this:


----------



## Carla_Danger

Hollie said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> Per standard windbaggery, you can't refute the claim so you're left to stutter and mumble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you make a claim? I must have missed because of the tears in my eyes from laughing at your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you write a coherent comment? That's a rhetorical question because your pointless babble never gets beyond spam.
Click to expand...




We don't call him Windbag for nothing.  LOL!


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make a number of false statements. As usual, your hate and intolerance won't allow you to make rational judgments outside of your cult's indoctrination.
> 
> Your religion fits the definition of a cult, BTW.
> 
> Christianity is by definition, a cult. CULT - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top.
> 
> Catholicism falls prey to this. It has a Pope and a structure of Bishops and priests, each a lower level of authority with all the teaching "at the top". By definition, it is a cult.
> 
> Let me toss out Scientology here, where all its teaching comes from L Ron Hubbard (Scientology has been decreed a _bona fide_ religion based on .... finances and headcount). I bring this up because its Leader is dead but _still_ the teaching comes from one person at the top.
> 
> All Christianity is a cult as well under these strictures. There is a hierarchy of authority not in any way different from Scientology. Jesus is the authority who is dead, as well as the apostle Paul (who really established the founding of Christianity as a religion). But the _authority_ still comes from the "top" through these two individuals who are no more or less dead than L Ron Hubbard (except they have been dead a lot longer). That the religion confers a special status to these two authorities is of no consequence, as Scientologists confer a special status to their "spiritual leader" as well. Neither this fact nor the antiquity of the Christian folk being dead (or for that matter Mohammed or David Koresh or Jim Jones, etc.) is in anyway legitimized one over the other.
> 
> BTW, each of these men have made grandiose claims of self-importance, each claiming those who follow different paths are doomed to eternal torment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was hilarious, thanks for the laugh.
Click to expand...


Now I see your problem.  I used to think this too about atheists:

In Theistic Satanism, Satan is considered a positive force and deity who is either worshipped or revered

Are you confusing us atheists with them?


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I make you understand?  Most atheists will admit that the most logical position to have is actually an agnostic atheist.  Most atheists don't claim to know for certain that there isn't a god.  What we know for certain, or at least as certain as we can be, is that the organized religions stories of god are all made up, fake or lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you are correct that most, as in more than half, of atheist will admit they don't really know, that does not change the fact that, to be an atheist, you have to believe that there is no god. I know Christians, and Muslims, that will admit they might be wrong about the existence of God or Allah, that does not change the fact that they believe.
> 
> On top of that, most is not all. That means that, even if I give you the most generous interpretation of your post possible, you are still arguing against reality.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as far as the Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Jewish, Greek God stories?  I would still call myself an agnostic atheist but only because I wasn't there.  I would say 99.9999% those stories are made up.  Since I wasn't there I won't say 100% but pretty freakin sure non the less.  We disbelieve enough that we aren't scared into going along with the stories of hell.  Lets just put it that way.
> 
> Now, as far as there being a generic "creator"?  The kind that Boss talks about?  The idea that "something" might have created us but has never spoke to anyone and doesn't care about you?  That is possible.  We don't know what is on the other side of black holes.  Maybe our universe was made from god spunk when he used a black hole like a glory hole.  How can we say 100% for sure that we were not created by something intelligent?  We can't.  But, you can't either.
> 
> So as far as all the theist stories, we give those a .000001% chance of being true.
> 
> Do you believe in magic?  Do you think those magicians are really doing magic or is it a trick?  If you are like most, you know those are just tricks or illusions.  So, is this a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but what you said is not an expression of disbelief, it was an expression of belief. The fact that you are so stupid you don't understand that fact is not proof you are correct.
Click to expand...


Ok I'll be honest here is my religion:

*Theistic Satanism* (also known as *traditional Satanism* or *spiritual Satanism*) is the belief that Satan is a supernatural being or force that individuals may contact and supplicate to


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge.



Now you think you are an expert on etymology.

Sorry Charlie, but you got  that wrong.

1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-). ​Damn, it seems like the etymology is on my side, just like the dictionary.

Want to try again?

​


sealybobo said:


> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.



No, it is a belief that there are no gods, something I just demonstrated with an actual link. Funny how all you can do is post your opinion, even though it has been proven wrong multiple times.



sealybobo said:


> It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.



Yada, yada, yada.



sealybobo said:


> We are hardwired to wonder/ponder these things but the fact is you didn't come out of your moms womb believing in god and you didn't come up with it on your own either.  When you were 3 or 4, you had to be told about god/jesus/mohammad.  If no one ever mentioned god to you or any other child, eventually someone might come up with the concept again so while it might be true that we are hard wired to be curious/spiritual, it would not be the exact same story the next time.  You may not come up with the concept of hell but someone else might.  Why?  Because our unintelligent ancestors sat around the fire and asked a lot of questions.  What happens when you die?  And someone came up with heaven.  What happens if you were a bad person?  Well a bad person can't also go to heaven.  What would be the point?  So, you might come up with hell.



That explains why the Soviet Union never had to tell anyone that God doesn't exist. Wait, it really doesn't. I once read a story about a girl who grew up the daughter of Communist Party members in the Soviet Union. She was told from the time she was 3 or 4 that God did not exist, but found herself wondering why anyone would go to that much trouble to debunk something that is not real. After all, no one has ever written a book to explain why they don't believe in the Easter Bunny or Santa Clause. She thought about it for years, and developed her own concept of what God would be like, if He actually does exist. Funny thing, when the wall came down and she got to hear about the God you insist can only be learned if someone teaches it to you, she discovered He was just like the one she imagined.

Would you accept an argument like that from someone who was trying to prove god exists?

Didn't think so.

Given that you won't accept my story, can you explain why anyone should accept yours?

Didn't think so.



sealybobo said:


> You could even come up with the Budda or Hindu story.  Does the fact that humans invented the Greek gods mean god exists?  No.



Does the fact that both Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammad are all historical figures prove that you exist?

No, it doesn't.



sealybobo said:


> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.



Again with the blithering. Keep it up and you might actually convince yourself that you are right, and no longer need to defend your beliefs to others simply because they disagree with you. 

Have you noticed that I have not once felt the need to defend my beliefs in this thread? Or that there are some posters who are upset that I haven't even laid them out? That is because, unlike yours, mine are all based on reality. I see no need to defend reality, I just point to it and laugh at the idiots that deny it.



sealybobo said:


> _Implicit atheism_ is defined as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". _Explicit atheism_ is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it".  Explicit atheists have considered the idea of deities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists thus either have not given the idea of deities much consideration, or, though they do not believe, have not rejected belief.



It is? By whom?

im·plic·it
: understood though not clearly or directly stated
: not affected by doubt
Full Definition of IMPLICIT
1a :  capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed :  implied <an implicit assumption>
b :  involved in the nature or essence of something though not revealed, expressed, or developed :  potential <a sculptor may see different figures implicit in a block of stone — John Dewey>
c of a mathematical function :  defined by an expression in which the dependent variable and the one or more independent variables are not separated on opposite sides of an equation — compare explicit 4
2:  being without doubt or reserve :  unquestioning <an implicit trust> ​How the fuck do you put a word that means that  in front of another word and redefine it so that it reinforces your argument?

Please tell me again how I am twisting definitions.



sealybobo said:


> Do I have anything else to say?  Just that I agree with Hollie.



You agree with Hollie? Isn't she the idiot that keeps accusing me of being a YEC even though I believe the Earth is over 4 billion years old?

Thanks for proving you are just what I said you are.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I believe in the ocean there are men who can breathe water.  Is your lack of belief in these men a belief?  Ok, then I guess me not believing in god(s) is a belief too.  So what?



What makes you think I lack belief? Are you reading my mind? FYI, I know the men you referred to do not exist. That is a belief, so your entire post is, as usual, based on delusion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Now I see your problem.  I used to think this too about atheists:
> 
> In Theistic Satanism, Satan is considered a positive force and deity who is either worshipped or revered
> 
> Are you confusing us atheists with them?



I think what about atheist? All I said was that Hollie's post is hilarious.

It is.

You, on the other hand, have two problems, you think you can read my mind, and you do not get the joke.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi Hollie:
I think you are confusing the abuse of religion with the consistent practice of it that is mutually beneficial for all people and for humanity, which is my understanding that I support, not the abuse of any religion.

For that matter, do you consider the support of government as supporting abuse of govt to 
* allow corporations to run amok destroying the environment?
the same freedoms and principles in our laws also allow for wrong to be committed and unchecked
"until due process" is gone through; so that these laws and freedom are abused too!

Are you, Hollie, going to throw out all the positive uses of our govt and secular laws
becuase of the people abusing their freedom under this democratic/capitalist system?

Look at the difference between how Asian countries execute drug dealers whereas in
the US the drug abusers and dealers are filling up our prisons.

Are you going to say that supporting the American way is EVIL because it allows such abuses to continue?

* for Christianity, are you going to say that ALL people are evil abusers who support the good principles
of "living life for the good of the whole", being selfless and putting spiritual health of people, relations
and society about one's selfish desires that become abusive when not "treating others as ourselves."

the Golden rule in Christianity is also a natural law in ALL religions.

So are you going to throw all that out because of the people who abuse it?

Please explain how you can make a distinction between the good use of law
vs. people who abuse freedom to break the law,
but you cannot do the same with teachings in Christianity.

There are some people who DO believe the Constitutional laws were all based on greed for property
by white men, and abused to enslave poor people and slaves, so they distrust those laws.

Are you like that, too? Just because the Constitutional laws and govt were used to justify
slavery and discrimination against blacks and women from voting, are you going to
be consistent with your arguments here, and just say supporting Constitutional principles
is endorsing slavery and oppression and enabling political abuse by those with more power?

What is the difference, Hollie, between abusing political authority of the govt
and abusing religious authority of the church? If you are going to reject all the church,
laws and authority because of abuses, are you going to reject all of govt and laws because
of how these are abused by people with more power taking advantage of other people?

Love to hear your answer on this Hollie.
Maybe you can explain it, as I have not heard anyone try yet.

The last person who tried to argue with me that the Christian faith was more of a problem
than any other collective institution that becomes corrupted, changed his mind. And rewrote
his 400 page book after he decided that the problem was greater than just Christianity
but existed with people in general, and wasn't just the religions doing this. All people with
political agenda were equally pushing their views and imposing and oppressing others, not just Christians.

Hollie if you are only saying that Christians are the biggest hypocrites about it, I might agree with you.
Everyone has biases and getting in groups large enough can cause collective damage and oppression.
Corporations, govts, both religious and political groups; even nonprofits commit mass fraud int eh wrong hands.

But I would agree with you that if Christians claim to have the greater responsibility for fixing all these problems,
then when Christians are caught promoting these very problems and making them worse, then that
hypocrisy hurts worse than people who never claimed to have the absolute answers.

If that is your point Hollie, I understand; the difference between you and me is that I see that
for the extreme evil that is caused by any person or group, they also have to balance that by
providing proportional good in order to fulfill the laws of justice.  So for every evil that you blame
on Christianity, the good that Christianity does is equal or above that, so we come out ahead by
correcting the problems and bringing out the good points and purpose in each person or group, including Christainity.

If you do not have faith that equal good comes from the bad in order to bring justice,
then that is the difference between how you see it and how I see it. I also see the evil done,
the horrible genocides and selfish destruction. But I also see how the good in Christianity
not only overcomes, but corrects, prevents and heals the root causes of where this harm comes from.

If you only see the negative side, I understand why you would respond this way.

I can only tell you that from what I have seen and experienced, it goes both ways
and for everything bad that happens, equal or more good can come from it that more than makes up for it.

There is much more good in Christianity, and any evil or abuses can be corrected
and prevented by practicing the good in it.  It is like the spirit of Charity. A lot of charity events 
and organizations can be fraudulent and abuse the good will of people to commit wrongs for selfish reasons.
but the number of charity outreach efforts and organizations that are good far exceeds the ones that are bad.
Christianity is the same way. 
And back to the analogy of govt and laws that are abused by selfish people,
the good still outweighs the bad, and the correct use of the system is to check and prevent the bad abuses.
same with Christian laws that when used correctly can stop the abuses which I assume you are complaining about.

both church and state laws are supposed to check against abuses of their systems, even though
the problems still occur while humanity is on learning curve to prevent and correct the wrongs.

If you have more faith in the state system than in the church system,
I'd like to know why. Because both the church is made up of people
and the govt is. So it is up to people to use the laws correctly in both the church and state
and to prevent the abuses. 

Frankly I think it is harder to stop abuses in the govt because the laws are mandatory 
and harder to change. the changes in the church can be done directly by the people,
as Luther did or the people who merged the Unitarian and Universalist churches.
so I think there is more freedom in religion to change how we teach and do things,
and harder to correct problems in politics because of the legislative process required.

Hollie if you have more faith in the govt system, that is significant. If you believe the
corruption in politics, govt and courts can be fixed using that system without throwing
out all the laws, surely there is hope for religions to correct the abuses!



Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Derideo_Te: Thank you for your clarifying statement.
> I wish all people would EXPLAIN as you did what the problem is.
> That way at least we know what is going wrong and have a chance to address it.
> 
> In this case, it may be this is just an exercise in learning to forgive unconditionally.
> If Asaratis does not define your beliefs, then don't let him.
> There is no need to ignore or cut him off to make this not so.
> 
> If it is truly independent, then he should be able to keep thinking what he does
> and not affect you.  Let him be wrong.
> 
> So this could be one of those exercises in how to really stop this nonsense of
> associating people by label.
> ...<snip>...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dear Emily,
> 
> My time is my own and I am under no obligation to suffer fools gladly around here. Those who prove themselves to be a complete and utter waste of my time don't deserve the privilege of wasting my time so that is why I consign them to Cyberia. The feature is there for a reason and I make good use of it because the value I place on my time far exceeds the vacuity of the posters who now reside in Cyberia.
> 
> They can still post their mindless drivel as much as they wish but it won't interfere with my time in this forum in the future. I am the one and only master of my time and when I decide that they are not worth it that is the result. I don't make this decision lightly because I consider a number of factors before I issue the one way ticket. Essentially when I see no redeeming value at all in the posts of someone I push them out of my time slot.
> 
> There is no shortage of posters either so it isn't as though I won't have anyone else to exchange ideas with. The abundance of fools though can make it tedious wading through their blather. Going by Carla's recent response to QW in this thread I am glad that he was the very first poster that I ignored when I first arrived here about 18 months ago. I must have saved many hours of my time by now not reading his claptrap.
> 
> So yes, the ignore system works perfectly. I get to control who I read and respond to and that improves the USMB experience. The Cyberians might as well be speaking another language or residing on a different planet as far as I am concerned because what they have to say is just meaningless noise since it contains nothing of any value whatsoever.
> 
> Peace
> DT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dear @*emilynghiem ,*
> 
> DT above expresses nothing more than self aggrandizement coupled with intentional veiling of his apparent inability to cope with those "beneath him" that logically challenge his errant postings and surreal re-definitions of terms that have been accepted for decades.  This is very much akin to the liberals changing their own label from_ liberal_ to _progressive _in an attempt to escape the negative connotations now attached to _liberal.  _Ignoring the opposition is also another tactic used exhaustively by liberals.  It bears no resemblance to that which it precludes; productive dialog that often leads to self improvement and understanding.
> 
> Just as does hatred, ignoring people has little effect on the target.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> asaratis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.
> 
> Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Soviet Union never had to tell anyone that God doesn't exist. Wait, it really doesn't. I once read a story about a girl who grew up the daughter of Communist Party members in the Soviet Union. She was told from the time she was 3 or 4 that God did not exist,
> 
> .



So someone told her about god when she was 3 or 4?  Long story short is she wants to believe.  It is possible she might even have the religious gene in her.  Just like there is a conservative gene or liberal gene.  

The rest of what you wrote was just drivel.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I see your problem.  I used to think this too about atheists:
> 
> In Theistic Satanism, Satan is considered a positive force and deity who is either worshipped or revered
> 
> Are you confusing us atheists with them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think what about atheist? All I said was that Hollie's post is hilarious.
> 
> It is.
> 
> You, on the other hand, have two problems, you think you can read my mind, and you do not get the joke.
Click to expand...


I was joking too.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I was joking too.



I wasn't joking, Hollie's post was hilarious.

Like I said, you don't get the joke.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was joking too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you don't get the joke.
Click to expand...


I get you.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Sealybobo and Hollie:
From YOUR focus on what atheism means literally, I agree with you that just "not believing" does not constitute a religion.

However, I do agree with others there are other levels that do become religious
1. For those who make an organized movement to push a BELIEF there is no god, that is the same as with a traditional religion.
2. For those who PERSONALLY hold onto the BELIEF there is no god, they can make a personal religion out of it, such as a strongly held belief that affects their whole approach to life.

For Sealybobo and Derideo_Te I see more of a nontheistic viewpoint where you are simply secular in thinking.

For Hollie I see an anti-theist angle, where if I show support for Christianity she criticizes this as endorsing or enabling
abuses associated with Christianity. So that is anti-religious and being against the abuse of religion that is biasing Hollie's approach. Carla may have this also.

Sealybobo I see a little in you, when you argue with people like QW, but I do not bring it out so much. With Hollie, yes, she started criticizing me personally for not condemning Christianity as false and abusive.

If we can resolve the anti-theist bias that is skewing how we talk with each other,
then after that is isolated, maybe it will be easier to talk about atheism and nontheism
and not confuse the "anti-theist reaction to religion" with "pushing an atheist belief."  

Can we put aside the factor of "anti-theism" that is coming across as religious?

I would like to see how we can communicate without that "anti-theism" getting in the way.
What seems most to cause the perception of atheists being religious it is the defensive sentiment in anti-theist statements.

Since I do not see this antitheism when I debate with Sealybobo and Derideo_Te,
I do not think it is inherent but in reaction to QW and others who are rejecting people and then get rejected in return.

I am curious if I can resolve this with Hollie so we can communicate without this "antitheism" getting in the way. Also with Carla who seems to take issue with me as Hollie does because of some past grievances with Christianity or other theists. I apologize for coming across wrong,
but am sincerely trying to resolve and stop the abuse of religion and Christianity by working within these groups.

I think that backlash from theist and abuse of theism
can be addressed separately, and quit confusing it with the idea that all atheists are pushing a religion.

Most defensiveness is from past abuse and rejection by theists, and is a natural reaction, but not a permanent part of
someone's beliefs.

Can we resolve that factor first, before we try to understand the beliefs
without that defensive reaction coloring and clouding the picture.
Sorry for this!


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> Christianity is by definition, a cult. CULT - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top.


Apple Computers?....


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Hollie and QuantumWindbag:
I think it was both Asaratis and PratchettFan who may have said it best, I lost track.
I thought it was their posts that basically acknowledged that both cases can be true.

There are atheists who do not make a religion of their way of seeing the world nontheistically.
There are atheists who do make a FORMAL religious push and agenda out of their beliefs (mostly
anti-theist, where their real focus is counteracting false religion; since to them they don't believe there is god, what
they are really preaching against is theism and theists teaching this is an absolute)
There are atheists who don't make it formal, but do have a personal belief they believe in religiously
where it is their way of living and looking at life.
There are those who do not.

Hollie and QW the only difference I see here is that you 
have no tolerance or openness to the idea that some people
MAY fit the description you oppose.

You both seem bent on arguing there is only ONE way.
So the other way must be wrong.

Instead I support whoever was posting that more than one approach can be going on with different people.
I think it was asaratis and also PF who both said something similar, sorry if it was other people instead.

With Sealybobo, he brought up how this happens with the gay issue.
Again QW seems to convey the absolute stance that none are born that way but it is a choice.

And again, I have found that more than one way can explain different people:
some are spiritually born transgender or homosexual the same way I was spiritually born heterosexual.
this is not just genetic. I have spiritual gifts, tendencies and karma that did not come from my family
but are connected with my spiritual path beyond my physical family line; some of it is national karma.
so the same things can be explained spiritually:
some are born a certain way
some can change as part of their spiritual path
some cannot change because of their spiritual path

so there is no need to argue that it has to be all one way and the other ways are wrong.

I find there are some cases that fit the different descriptions

the peope who argue and cannot resovle it
are usuall those who hold on to one way and argue the other ways are wrong.

surprise
what if the answer is all the above are possible cases
and there are real life examples of each

same with atheism, I have seen just about every version
so if you only take one description and try to say it applies to all people,
you will find someone who contradicts that rule

Hollie and QW you are both right that the other person is wrong to make such a generalization
you are only right when you are talking about atheists who actually follow the description you say is the only one
there are many others who are doing otherwise


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Derideo_Te: Thank you for your clarifying statement.
> I wish all people would EXPLAIN as you did what the problem is.
> That way at least we know what is going wrong and have a chance to address it.
> 
> In this case, it may be this is just an exercise in learning to forgive unconditionally.
> If Asaratis does not define your beliefs, then don't let him.
> There is no need to ignore or cut him off to make this not so.
> 
> If it is truly independent, then he should be able to keep thinking what he does
> and not affect you.  Let him be wrong.
> 
> So this could be one of those exercises in how to really stop this nonsense of
> associating people by label.
> ...<snip>...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dear Emily,
> 
> My time is my own and I am under no obligation to suffer fools gladly around here. Those who prove themselves to be a complete and utter waste of my time don't deserve the privilege of wasting my time so that is why I consign them to Cyberia. The feature is there for a reason and I make good use of it because the value I place on my time far exceeds the vacuity of the posters who now reside in Cyberia.
> 
> They can still post their mindless drivel as much as they wish but it won't interfere with my time in this forum in the future. I am the one and only master of my time and when I decide that they are not worth it that is the result. I don't make this decision lightly because I consider a number of factors before I issue the one way ticket. Essentially when I see no redeeming value at all in the posts of someone I push them out of my time slot.
> 
> There is no shortage of posters either so it isn't as though I won't have anyone else to exchange ideas with. The abundance of fools though can make it tedious wading through their blather. Going by Carla's recent response to QW in this thread I am glad that he was the very first poster that I ignored when I first arrived here about 18 months ago. I must have saved many hours of my time by now not reading his claptrap.
> 
> So yes, the ignore system works perfectly. I get to control who I read and respond to and that improves the USMB experience. The Cyberians might as well be speaking another language or residing on a different planet as far as I am concerned because what they have to say is just meaningless noise since it contains nothing of any value whatsoever.
> 
> Peace
> DT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dear @*emilynghiem ,*
> 
> DT above expresses nothing more than self aggrandizement coupled with intentional veiling of his apparent inability to cope with those "beneath him" that logically challenge his errant postings and surreal re-definitions of terms that have been accepted for decades.  This is very much akin to the liberals changing their own label from_ liberal_ to _progressive _in an attempt to escape the negative connotations now attached to _liberal.  _Ignoring the opposition is also another tactic used exhaustively by liberals.  It bears no resemblance to that which it precludes; productive dialog that often leads to self improvement and understanding.
> 
> Just as does hatred, ignoring people has little effect on the target.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> asaratis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.
> 
> Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.
Click to expand...

Get a load of this, oh brilliant one.  I don't really promote Christianity.  I don't really care what you believe.  I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
> 
> She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
> 
> Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
> 
> Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you continue to argue what your beliefs actually are definitively establishes the fact that you actually have a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.
> 
> Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A tree is not a deity.  *Religions deal with deities.*  Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.
> 
> DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.
> 
> No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs.   Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist.  DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster.  Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.
> 
> If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic.  If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist.  The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.
> 
> Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion.  I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God.  I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me.  If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, religions deal with deities, atheism does not.  Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

Of course it does!  You believe they do not exist.


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
> 
> She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
> 
> Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
> 
> Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you continue to argue what your beliefs actually are definitively establishes the fact that you actually have a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.
> 
> Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A tree is not a deity.  *Religions deal with deities.*  Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.
> 
> DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.
> 
> No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs.   Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist.  DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster.  Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.
> 
> If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic.  If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist.  The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.
> 
> Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion.  I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God.  I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me.  If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, religions deal with deities, atheism does not.  Hope that helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does!  You believe they do not exist.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm... so, if someone doesn't believe in rape ...


----------



## dblack




----------



## asaratis

dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you continue to argue what your beliefs actually are definitively establishes the fact that you actually have a belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.
> 
> Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A tree is not a deity.  *Religions deal with deities.*  Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.
> 
> DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.
> 
> No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs.   Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist.  DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster.  Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.
> 
> If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic.  If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist.  The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.
> 
> Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion.  I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God.  I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me.  If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, religions deal with deities, atheism does not.  Hope that helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does!  You believe they do not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmm... so, if someone doesn't believe in rape ...
Click to expand...

Out of context, dummy.  we're talking about deities here.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was joking too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't joking, Hollie's post was hilarious.
> 
> Like I said, you don't get the joke.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a joke. 

What's hilarious is your sidestepping around the obvious comparisons that connect your religion with cult status.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
> 
> She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
> 
> Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
> 
> Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you continue to argue what your beliefs actually are definitively establishes the fact that you actually have a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.
> 
> Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A tree is not a deity.  *Religions deal with deities.*  Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.
> 
> DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.
> 
> No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs.   Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist.  DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster.  Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.
> 
> If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic.  If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist.  The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.
> 
> Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion.  I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God.  I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me.  If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, religions deal with deities, atheism does not.  Hope that helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does!  You believe they do not exist.
Click to expand...



But, by definition, in order for it to be a religion, you have to worship some sort of superhuman, controlling power, or God/Gods.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Derideo_Te: Thank you for your clarifying statement.
> I wish all people would EXPLAIN as you did what the problem is.
> That way at least we know what is going wrong and have a chance to address it.
> 
> In this case, it may be this is just an exercise in learning to forgive unconditionally.
> If Asaratis does not define your beliefs, then don't let him.
> There is no need to ignore or cut him off to make this not so.
> 
> If it is truly independent, then he should be able to keep thinking what he does
> and not affect you.  Let him be wrong.
> 
> So this could be one of those exercises in how to really stop this nonsense of
> associating people by label.
> ...<snip>...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dear Emily,
> 
> My time is my own and I am under no obligation to suffer fools gladly around here. Those who prove themselves to be a complete and utter waste of my time don't deserve the privilege of wasting my time so that is why I consign them to Cyberia. The feature is there for a reason and I make good use of it because the value I place on my time far exceeds the vacuity of the posters who now reside in Cyberia.
> 
> They can still post their mindless drivel as much as they wish but it won't interfere with my time in this forum in the future. I am the one and only master of my time and when I decide that they are not worth it that is the result. I don't make this decision lightly because I consider a number of factors before I issue the one way ticket. Essentially when I see no redeeming value at all in the posts of someone I push them out of my time slot.
> 
> There is no shortage of posters either so it isn't as though I won't have anyone else to exchange ideas with. The abundance of fools though can make it tedious wading through their blather. Going by Carla's recent response to QW in this thread I am glad that he was the very first poster that I ignored when I first arrived here about 18 months ago. I must have saved many hours of my time by now not reading his claptrap.
> 
> So yes, the ignore system works perfectly. I get to control who I read and respond to and that improves the USMB experience. The Cyberians might as well be speaking another language or residing on a different planet as far as I am concerned because what they have to say is just meaningless noise since it contains nothing of any value whatsoever.
> 
> Peace
> DT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dear @*emilynghiem ,*
> 
> DT above expresses nothing more than self aggrandizement coupled with intentional veiling of his apparent inability to cope with those "beneath him" that logically challenge his errant postings and surreal re-definitions of terms that have been accepted for decades.  This is very much akin to the liberals changing their own label from_ liberal_ to _progressive _in an attempt to escape the negative connotations now attached to _liberal.  _Ignoring the opposition is also another tactic used exhaustively by liberals.  It bears no resemblance to that which it precludes; productive dialog that often leads to self improvement and understanding.
> 
> Just as does hatred, ignoring people has little effect on the target.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> asaratis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.
> 
> Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get a load of this, oh brilliant one.  I don't really promote Christianity.  I don't really care what you believe.  I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.
Click to expand...

Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.


----------



## emilynghiem

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity is by definition, a cult. CULT - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top.
> 
> 
> 
> Apple Computers?....
Click to expand...


Corporate mentality can become cultlike
where any dissension is suppressed within.

All I ask is that we be consistent:
If we complain that Corporations get abusive with power like cults,
then also hold Government responsible for abusing collective power,
and vice versa.  Don't demonize one and then let the other get away with abuses.

If we are going to complain that the Democrat Party gets cultlike
for ostracizing members who dare question the leadership,
the same is going on within the Republicans trying to get the party in line
and quit selling out to the corporate cronyism.

Any group can become cultish, abusive and oppressive
if the collective identity becomes more important
than the individual rights and freedoms of the members.

NOTE: Even if the Democrat party gets cultish,
there are plenty of Democrats and liberals who are not mindless followers of the cult mentality.

Same with Christianity and other religions.
Within Christianity, many groups and people break off independently
and challenge the corrupt authority of Catholic or other church leaders.
So there are plenty of independent members of the greater church body
who are NOT part of the masses following certain leaders by faith.

Even where Mormon or Jehovah's Witnesses are called a cult or cultlike,
there are independent members who do not depend on their official leaders
to make decisions for them. With those groups, the most pronounced sign
of a cult is how they treat former members; any group that teaches rejection
or ostracizing people outside the group is acting like a cult or cultlike, especially
groups that pressure people to severe their family relations for loyalty to the cult.

That's the real issue I see behind abuse of power, regardless of labeling a person or group a religion or cult:
how you deal with conflicts and other groups, if you practice inclusion and
reconciliation or you teach exclusion, rejection, judgment and punishment of
people outside the group.


----------



## emilynghiem

Carla_Danger said:


> But, by definition, in order for it to be a religion, you have to worship some sort of superhuman, controlling power, or God/Gods.



Hi Carla_Danger:
Then you would agree Buddhism is not a religion. And many Buddhists, including my mother would agree with you that Buddhism is not a religion.

The label of religion comes from outside, from other people calling it that.
Buddhism does not involve the worship any superhuman controlling power or God(s).


----------



## Carla_Danger

emilynghiem said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity is by definition, a cult. CULT - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top.
> 
> 
> 
> Apple Computers?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corporate mentality can become cultlike
> where any dissension is suppressed within.
> 
> All I ask is that we be consistent:
> If we complain that Corporations get abusive with power like cults,
> then also hold Government responsible for abusing collective power,
> and vice versa.  Don't demonize one and then let the other get away with abuses.
> 
> If we are going to complain that the Democrat Party gets cultlike
> for ostracizing members who dare question the leadership,
> the same is going on within the Republicans trying to get the party in line
> and quit selling out to the corporate cronyism.
> 
> Any group can become cultish, abusive and oppressive
> if the collective identity becomes more important
> than the individual rights and freedoms of the members.
> 
> NOTE: Even if the Democrat party gets cultish,
> there are plenty of Democrats and liberals who are not mindless followers of the cult mentality.
> 
> Same with Christianity and other religions.
> Within Christianity, many groups and people break off independently
> and challenge the corrupt authority of Catholic or other church leaders.
> So there are plenty of independent members of the greater church body
> who are NOT part of the masses following certain leaders by faith.
> 
> Even where Mormon or Jehovah's Witnesses are called a cult or cultlike,
> there are independent members who do not depend on their official leaders
> to make decisions for them. With those groups, the most pronounced sign
> of a cult is how they treat former members; any group that teaches rejection
> or ostracizing people outside the group is acting like a cult or cultlike, especially
> groups that pressure people to severe their family relations for loyalty to the cult.
> 
> That's the real issue I see behind abuse of power, regardless of labeling a person or group a religion or cult:
> how you deal with conflicts and other groups, if you practice inclusion and
> reconciliation or you teach exclusion, rejection, judgment and punishment of
> people outside the group.
Click to expand...





When did this become a political thread?


----------



## Carla_Danger

emilynghiem said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, by definition, in order for it to be a religion, you have to worship some sort of superhuman, controlling power, or God/Gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Carla_Danger:
> Then you would agree Buddhism is not a religion. And many Buddhists, including my mother would agree with you that Buddhism is not a religion.
> 
> The label of religion comes from outside, from other people calling it that.
> Buddhism does not involve the worship any superhuman controlling power or God(s).
Click to expand...



I only have knowledge of the US version of Buddhism, which is very watered down, so I decline comment.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Derideo_Te: Thank you for your clarifying statement.
> I wish all people would EXPLAIN as you did what the problem is.
> That way at least we know what is going wrong and have a chance to address it.
> 
> In this case, it may be this is just an exercise in learning to forgive unconditionally.
> If Asaratis does not define your beliefs, then don't let him.
> There is no need to ignore or cut him off to make this not so.
> 
> If it is truly independent, then he should be able to keep thinking what he does
> and not affect you.  Let him be wrong.
> 
> So this could be one of those exercises in how to really stop this nonsense of
> associating people by label.
> ...<snip>...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dear Emily,
> 
> My time is my own and I am under no obligation to suffer fools gladly around here. Those who prove themselves to be a complete and utter waste of my time don't deserve the privilege of wasting my time so that is why I consign them to Cyberia. The feature is there for a reason and I make good use of it because the value I place on my time far exceeds the vacuity of the posters who now reside in Cyberia.
> 
> They can still post their mindless drivel as much as they wish but it won't interfere with my time in this forum in the future. I am the one and only master of my time and when I decide that they are not worth it that is the result. I don't make this decision lightly because I consider a number of factors before I issue the one way ticket. Essentially when I see no redeeming value at all in the posts of someone I push them out of my time slot.
> 
> There is no shortage of posters either so it isn't as though I won't have anyone else to exchange ideas with. The abundance of fools though can make it tedious wading through their blather. Going by Carla's recent response to QW in this thread I am glad that he was the very first poster that I ignored when I first arrived here about 18 months ago. I must have saved many hours of my time by now not reading his claptrap.
> 
> So yes, the ignore system works perfectly. I get to control who I read and respond to and that improves the USMB experience. The Cyberians might as well be speaking another language or residing on a different planet as far as I am concerned because what they have to say is just meaningless noise since it contains nothing of any value whatsoever.
> 
> Peace
> DT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dear @*emilynghiem ,*
> 
> DT above expresses nothing more than self aggrandizement coupled with intentional veiling of his apparent inability to cope with those "beneath him" that logically challenge his errant postings and surreal re-definitions of terms that have been accepted for decades.  This is very much akin to the liberals changing their own label from_ liberal_ to _progressive _in an attempt to escape the negative connotations now attached to _liberal.  _Ignoring the opposition is also another tactic used exhaustively by liberals.  It bears no resemblance to that which it precludes; productive dialog that often leads to self improvement and understanding.
> 
> Just as does hatred, ignoring people has little effect on the target.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> asaratis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.
> 
> Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get a load of this, oh brilliant one.  I don't really promote Christianity.  I don't really care what you believe.  I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.


----------



## asaratis

emilynghiem said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, by definition, in order for it to be a religion, you have to worship some sort of superhuman, controlling power, or God/Gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Carla_Danger:
> Then you would agree Buddhism is not a religion. And many Buddhists, including my mother would agree with you that Buddhism is not a religion.
> 
> The label of religion comes from outside, from other people calling it that.
> Buddhism does not involve the worship any superhuman controlling power or God(s).
Click to expand...

I concur.  Buddhism is agnosticism which is not a religion.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was joking too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't joking, Hollie's post was hilarious.
> 
> Like I said, you don't get the joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't a joke.
> 
> What's hilarious is your sidestepping around the obvious comparisons that connect your religion with cult status.
Click to expand...


Hi Hollie: You are leaving out the entire Lutheran and Protestant movement that cut people free
from this notion they had to follow the Catholic church authority as the only official connection.

The whole point of this movement was that each person had a direction relationship with
God, and was not dependent on going through the Catholic authority or conditions for salvation.

I didn't know Christian groups were different either, until this history and reformation movement was made clear to me.

I used to think they were all the same.

There is a huge difference between cultlike groups like Jehovah's Witness and some Catholics who
teach that you have to be an official member of that group to be following God and getting to heaven or salvation.

The real practice and teachings of Christianity are based on each person receiving healing and grace,
as a member of the larger church or community of all people as one humanity.

The real universalist practices include ALL people in salvation, even atheists, gays, nonbelievers, etc.

To the true believers, saving ALL humanity means ALL humanity.

Hollie you will find as many different degrees of atheism
as you will find in theism.

I happen to be on the extreme side of universal inclusion.
I am as rare as those who reject everything as false until proven true.

I believe whatever is meant to be is going to happen, so that leaves the door open to anything.
As long as it is meant to be.  And whatever is not meant to be is not going to happen.

I believe all people, nations, religious and political groups
are here for a reason and serve a certain purpose for those members or audiences,
and that we are meant to use all of these to form a consensus on
how to manage and deal with the diverse people and resources on this earth.

Unlike others who just want to argue back and forth without proving or disproving anything,
I AM willing to set up proof that consensus can be reached among diverse groups
without requiring anyone to convert to other ways.  All groups are necessary as they are.

So whatever degree of theism or atheism people are, let's just organize
and work together, and not let our differences get in the way of what
we agree is important to fix and work on that makes the world better off.

Why can't we use our differences to reach more people
and include all people in collaborating on solutions to the world's problems?

Together we could address abuses within the political and religious groups,
from liberal to conservative, Muslim or Christian, cults or corporations,
wherever abuse occurs why can't we organize teams to work with those
people and groups and fix the problems?

If it takes Christians to correct fellow Christians, or Muslims to address
fellow Muslims, why not let each fix their own problems?

That's what I believe these groups are supposed to be doing.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you continue to argue what your beliefs actually are definitively establishes the fact that you actually have a belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.
> 
> Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A tree is not a deity.  *Religions deal with deities.*  Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.
> 
> DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.
> 
> No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs.   Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist.  DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster.  Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.
> 
> If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic.  If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist.  The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.
> 
> Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion.  I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God.  I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me.  If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, religions deal with deities, atheism does not.  Hope that helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does!  You believe they do not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But, by definition, in order for it to be a religion, you have to worship some sort of superhuman, controlling power, or God/Gods.
Click to expand...

Wrong.  You don't have to worship. You just have to have a belief regarding the existence of a deity.  I know Christians that never worship, never go to church and never pray.  They are still believers in God.


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> My dear Emily,
> 
> My time is my own and I am under no obligation to suffer fools gladly around here. Those who prove themselves to be a complete and utter waste of my time don't deserve the privilege of wasting my time so that is why I consign them to Cyberia. The feature is there for a reason and I make good use of it because the value I place on my time far exceeds the vacuity of the posters who now reside in Cyberia.
> 
> They can still post their mindless drivel as much as they wish but it won't interfere with my time in this forum in the future. I am the one and only master of my time and when I decide that they are not worth it that is the result. I don't make this decision lightly because I consider a number of factors before I issue the one way ticket. Essentially when I see no redeeming value at all in the posts of someone I push them out of my time slot.
> 
> There is no shortage of posters either so it isn't as though I won't have anyone else to exchange ideas with. The abundance of fools though can make it tedious wading through their blather. Going by Carla's recent response to QW in this thread I am glad that he was the very first poster that I ignored when I first arrived here about 18 months ago. I must have saved many hours of my time by now not reading his claptrap.
> 
> So yes, the ignore system works perfectly. I get to control who I read and respond to and that improves the USMB experience. The Cyberians might as well be speaking another language or residing on a different planet as far as I am concerned because what they have to say is just meaningless noise since it contains nothing of any value whatsoever.
> 
> Peace
> DT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear @*emilynghiem ,*
> 
> DT above expresses nothing more than self aggrandizement coupled with intentional veiling of his apparent inability to cope with those "beneath him" that logically challenge his errant postings and surreal re-definitions of terms that have been accepted for decades.  This is very much akin to the liberals changing their own label from_ liberal_ to _progressive _in an attempt to escape the negative connotations now attached to _liberal.  _Ignoring the opposition is also another tactic used exhaustively by liberals.  It bears no resemblance to that which it precludes; productive dialog that often leads to self improvement and understanding.
> 
> Just as does hatred, ignoring people has little effect on the target.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> asaratis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.
> 
> Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get a load of this, oh brilliant one.  I don't really promote Christianity.  I don't really care what you believe.  I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
Click to expand...


So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> My dear Emily,
> 
> My time is my own and I am under no obligation to suffer fools gladly around here. Those who prove themselves to be a complete and utter waste of my time don't deserve the privilege of wasting my time so that is why I consign them to Cyberia. The feature is there for a reason and I make good use of it because the value I place on my time far exceeds the vacuity of the posters who now reside in Cyberia.
> 
> They can still post their mindless drivel as much as they wish but it won't interfere with my time in this forum in the future. I am the one and only master of my time and when I decide that they are not worth it that is the result. I don't make this decision lightly because I consider a number of factors before I issue the one way ticket. Essentially when I see no redeeming value at all in the posts of someone I push them out of my time slot.
> 
> There is no shortage of posters either so it isn't as though I won't have anyone else to exchange ideas with. The abundance of fools though can make it tedious wading through their blather. Going by Carla's recent response to QW in this thread I am glad that he was the very first poster that I ignored when I first arrived here about 18 months ago. I must have saved many hours of my time by now not reading his claptrap.
> 
> So yes, the ignore system works perfectly. I get to control who I read and respond to and that improves the USMB experience. The Cyberians might as well be speaking another language or residing on a different planet as far as I am concerned because what they have to say is just meaningless noise since it contains nothing of any value whatsoever.
> 
> Peace
> DT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear @*emilynghiem ,*
> 
> DT above expresses nothing more than self aggrandizement coupled with intentional veiling of his apparent inability to cope with those "beneath him" that logically challenge his errant postings and surreal re-definitions of terms that have been accepted for decades.  This is very much akin to the liberals changing their own label from_ liberal_ to _progressive _in an attempt to escape the negative connotations now attached to _liberal.  _Ignoring the opposition is also another tactic used exhaustively by liberals.  It bears no resemblance to that which it precludes; productive dialog that often leads to self improvement and understanding.
> 
> Just as does hatred, ignoring people has little effect on the target.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> asaratis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.
> 
> Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get a load of this, oh brilliant one.  I don't really promote Christianity.  I don't really care what you believe.  I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter your uneducated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
Click to expand...


You haven't countered anything. You have made no defendable case that atheism is a religion. You've offered only pointless analogies, malformed examples and poorly stated comparisons that have been soundly refuted.

On the other hand, I've demonstrated that your religious belief has all the trappings of a cult. Let's review, shall we?

I noted earlier that:
All Christianity is a cult as well under these strictures. There is a hierarchy of authority not in any way different from Scientology. Jesus is the authority who is dead, as well as the apostle Paul (who really established the founding of Christianity as a religion). But the _authority_ still comes from the "top" through these two individuals who are no more or less dead than L Ron Hubbard (except they have been dead a lot longer). That the religion confers a special status to these two authorities is of no consequence, as Scientologists confer a special status to their "spiritual leader" as well. Neither this fact nor the antiquity of the Christian folk being dead (or for that matter Mohammed or David Koresh or Jim Jones, etc.) is in anyway legitimized one over the other. BTW, each of these men have made grandiose claims of self-importance, each claiming those who follow different paths are doomed to eternal torment.


Lets look at other common attribute of Cults.

The group will claim to be the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their members. This definition covers cults within all major world religions, along with those cults which have no OBVIOUS religious base.

a) The group will have an ELITIST view of itself in relation to others, and a UNIQUE CAUSE. e.i. THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES RIGHT - everyone else is wrong. THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES DOING GOD'S WILL - everyone else is in apostasy.
Obviously, no religion claims itself secondary in comparison to its competition. That would dismantle the authority of every religion ("Well, we're sort of right," said the Dalai Lama, "But you know, maybe those Moslems are really right." Uh, not likely.)

(b) They will promote their cause actively, and in doing so, abuse God-given personal rights and freedoms. This abuse can be THEOLOGICAL, SPIRITUAL, SOCIAL & PSYCHOLOGICAL.
Religious institutions believe they are right (and everyone else is wrong), will do this. Well, from the perspective of the Cult, they are liberating people because they are right and everyone else is wrong theologically, spiritually, socially, and psychologically. Are we ( ____  <--- insert Cult of choice) right? Yeah. Are "they" wrong? Yeah. But what if "they" don't think so? Is it abuse to coerce, threaten and intimidate the heather non-believers? These are deeper questions that logically need to be asked if one wishes to remain true to the utter and cold truth.


----------



## emilynghiem

Thank you, Asaratis
I find it most intriguing that you can see how Buddhism is not a religion yet Atheism is.
And other people on here see the opposite:
how Atheism is not a religion to them, but Buddhism is.

Isn't it clear that it is relative then: either the definition or the perception makes
some people call things a religion while other things not; so
What one person sees as a religion, someone else does not.
And not for the same reasons either!

(If you look deeper into Buddhism, you may find that some people
DO practice it like their religion. And similar makes Atheism 
a religion in the eyes of others based on how some Atheists get religious about it.)

We could go round and round with this.
Thanks for your honest observations, and letting other people have theirs.
No, we do not need to be in the business of telling people how they need to look at this.
We can share with each other, but each have our own ways or reasons for seeing it the way we do.

Unfortunately the language we use get entangled when we don't mean
the same things by the same words.  We are not using Atheism or religion
in the same way or the same contexts.  No need to judge each other for these differences.

As Hollie pointed out, what I mean by Christianity brings up only negative associations to her
with abuses. So if the words Atheism and religion do not mean the same things,
of course that makes sense, when Christianity and God do not mean the same things.
People hear these words and associate with all manner of fraudulent and false religious abuses.

We may have to use more specific terms and avoid arguing why these other terms don't mean the same thing to all of us.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.
> 
> Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.
> 
> 
> 
> A tree is not a deity.  *Religions deal with deities.*  Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.
> 
> DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.
> 
> No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs.   Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist.  DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster.  Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.
> 
> If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic.  If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist.  The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.
> 
> Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion.  I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God.  I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me.  If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, religions deal with deities, atheism does not.  Hope that helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does!  You believe they do not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, by definition, in order for it to be a religion, you have to worship some sort of superhuman, controlling power, or God/Gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  You don't have to worship. You just have to have a belief regarding the existence of a deity.  I know Christians that never worship, never go to church and never pray.  They are still believers in God.
Click to expand...


There are many asserted gods. There's no reason anyone should accept belief in your angry, serial mass murderer gods as opposed to other, innocuous and well behaved gods.

For you believers, isn't belief in gods all about what you can get from them in exchange for behavior that's reliably in concert with the goals of the cult sponsoring those gods?


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.
> 
> Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.
> 
> 
> 
> A tree is not a deity.  *Religions deal with deities.*  Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.
> 
> DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.
> 
> No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs.   Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist.  DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster.  Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.
> 
> If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic.  If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist.  The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.
> 
> Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion.  I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God.  I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me.  If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, religions deal with deities, atheism does not.  Hope that helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does!  You believe they do not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But, by definition, in order for it to be a religion, you have to worship some sort of superhuman, controlling power, or God/Gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  You don't have to worship. You just have to have a belief regarding the existence of a deity.  I know Christians that never worship, never go to church and never pray.  They are still believers in God.
Click to expand...



Actually, you've just described most Christians.  LOL!


----------



## emilynghiem

Whoa, Hollie! NO, there is not a fixed authority or hierarchy in Christianity.
If you are talking about the Catholic church that is only one structure for those members.
Yes, many people argue the Catholic church is a cult. 
The Reformation movement broke people away from this assumption and dependence on the official Catholic authority.

Also about religious, anyone can use the term loosely to mean a personal religion.
Just having a belief is not enough. The point is if you get religious about it.

I get religious about holding Govt and Politicians to the Constitution.
So in that sense the Constitution becomes my religion. I do believe it becomes mandatory
when people invoke power of govt by the Constitution, then all the laws must be followed.
The authority comes from agreement or consent by the people through contracts or laws drawn up by consensus.
So there is a process to reach agreement and invoke authority of law or govt.
But it relies on the people in the process. We each become our own authority to decide matters that affect us,
and collectively where this affects other people. The people and the government are one under law.

This becomes a religion where I get religious about.
Just having constitutional beliefs is not enough, it becomes religious when people like
me adopt the laws by conscience and commit to enforcing them by embodying the spirit of the laws.

Same with atheism or buddhism or anything else.
its when someone religiously adopts that and lives it as the law on their hearts by conscience
that it becomes their religion.

just having nontheist beliefs or approaches is not enough to distinguish if it is really a religion.
when you become connected with others by the spirit of the laws and relate to the collective identity
then it becomes like a religious identity.  If you practice your beliefs religiously, it is that religious manner that makes
it perceived as a religion for you. Not the label itself.



Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear @*emilynghiem ,*
> 
> DT above expresses nothing more than self aggrandizement coupled with intentional veiling of his apparent inability to cope with those "beneath him" that logically challenge his errant postings and surreal re-definitions of terms that have been accepted for decades.  This is very much akin to the liberals changing their own label from_ liberal_ to _progressive _in an attempt to escape the negative connotations now attached to _liberal.  _Ignoring the opposition is also another tactic used exhaustively by liberals.  It bears no resemblance to that which it precludes; productive dialog that often leads to self improvement and understanding.
> 
> Just as does hatred, ignoring people has little effect on the target.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> asaratis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.
> 
> Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get a load of this, oh brilliant one.  I don't really promote Christianity.  I don't really care what you believe.  I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter your uneducated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't countered anything. You have made no defendable case that atheism is a religion. You've offered only pointless analogies, malformed examples and poorly stated comparisons that have been soundly refuted.
> 
> On the other hand, I've demonstrated that your religious belief has all the trappings of a cult. Let's review, shall we?
> 
> I noted earlier that:
> All Christianity is a cult as well under these strictures. There is a hierarchy of authority not in any way different from Scientology. Jesus is the authority who is dead, as well as the apostle Paul (who really established the founding of Christianity as a religion). But the _authority_ still comes from the "top" through these two individuals who are no more or less dead than L Ron Hubbard (except they have been dead a lot longer). That the religion confers a special status to these two authorities is of no consequence, as Scientologists confer a special status to their "spiritual leader" as well. Neither this fact nor the antiquity of the Christian folk being dead (or for that matter Mohammed or David Koresh or Jim Jones, etc.) is in anyway legitimized one over the other. BTW, each of these men have made grandiose claims of self-importance, each claiming those who follow different paths are doomed to eternal torment.
> 
> 
> Lets look at other common attribute of Cults.
> 
> The group will claim to be the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their members. This definition covers cults within all major world religions, along with those cults which have no OBVIOUS religious base.
> 
> a) The group will have an ELITIST view of itself in relation to others, and a UNIQUE CAUSE. e.i. THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES RIGHT - everyone else is wrong. THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES DOING GOD'S WILL - everyone else is in apostasy.
> Obviously, no religion claims itself secondary in comparison to its competition. That would dismantle the authority of every religion ("Well, we're sort of right," said the Dalai Lama, "But you know, maybe those Moslems are really right." Uh, not likely.)
> 
> (b) They will promote their cause actively, and in doing so, abuse God-given personal rights and freedoms. This abuse can be THEOLOGICAL, SPIRITUAL, SOCIAL & PSYCHOLOGICAL.
> Religious institutions believe they are right (and everyone else is wrong), will do this. Well, from the perspective of the Cult, they are liberating people because they are right and everyone else is wrong theologically, spiritually, socially, and psychologically. Are we ( ____  <--- insert Cult of choice) right? Yeah. Are "they" wrong? Yeah. But what if "they" don't think so? Is it abuse to coerce, threaten and intimidate the heather non-believers? These are deeper questions that logically need to be asked if one wishes to remain true to the utter and cold truth.
Click to expand...


----------



## asaratis

dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear @*emilynghiem ,*
> 
> DT above expresses nothing more than self aggrandizement coupled with intentional veiling of his apparent inability to cope with those "beneath him" that logically challenge his errant postings and surreal re-definitions of terms that have been accepted for decades.  This is very much akin to the liberals changing their own label from_ liberal_ to _progressive _in an attempt to escape the negative connotations now attached to _liberal.  _Ignoring the opposition is also another tactic used exhaustively by liberals.  It bears no resemblance to that which it precludes; productive dialog that often leads to self improvement and understanding.
> 
> Just as does hatred, ignoring people has little effect on the target.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> asaratis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.
> 
> Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get a load of this, oh brilliant one.  I don't really promote Christianity.  I don't really care what you believe.  I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't say that.  Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious.  Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities.  If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi Hollie
I see the local gods or laws as independent states in a union.
The point of the central Constitution is to empower all the other states to be sovereign,
while making sure the central federal govt is checked by its own Constitutional limits.

The point of having a central govt is NOT to control or dominate all the other states as subservient.

I see the role of Christianity the same way: there is supposed to be Equal Justice for all,
and within that collective agreement on Truth, Justice and Peace, there are local Tribes
where all the other Lords or Laws, Authorities or Associations that people affiliate with
are equal partners whose purpose is to represent the interests of their respective populations.

The goal is not dominance but collaboration between equals.
In this way, there is no male nor female, Jew nor Gentiles, bond nor free.
But all are one in Christ Jesus: by our collective conscience, we reach agreement
in the spirit of Truth and Justice to bring peace among all tribes and nations of the earth,
brought to full fruition as equals.



Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> A tree is not a deity.  *Religions deal with deities.*  Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.
> 
> DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.
> 
> No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs.   Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist.  DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster.  Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.
> 
> If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic.  If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist.  The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.
> 
> Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion.  I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God.  I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me.  If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, religions deal with deities, atheism does not.  Hope that helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does!  You believe they do not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, by definition, in order for it to be a religion, you have to worship some sort of superhuman, controlling power, or God/Gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  You don't have to worship. You just have to have a belief regarding the existence of a deity.  I know Christians that never worship, never go to church and never pray.  They are still believers in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many asserted gods. There's no reason anyone should accept belief in your angry, serial mass murderer gods as opposed to other, innocuous and well behaved gods.
> 
> For you believers, isn't belief in gods all about what you can get from them in exchange for behavior that's reliably in concert with the goals of the cult sponsoring those gods?
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.
> 
> Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.
> 
> 
> 
> Get a load of this, oh brilliant one.  I don't really promote Christianity.  I don't really care what you believe.  I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I didn't say that.  Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious.  Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities.  If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.
Click to expand...


False. One can conclude that your gods don't exist without any requirement of belief.

On the other hand, Cults, (especially religious based cults), have a presumption of "belief" in supernatural entities in spite of a complete lack of evidence for such magical, supernatural entities.


----------



## MaryL

Atheism is to religion what soup is to salad. Apples to oranges. Please.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> There are many asserted gods. There's no reason anyone should accept belief in your angry, serial mass murderer gods as opposed to other, innocuous and well behaved gods.



NOTE: There are many Christians who do not believe in or teach that god is an "angry serial mass murderer god" out to judge and punish humanity.

Thus "There's no reason anyone should TEACH" that god is an "angry serial mass murderer"
and TEACH that is what Christianity teaches, including you Hollie!

Why are you teaching that the Christian God has to mean this? Especially if you claim not to believe it?

Why not be like these Christian authors who teach that Christianity and God are not about judgment punishment and murder:
1. Rebecca Parker "Saving Paradise" who teaches that the TRUE Christian message
got corrupted by the political crusades for power killing in the name of the Cross which started 1000 years
AFTER the early church which taught Christianity as peace on earth and brotherhood of man.
2. Carlton Pearson "Gospel of Inclusion" who gave up his fundamental preaching and started teaching that
God's message in the Bible is about INCLUSION including gays and atheists and there is no condemnation to hell,
which he teaches contradicts the Bible's message of salvation for all humanity.
3. Unitarian Universalists who teach cultural inclusion and respect for diversity in the world community
4. Bahai who teach that all the religious leaders came to expand humanity's growth to the next level
and that all religions add to knowledge for humanity to learn from history and work toward unity and equality

Hollie, there are many ways to teach this same God as 
NOT being that "angry serial mass murderer"

Would you teach math by arguing against the people
teaching it wrong?  Why not find the people teaching
math correctly, and use the right answers to correct the wrongs?


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> False. One can conclude that your gods don't exist without any requirement of belief.
> 
> On the other hand, Cults, (especially religious based cults), have a presumption of "belief" in supernatural entities in spite of a complete lack of evidence for such magical, supernatural entities.



Hi Hollie:
1. RE: Christianity
I believe that my friend Ray Hill, who is an atheist and does not believe in any personified God or Jesus,
is practicing Christianity when he practices and teaches unconditional compassion and forgiveness,
including "free grace," in reaching out and helping others for humanity sake, peace and justice.

Ray believes in Peace and Justice by living by Restorative Justice, which I recognize as the spirit of Christ Jesus.
Even though Ray is fully atheist, his spirit and practice is consistent with Christianity, but merely expressed in secular form.

(where Ray may fall short, and not have full understanding or faith in some areas,
is no more or less than my other Christian friends who fall short of perfect practice or understanding either.)

So my understanding of Christianity is spiritually broader and more inclusive than
whatever you are calling Christianity.

We are not even talking about the same things if I can see how an atheist can be practicing
it in spirit and be my neighbor in Christ, if not my superior for being better at it than I am.

2. As for Cults having a belief in something magical:

Do you, Hollie, believe in Justice?
Isn't our govt and court system based on faith in Justice?
Have we ever seen Justice or proven it exists?

How is this different from worshipping a deity?
Is the legal system and all the bar associations, praying to judges on the bench for relief and granting
whatever is prayed for, a huge collective cult?


----------



## emilynghiem

asaratis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.
> 
> Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.
> 
> 
> 
> Get a load of this, oh brilliant one.  I don't really promote Christianity.  I don't really care what you believe.  I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I didn't say that.  Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious.  Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities.  If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.
Click to expand...


Hi Asaratis: I think you and I are using the terms religion/religious differently.
I think it is throwing Hollie, Derideo_Te, Sealybobo off to use religious to mean having their ways, views, thoughts or beliefs.

I am using religious to mean when people GET religious about something.
My mother gets religious about her Buddhism, even though Buddhism itself is not a religion to many people;
to others it is.

You are using religious/religion to mean having and holding a belief,
which our friends here have already said they do not relate to.

I think it is wiser we find more specific terms we can agree to,
rather than keep arguing over terms we don't agree to.

Frankly, I'd rather address whatever mutual rejection is going on
between anti-theist, anti-Christian, or anti-atheist attitudes towards each other.

If we resolve that, maybe the other issues of how to straighten out like terms
will work themselves out.

What I see getting in the way is all the anti- attitude causing mutual rejection.

I see everyone here as committed to truth and fully articulate and intelligent
enough to tell me what is wrong and what works or doesn't work to fix it.

Can we stick to what we can fix first, and even if we never agree what
religion means, that will work itself later as we go.

There are too many intelligent minds on here to get stuck on rhetoric and terminology.

I want to get to the content behind all that, and really use our minds
and highly objective discernment to sort out the REAL meat of these matters!

Thank you Hollie, Carla, Sealybobo, Asaratis
PratchettFan, QuantumWindbag and others here.

Wow! I appreciate and respect what all of you brings here
that is so important to understand. If we can work it out, we
can help others who run into these same issues. Thank you all!


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a load of this, oh brilliant one.  I don't really promote Christianity.  I don't really care what you believe.  I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I didn't say that.  Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious.  Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities.  If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. One can conclude that your gods don't exist without any requirement of belief.
> 
> On the other hand, Cults, (especially religious based cults), have a presumption of "belief" in supernatural entities in spite of a complete lack of evidence for such magical, supernatural entities.
Click to expand...

You are delusional.

A conclusion of such a thought process is a belief that you have determined what is correct.  You are laughable.


----------



## asaratis

emilynghiem said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a load of this, oh brilliant one.  I don't really promote Christianity.  I don't really care what you believe.  I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I didn't say that.  Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious.  Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities.  If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Asaratis: I think you and I are using the terms religion/religious differently.
> I think it is throwing Hollie, Derideo_Te, Sealybobo off to use religious to mean having their ways, views, thoughts or beliefs.
> 
> I am using religious to mean when people GET religious about something.
> My mother gets religious about her Buddhism, even though Buddhism itself is not a religion to many people;
> to others it is.
> 
> You are using religious/religion to mean having and holding a belief,
> which our friends here have already said they do not relate to.
> 
> I think it is wiser we find more specific terms we can agree to,
> rather than keep arguing over terms we don't agree to.
> 
> Frankly, I'd rather address whatever mutual rejection is going on
> between anti-theist, anti-Christian, or anti-atheist attitudes towards each other.
> 
> If we resolve that, maybe the other issues of how to straighten out like terms
> will work themselves out.
> 
> What I see getting in the way is all the anti- attitude causing mutual rejection.
> 
> I see everyone here as committed to truth and fully articulate and intelligent
> enough to tell me what is wrong and what works or doesn't work to fix it.
> 
> Can we stick to what we can fix first, and even if we never agree what
> religion means, that will work itself later as we go.
> 
> There are too many intelligent minds on here to get stuck on rhetoric and terminology.
> 
> I want to get to the content behind all that, and really use our minds
> and highly objective discernment to sort out the REAL meat of these matters!
> 
> Thank you Hollie, Carla, Sealybobo, Asaratis
> PratchettFan, QuantumWindbag and others here.
> 
> Wow! I appreciate and respect what all of you brings here
> that is so important to understand. If we can work it out, we
> can help others who run into these same issues. Thank you all!
Click to expand...

Yes. Some people "religiously" brush their teeth, walk their dog at certain times of day, take their medicine...ad infinitum...without their actions constituting a religion. A true religion deals with deities.


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.
> 
> Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.
> 
> 
> 
> Get a load of this, oh brilliant one.  I don't really promote Christianity.  I don't really care what you believe.  I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I didn't say that.  Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious.  Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities.  If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.
Click to expand...


Whatever. The point is, you're simply playing games with definitions, and going that way often paints you into a corner. If you broaden the concept of "religion" to include atheism you're just nullifying the word, and then we need something else to replace it. But it doesn't change the way things are. The point in doing this is usually political, to shift policy by manipulating meaning - ala Orwell - and it's unscrupulous because it hijacks common convictions, as represented by popular phrases and idioms, and attempts to twist their meaning. Underhanded shit, in other words.


----------



## asaratis

dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a load of this, oh brilliant one.  I don't really promote Christianity.  I don't really care what you believe.  I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I didn't say that.  Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious.  Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities.  If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever. The point is, you're simply playing games with definitions, and going that way often paints you into a corner. If you broaden the concept of "religion" to include atheism you're just nullifying the word, and then we need something else to replace it. But it doesn't change the way things are. The point in doing this is usually political, to shift policy by manipulating meaning - ala Orwell - and it's unscrupulous because it hijacks common convictions, as represented by popular phrases and idioms, and attempts to twist their meaning. Underhanded shit, in other words.
Click to expand...

The underhanded shit comes from the Atheists here trying to re-define Atheism in terms of what they and their mentors have come up with in recent years...ignoring the commonly accepted definitions established since 1570...or was it 1750?....in QW's post showing the etymology of the word "atheist"

Oh!  Here it is....

Online Etymology Dictionary

atheist (n.) 


1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-). The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell. [Armand Salacrou, "Certitudes et incertitudes," 1943]


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I didn't say that.  Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious.  Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities.  If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever. The point is, you're simply playing games with definitions, and going that way often paints you into a corner. If you broaden the concept of "religion" to include atheism you're just nullifying the word, and then we need something else to replace it. But it doesn't change the way things are. The point in doing this is usually political, to shift policy by manipulating meaning - ala Orwell - and it's unscrupulous because it hijacks common convictions, as represented by popular phrases and idioms, and attempts to twist their meaning. Underhanded shit, in other words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The underhanded shit comes from the Atheists here trying to re-define Atheism in terms of what they and their mentors have come up with in recent years...ignoring the commonly accepted definitions established since 1570...or was it 1750?....in QW's post showing the etymology of the word "atheist"
> 
> Oh!  Here it is....
> 
> Online Etymology Dictionary
> 
> atheist (n.)
> 
> 
> 1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-). The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell. [Armand Salacrou, "Certitudes et incertitudes," 1943]
Click to expand...


uh.... nice quote. Doesn't really seem to support your assertion that any belief about the existence of deities should be considered a "religion" however. Which is a merely dumb if borne of ignorance, dishonest otherwise.


----------



## asaratis

dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I didn't say that.  Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious.  Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities.  If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever. The point is, you're simply playing games with definitions, and going that way often paints you into a corner. If you broaden the concept of "religion" to include atheism you're just nullifying the word, and then we need something else to replace it. But it doesn't change the way things are. The point in doing this is usually political, to shift policy by manipulating meaning - ala Orwell - and it's unscrupulous because it hijacks common convictions, as represented by popular phrases and idioms, and attempts to twist their meaning. Underhanded shit, in other words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The underhanded shit comes from the Atheists here trying to re-define Atheism in terms of what they and their mentors have come up with in recent years...ignoring the commonly accepted definitions established since 1570...or was it 1750?....in QW's post showing the etymology of the word "atheist"
> 
> Oh!  Here it is....
> 
> Online Etymology Dictionary
> 
> atheist (n.)
> 
> 
> 1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-). The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell. [Armand Salacrou, "Certitudes et incertitudes," 1943]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> uh.... nice quote. Doesn't really seem to support your assertion that any belief about the existence of deities should be considered a "religion" however. Which is a merely dumb if borne of ignorance, dishonest otherwise.
Click to expand...

Try this:
The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts


*Religion/Sect/
Belief System**Origins & History **Adherents Worldwide (approx.) **God(s) and Universe **Human Situation and Life's Purpose**Afterlife**Practices**Texts**More Info**Aladura*Various prophet-healing churches founded since c.1918, West Nigeria.1 millionGenerally monotheistic; a mix of Anglican, Pentecostal and traditional African beliefs.Strong emphasis on healing and salvation in this life through prayer, fasting and other rituals.Not emphasized; views vary.Spiritual healing is central. Mix of Anglican and African rituals; a prophet plays a prominent role.NoneReligionFacts article 

Best-Selling Aladura books
(from Amazon)*Asatru*




Revival of Norse and Germanic paganism, 1970s Scandinavia and USA.unknownPolytheistic, Norse gods and goddesses, Norse creation myths.Salvation or redemption not emphasized. Fatalistic view of universe.Valhalla (heaven) for death in battle; Hel (peaceful place) for most; Hifhel (hell) for the very evil.Sacrifice of food or drink, toast to the gods, shamanism (less frequently), celebration of solstice holidays. Nine Noble Virtues is moral code._Eddas_ (Norse epics); the Havamal (proverbs attributed to Odin)ReligionFacts article 


Best-Selling Asatru books
(from Amazon)*Atheism*Appears throughout history (including ancient Greek philosophy), but especially after the Enlightenment (19th cent).1.1 billion (this figure includes agnostic and non-religious, which tend to be grouped on surveys)There is no God or divine being. Beliefs about the universe usually based on latest scientific findings.Since there is no afterlife, this one life is of great importance. Only humans can help themselves and each other solve the world's problems.nonenoneInfluential works include those by Marx, Freud, Feuerbach, and Voltaire. Notable modern authors include Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan.Best-Selling Atheism books
(from Amazon)*Baha'i Faith *




Founded by Bahá'u'lláh, 1863, Tehran, Iran.5-7 million
One God, who has revealed himself progressively through major world religions.The soul is eternal and essentially good. Purpose of life is to develop spiritually and draw closer to God.Soul separates from the body and begins a journey towards or away from God. Heaven and hell are states of being.Daily prayer, avoidance of intoxicants, scripture reading, hard work, education, work for social justice and equality.Writings of Bahá'u'lláh and other Bahá'í leaders.


ReligionFacts section 


Best-Selling Bahai books
(from Amazon)*Bahai *
*history**Bahai *
*fast facts**Bahai *
*beliefs in God**Bahai on human nature**Bahai and the afterlife**Bahai *
*practices**Bahai *
*texts**Bahai *
*symbols**Bön*Indigenous religion of Tibet.100,000Nontheistic Buddhism, but meditation on peaceful and wrathful deities.Purpose is to gain enlightenment.Reincarnation until gain enlightenmentMeditation on mandalas and Tibetan deities, astrology, monastic life.Bonpo canonReligionFacts article 


Best-Selling Bon books
(from Amazon)*Buddhism*




Founded by Siddharta Gautama (the Buddha) in c. 520 BC, NE India.360 millionVaries: Theravada atheistic; Mahayana more polytheistic. Buddha taught nothing is permanent.Purpose is to avoid suffering and gain enlightenment and release from cycle of rebirth, or at least attain a better rebirth by gaining merit.Reincarnation (understood differently than in Hinduism, with no surviving soul) until gain enlightenmentMeditation, mantras, devotion to deities (in some sects), mandalas (Tibetan)Tripitaka (Pali Canon); Mahayana sutras like the Lotus Sutra; others.ReligionFacts section 


Best-Selling Buddhism books
(from Amazon)*Buddhism history**Buddhism *
*fast facts**Compare Theravada and Mahayana**Human nature in Buddhism**Afterlife in Buddhism**Buddhism practices**Buddhist *
*texts**Buddhist *
*symbols*

*********************************
There's much more at the site.
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi dblack: I think the trick here is to keep Asaratis use of the term religion/religious
within his context, and not apply it outside.

By his literal definition, Buddhism is also NOT a religion.

So if in your system and mine, Buddhism CAN be counted or IS counted as a religion,
clearly we are not using the words the same way as Asaratis.

This is causing confusion because we are all using the same term religion/religious
but each person uses it in different ways.

This is as confusing is if we each have a concept of 1, 2 and 3.

But some people use the symbol 2 to mean 1.
Some people use the symbol 2 to mean 3.
And here I come saying wait a minute, the same symbol 2
is being used in different contexts by different people to mean 1, 2, and 3:
so let's talk about the concept 1, 2 or 3 we mean, and let's not use the symbol 2 and argue over it.

Of course it will cause conflict if we keep using the symbol 2,
knowing that not all people are assigning the same values to that symbol.

I don't think anyone here is delusional or ill intending,
but is stubborn and used to thinking and speaking in those terms,
where it offends us if someone tries to insult us or tell us we are the ones who need to change
to their way of using these words. 

If we stick to the concepts, we can agree what is what.
* when are people being religious about something as in ardently adhering to it almost superstitiously as an absolute given
or necessity to follow period, absolutely and unquestioned
* when do people think something strongly but do not consider it part of a larger collective identity or system
* when do people use religion to mean a belief system that does or does not necessarily require a deity or
supernatural explantions for things in the world -- since people here do not agree on this,
why can't we just accept if some people do or do not count deifying things or explanations as religion or not
* when do people perceive some collective belief as a religion, regardless of this reason or that reason

So what if we don't all agree, of course we don't.
But why can't we take each person's system, such as Asaratis system for him,
and Derideo Te system for him, and let each person explain what they do or do not see 
and let them have that way of expressing it for themselves.

Clearly we do not use the terms atheism or religion the same way.
Hollie does not mean the same thing by Christianity that I do.

So we cannot get caught up on terms, we need to talk about the content.

Just like any other language barrier.
If gato means cat in Spanish and gateaux means cake in French,
we cannot use those sounds or it causes confusion if one person hears cake and the other hears cat.
We would have to spell out do we mean a feline animal or do we mean a baked dessert?
If we stick to the concept, we don't have to argue what gato or gateaux mean to each person.

Here it is even trickier because the words god, Gods, Christianity, religion, atheism
are the exact same words, and yet people are assigning different meanings to them that are not compatibly defined.

I value everyone's input and what we all have to share and gain from each other.
I want to get to the content behind what each person believes and how they see and say it.

I am willing to accept the fact that people may not use the same words the same way.
Why waste time, why not just find out what we do mean and stick to the meanings.

We may have to use more specific words, but that's not the same as insulting someone or saying they
are delusional or trying to deny truth. it's not either person's fault we have these preferences or biases.
these are very difficult subjects to discern these finer distinctions, so I commend everyone for at least
trying to resolve where we are talking past each other and making generalizations other people are not following.

Thanks for this. sorry for the confusion and any insult I don't think is necessary or intended. I think it is mutual
and just coming from the conflicts between how we use words differently. 



dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear @*emilynghiem ,*
> 
> DT above expresses nothing more than self aggrandizement coupled with intentional veiling of his apparent inability to cope with those "beneath him" that logically challenge his errant postings and surreal re-definitions of terms that have been accepted for decades.  This is very much akin to the liberals changing their own label from_ liberal_ to _progressive _in an attempt to escape the negative connotations now attached to _liberal.  _Ignoring the opposition is also another tactic used exhaustively by liberals.  It bears no resemblance to that which it precludes; productive dialog that often leads to self improvement and understanding.
> 
> Just as does hatred, ignoring people has little effect on the target.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> asaratis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.
> 
> Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get a load of this, oh brilliant one.  I don't really promote Christianity.  I don't really care what you believe.  I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> False. One can conclude that your gods don't exist without any requirement of belief.


Hi Hollie: Do you agree with Godel's proof that man can neither prove nor disprove the
existence or nonexistence of God?
Where God represents the absolute sum and source of all knowledge and all laws of the universe/creation,
all collective truth of all events that have ever occurred, assuming such existence exists;
man is clearly unable to contain, define or perceive of all this which God represents.
Thus we can neither prove nor disprove; all our knowledge comes from previous data, experience or perceptions
handed down from other sources, and thus could be wrong, could change or be incomplete.

Do you agree that given this definition of God, then man cannot know or prove either way,
and it is all faith based if God exists or not?



			
				Hollie said:
			
		

> On the other hand, Cults, (especially religious based cults), have a presumption of "belief" in supernatural entities in spite of a complete lack of evidence for such magical, supernatural entities.


Hollie, since you are not one to walk away from a challenge but to call things for what they are and mean to you.
I challenge you to explain to me what you believe about Justice compared to what other people believe.
And tell me how this is or is not the equivalent of what some people believe about Jesus compared to other people.

I will start, and you can tell me if you believe similar or not.

I believe that Restorative Justice is the supreme will or ideal that humanity is driven by and meant to fulfill.
And this is the spirit and meaning of Christ Jesus.

So those, like my friend Ray Hill who is atheist believe and live by Restorative Justice
and are thus neighbors with me in Christ, the same as Christians who believe in this path of peace and justice in life.

on the other hand, people who believe in Retributive Justice without forgiveness
but seek to judge and punish are following the spirit of Antichrist. this includes
teh Christians you fault for religious abuses, for teaching a murderous merciless God,
similar to Jihadists or extreme zionists who preach armageddon.

Not all Christians are Antichrist but the ones who get the worst rap for hypocrisy
get the most publicity. So the Antichrist false christians are the most visible that give Christianity a bad name.

What do you believe about justice Hollie?

If you believe Christianity is evil and needs to be changed,
is that part of your belief about justice? 

Thanks Hollie


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> Whatever. The point is, you're simply playing games with definitions, and going that way often paints you into a corner. If you broaden the concept of "religion" to include atheism you're just nullifying the word, and then we need something else to replace it. But it doesn't change the way things are. The point in doing this is usually political, to shift policy by manipulating meaning - ala Orwell - and it's unscrupulous because it hijacks common convictions, as represented by popular phrases and idioms, and attempts to twist their meaning. Underhanded shit, in other words.



Have you read sealybobo's posts? He is attempting to redefine agnosticism as atheism. If you have a beef with people playing games with definitions you should get after everyone who is doing it.

That said, the simple fact is that some atheists actually identify their belief as a religion, they have even started churches based on that belief. That, in and of itself, doesn't mean that all atheists think that way, but anyone who denies that reality is no different than a Young Earth Creationist.

Atheism can be religion because the definition of religion does not restrict belief to believing in a supernatural being. 

1a :  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) :  the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2:  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic :  scrupulous conformity :  conscientiousness
4:  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith ​In other words, by insisting that the only valid definition of religion involves gods you are the one playing with definitions. It would also exclude a few religions that actually don't believe in gods, like Buddhism. 

I leave you to pander how anyone can claim that Buddhism is a religion, yet insist that anyone who says that religion has to involve gods, and not have their head explode from the inherent contradiction.


----------



## emilynghiem

It's even more interesting than that!
Asaratis was saying Buddhism is not a religion by his view, and atheism is.

From my viewpoint the Democrat platform constitutes a political belief and religion.
But I understand some Democrats and liberals DON'T make a religion of their principles
and some DO m ake it just like a cult where you ahve to follow the leader or get ostracized from the herd.

My mother says Buddhism is not a religion, yet gets very religious about it.
She will say Christians are a religion, yet I have friends who are believers and say they do not follow a religion
and they reject the false religions and churches they see as Antichrist and not following God and the Bible.

Can you see what is going on  here
people are labeling from their own viewpoint and it doesn't match someone else
so what

When I work with Asaratis I know to use his definitions for things
When I talk with Derideo or other nontheists who don't see themselves as members of a rleigious following
or collective identity I let them define their terms so I can follow their system when I talk with them

to each his own

Asaratis system has to apply just to him or else it will be flipped backwards
from peole who see Buddhism as a religioin but not atheism.
why apply the wrong system to the opposite people?
if people speak Spanish then speak spanish when talking with them
if people speak French or English, then speak using their language, accent or dialects

Brazilian and European Spanish is going to be different from Mexican Spanish
big deal

so why can't ppl's ways of using words like atheism, religion, God etc be different too
people are not perfectly the same, we don't use words or attach meanings and perceptions the same

we all have biases, why not be honest about them and work around these biases



Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever. The point is, you're simply playing games with definitions, and going that way often paints you into a corner. If you broaden the concept of "religion" to include atheism you're just nullifying the word, and then we need something else to replace it. But it doesn't change the way things are. The point in doing this is usually political, to shift policy by manipulating meaning - ala Orwell - and it's unscrupulous because it hijacks common convictions, as represented by popular phrases and idioms, and attempts to twist their meaning. Underhanded shit, in other words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read sealybobo's posts? He is attempting to redefine agnosticism as atheism. If you have a beef with people playing games with definitions you should get after everyone who is doing it.
> 
> That said, the simple fact is that some atheists actually identify their belief as a religion, they have even started churches based on that belief. That, in and of itself, doesn't mean that all atheists think that way, but anyone who denies that reality is no different than a Young Earth Creationist.
> 
> Atheism can be religion because the definition of religion does not restrict belief to believing in a supernatural being.
> 
> 1a :  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
> b (1) :  the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2:  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3 archaic :  scrupulous conformity :  conscientiousness
> 4:  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith ​In other words, by insisting that the only valid definition of religion involves gods you are the one playing with definitions. It would also exclude a few religions that actually don't believe in gods, like Buddhism.
> 
> I leave you to pander how anyone can claim that Buddhism is a religion, yet insist that anyone who says that religion has to involve gods, and not have their head explode from the inherent contradiction.
Click to expand...


----------



## asaratis

emilynghiem said:


> Hi dblack: I think the trick here is to keep Asaratis use of the term religion/religious
> within his context, and not apply it outside.
> 
> By his literal definition, Buddhism is also NOT a religion.
> 
> So if in your system and mine, Buddhism CAN be counted or IS counted as a religion,
> clearly we are not using the words the same way as Asaratis.
> 
> This is causing confusion because we are all using the same term religion/religious
> but each person uses it in different ways.
> 
> This is as confusing is if we each have a concept of 1, 2 and 3.
> 
> But some people use the symbol 2 to mean 1.
> Some people use the symbol 2 to mean 3.
> And here I come saying wait a minute, the same symbol 2
> is being used in different contexts by different people to mean 1, 2, and 3:
> so let's talk about the concept 1, 2 or 3 we mean, and let's not use the symbol 2 and argue over it.
> 
> Of course it will cause conflict if we keep using the symbol 2,
> knowing that not all people are assigning the same values to that symbol.
> 
> I don't think anyone here is delusional or ill intending,
> but is stubborn and used to thinking and speaking in those terms,
> where it offends us if someone tries to insult us or tell us we are the ones who need to change
> to their way of using these words.
> 
> If we stick to the concepts, we can agree what is what.
> * when are people being religious about something as in ardently adhering to it almost superstitiously as an absolute given
> or necessity to follow period, absolutely and unquestioned
> * when do people think something strongly but do not consider it part of a larger collective identity or system
> * when do people use religion to mean a belief system that does or does not necessarily require a deity or
> supernatural explantions for things in the world -- since people here do not agree on this,
> why can't we just accept if some people do or do not count deifying things or explanations as religion or not
> * when do people perceive some collective belief as a religion, regardless of this reason or that reason
> 
> So what if we don't all agree, of course we don't.
> But why can't we take each person's system, such as Asaratis system for him,
> and Derideo Te system for him, and let each person explain what they do or do not see
> and let them have that way of expressing it for themselves.
> 
> Clearly we do not use the terms atheism or religion the same way.
> Hollie does not mean the same thing by Christianity that I do.
> 
> So we cannot get caught up on terms, we need to talk about the content.
> 
> Just like any other language barrier.
> If gato means cat in Spanish and gateaux means cake in French,
> we cannot use those sounds or it causes confusion if one person hears cake and the other hears cat.
> We would have to spell out do we mean a feline animal or do we mean a baked dessert?
> If we stick to the concept, we don't have to argue what gato or gateaux mean to each person.
> 
> Here it is even trickier because the words god, Gods, Christianity, religion, atheism
> are the exact same words, and yet people are assigning different meanings to them that are not compatibly defined.
> 
> I value everyone's input and what we all have to share and gain from each other.
> I want to get to the content behind what each person believes and how they see and say it.
> 
> I am willing to accept the fact that people may not use the same words the same way.
> Why waste time, why not just find out what we do mean and stick to the meanings.
> 
> We may have to use more specific words, but that's not the same as insulting someone or saying they
> are delusional or trying to deny truth. it's not either person's fault we have these preferences or biases.
> these are very difficult subjects to discern these finer distinctions, so I commend everyone for at least
> trying to resolve where we are talking past each other and making generalizations other people are not following.
> 
> Thanks for this. sorry for the confusion and any insult I don't think is necessary or intended. I think it is mutual
> and just coming from the conflicts between how we use words differently.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.
> 
> Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.
> 
> 
> 
> Get a load of this, oh brilliant one.  I don't really promote Christianity.  I don't really care what you believe.  I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Dear @emilynghiem ,
After reading further, I must reverse my contention that Buddhism is not considered a religion.  It is apparently considered a religion...even by Buddhists.  It is a nontheistic religion...having no god.  That does not detract from its be a totally respectable basic philosophy of life..

The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts

Buddhism Beliefs
I can't copy from this site to post the very enlightening quote of Lama Yeshe at the top of the page.  Essentially it says that religion is one's basic philosophy of life, not just some dry intellectual idea.  This is in support of the argument that Atheism is also a religion.


Buddhism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I didn't say that.  Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious.  Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities.  If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. One can conclude that your gods don't exist without any requirement of belief.
> 
> On the other hand, Cults, (especially religious based cults), have a presumption of "belief" in supernatural entities in spite of a complete lack of evidence for such magical, supernatural entities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are delusional.
> 
> A conclusion of such a thought process is a belief that you have determined what is correct.  You are laughable.
Click to expand...

I'm hardly the delusional one. 

Let's remember that it is you who believes in supernatural, magical entities. It is you who is attempting to impose your belief on others. I've made the rational, reasonable conclusion that your inventions of gods are no different than other inventions of gods. All of them products of fear and superstition. 

So who, really, is the delusional one?


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi dblack: I think the trick here is to keep Asaratis use of the term religion/religious
> within his context, and not apply it outside.
> 
> By his literal definition, Buddhism is also NOT a religion.
> 
> So if in your system and mine, Buddhism CAN be counted or IS counted as a religion,
> clearly we are not using the words the same way as Asaratis.
> 
> This is causing confusion because we are all using the same term religion/religious
> but each person uses it in different ways.
> 
> This is as confusing is if we each have a concept of 1, 2 and 3.
> 
> But some people use the symbol 2 to mean 1.
> Some people use the symbol 2 to mean 3.
> And here I come saying wait a minute, the same symbol 2
> is being used in different contexts by different people to mean 1, 2, and 3:
> so let's talk about the concept 1, 2 or 3 we mean, and let's not use the symbol 2 and argue over it.
> 
> Of course it will cause conflict if we keep using the symbol 2,
> knowing that not all people are assigning the same values to that symbol.
> 
> I don't think anyone here is delusional or ill intending,
> but is stubborn and used to thinking and speaking in those terms,
> where it offends us if someone tries to insult us or tell us we are the ones who need to change
> to their way of using these words.
> 
> If we stick to the concepts, we can agree what is what.
> * when are people being religious about something as in ardently adhering to it almost superstitiously as an absolute given
> or necessity to follow period, absolutely and unquestioned
> * when do people think something strongly but do not consider it part of a larger collective identity or system
> * when do people use religion to mean a belief system that does or does not necessarily require a deity or
> supernatural explantions for things in the world -- since people here do not agree on this,
> why can't we just accept if some people do or do not count deifying things or explanations as religion or not
> * when do people perceive some collective belief as a religion, regardless of this reason or that reason
> 
> So what if we don't all agree, of course we don't.
> But why can't we take each person's system, such as Asaratis system for him,
> and Derideo Te system for him, and let each person explain what they do or do not see
> and let them have that way of expressing it for themselves.
> 
> Clearly we do not use the terms atheism or religion the same way.
> Hollie does not mean the same thing by Christianity that I do.
> 
> So we cannot get caught up on terms, we need to talk about the content.
> 
> Just like any other language barrier.
> If gato means cat in Spanish and gateaux means cake in French,
> we cannot use those sounds or it causes confusion if one person hears cake and the other hears cat.
> We would have to spell out do we mean a feline animal or do we mean a baked dessert?
> If we stick to the concept, we don't have to argue what gato or gateaux mean to each person.
> 
> Here it is even trickier because the words god, Gods, Christianity, religion, atheism
> are the exact same words, and yet people are assigning different meanings to them that are not compatibly defined.
> 
> I value everyone's input and what we all have to share and gain from each other.
> I want to get to the content behind what each person believes and how they see and say it.
> 
> I am willing to accept the fact that people may not use the same words the same way.
> Why waste time, why not just find out what we do mean and stick to the meanings.
> 
> We may have to use more specific words, but that's not the same as insulting someone or saying they
> are delusional or trying to deny truth. it's not either person's fault we have these preferences or biases.
> these are very difficult subjects to discern these finer distinctions, so I commend everyone for at least
> trying to resolve where we are talking past each other and making generalizations other people are not following.
> 
> Thanks for this. sorry for the confusion and any insult I don't think is necessary or intended. I think it is mutual
> and just coming from the conflicts between how we use words differently.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a load of this, oh brilliant one.  I don't really promote Christianity.  I don't really care what you believe.  I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear @emilynghiem ,
> After reading further, I must reverse my contention that Buddhism is not considered a religion.  It is apparently considered a religion...even by Buddhists.  It is a nontheistic religion...having no god.  That does not detract from its be a totally respectable basic philosophy of life..
> 
> The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
> 
> Buddhism Beliefs
> I can't copy from this site to post the very enlightening quote of Lama Yeshe at the top of the page.  Essentially it says that religion is one's basic philosophy of life, not just some dry intellectual idea.  This is in support of the argument that Atheism is also a religion.
> 
> 
> Buddhism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Cutting and pasting rote lists from wiki doesn't support your religion of "atheism is a religion".

Why not cut and paste the organized rituals, practices and traditions that define the "atheism is a religion", you are a convert to.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever. The point is, you're simply playing games with definitions, and going that way often paints you into a corner. If you broaden the concept of "religion" to include atheism you're just nullifying the word, and then we need something else to replace it. But it doesn't change the way things are. The point in doing this is usually political, to shift policy by manipulating meaning - ala Orwell - and it's unscrupulous because it hijacks common convictions, as represented by popular phrases and idioms, and attempts to twist their meaning. Underhanded shit, in other words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read sealybobo's posts? He is attempting to redefine agnosticism as atheism. If you have a beef with people playing games with definitions you should get after everyone who is doing it.
> 
> That said, the simple fact is that some atheists actually identify their belief as a religion, they have even started churches based on that belief. That, in and of itself, doesn't mean that all atheists think that way, but anyone who denies that reality is no different than a Young Earth Creationist.
> 
> Atheism can be religion because the definition of religion does not restrict belief to believing in a supernatural being.
> 
> 1a :  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
> b (1) :  the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2:  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3 archaic :  scrupulous conformity :  conscientiousness
> 4:  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith ​In other words, by insisting that the only valid definition of religion involves gods you are the one playing with definitions. It would also exclude a few religions that actually don't believe in gods, like Buddhism.
> 
> I leave you to pander how anyone can claim that Buddhism is a religion, yet insist that anyone who says that religion has to involve gods, and not have their head explode from the inherent contradiction.
Click to expand...



su·per·nat·u·ral·ism 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 (s
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







p
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




r-n
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




ch
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







r-
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




-l
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




z
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







m)
_n._
*1. *The quality of being supernatural.
*2. *Belief in a supernatural agency that intervenes in the course of natural laws.

Therefore, the religion of Christianity is not a religion at all. It is the belief system of supernaturalism. Some of its adherents being _Fundamentalist Supernaturalists_.


----------



## dblack

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever. The point is, you're simply playing games with definitions, and going that way often paints you into a corner. If you broaden the concept of "religion" to include atheism you're just nullifying the word, and then we need something else to replace it. But it doesn't change the way things are. The point in doing this is usually political, to shift policy by manipulating meaning - ala Orwell - and it's unscrupulous because it hijacks common convictions, as represented by popular phrases and idioms, and attempts to twist their meaning. Underhanded shit, in other words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read sealybobo's posts? He is attempting to redefine agnosticism as atheism. If you have a beef with people playing games with definitions you should get after everyone who is doing it.
Click to expand...


Sealy isn't redefining atheism. While it's true that some atheists adopt the kind of anti-religious posture Christians fixate on, all that is required to be an atheist is to _not_ be a theist. The kind of atheists that this thread is targeting are a subset of all atheists, and a small subset at that.



> That said, the simple fact is that some atheists actually identify their belief as a religion, they have even started churches based on that belief. That, in and of itself, doesn't mean that all atheists think that way, but anyone who denies that reality is no different than a Young Earth Creationist.
> 
> Atheism can be religion because the definition of religion does not restrict belief to believing in a supernatural being.
> 
> 1a :  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
> b (1) :  the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2:  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3 archaic :  scrupulous conformity :  conscientiousness
> 4:  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith ​In other words, by insisting that the only valid definition of religion involves gods you are the one playing with definitions. It would also exclude a few religions that actually don't believe in gods, like Buddhism.
> 
> I leave you to pander how anyone can claim that Buddhism is a religion, yet insist that anyone who says that religion has to involve gods, and not have their head explode from the inherent contradiction.



I agree. Atheism can be approached as a religion. And I'm not insisting that a religion has to involve gods. I'm just rejecting the notion that a belief about the existence of gods, in and of itself, constitutes a religion.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a load of this, oh brilliant one.  I don't really promote Christianity.  I don't really care what you believe.  I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I didn't say that.  Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious.  Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities.  If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. One can conclude that your gods don't exist without any requirement of belief.
Click to expand...

is that what you believe?........


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I didn't say that.  Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious.  Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities.  If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. One can conclude that your gods don't exist without any requirement of belief.
> 
> On the other hand, Cults, (especially religious based cults), have a presumption of "belief" in supernatural entities in spite of a complete lack of evidence for such magical, supernatural entities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are delusional.
> 
> A conclusion of such a thought process is a belief that you have determined what is correct.  You are laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm hardly the delusional one.
> 
> Let's remember that it is you who believes in supernatural, magical entities. It is you who is attempting to impose your belief on others. I've made the rational, reasonable conclusion that your inventions of gods are no different than other inventions of gods. All of them products of fear and superstition.
> 
> So who, really, is the delusional one?
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to impose my set of religious beliefs on anyone.  Just arguing that Atheism is defined as being a religion.  The fact that you ignore the definitions put before you is a result of your hard headed stupidity.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi dblack: I think the trick here is to keep Asaratis use of the term religion/religious
> within his context, and not apply it outside.
> 
> By his literal definition, Buddhism is also NOT a religion.
> 
> So if in your system and mine, Buddhism CAN be counted or IS counted as a religion,
> clearly we are not using the words the same way as Asaratis.
> 
> This is causing confusion because we are all using the same term religion/religious
> but each person uses it in different ways.
> 
> This is as confusing is if we each have a concept of 1, 2 and 3.
> 
> But some people use the symbol 2 to mean 1.
> Some people use the symbol 2 to mean 3.
> And here I come saying wait a minute, the same symbol 2
> is being used in different contexts by different people to mean 1, 2, and 3:
> so let's talk about the concept 1, 2 or 3 we mean, and let's not use the symbol 2 and argue over it.
> 
> Of course it will cause conflict if we keep using the symbol 2,
> knowing that not all people are assigning the same values to that symbol.
> 
> I don't think anyone here is delusional or ill intending,
> but is stubborn and used to thinking and speaking in those terms,
> where it offends us if someone tries to insult us or tell us we are the ones who need to change
> to their way of using these words.
> 
> If we stick to the concepts, we can agree what is what.
> * when are people being religious about something as in ardently adhering to it almost superstitiously as an absolute given
> or necessity to follow period, absolutely and unquestioned
> * when do people think something strongly but do not consider it part of a larger collective identity or system
> * when do people use religion to mean a belief system that does or does not necessarily require a deity or
> supernatural explantions for things in the world -- since people here do not agree on this,
> why can't we just accept if some people do or do not count deifying things or explanations as religion or not
> * when do people perceive some collective belief as a religion, regardless of this reason or that reason
> 
> So what if we don't all agree, of course we don't.
> But why can't we take each person's system, such as Asaratis system for him,
> and Derideo Te system for him, and let each person explain what they do or do not see
> and let them have that way of expressing it for themselves.
> 
> Clearly we do not use the terms atheism or religion the same way.
> Hollie does not mean the same thing by Christianity that I do.
> 
> So we cannot get caught up on terms, we need to talk about the content.
> 
> Just like any other language barrier.
> If gato means cat in Spanish and gateaux means cake in French,
> we cannot use those sounds or it causes confusion if one person hears cake and the other hears cat.
> We would have to spell out do we mean a feline animal or do we mean a baked dessert?
> If we stick to the concept, we don't have to argue what gato or gateaux mean to each person.
> 
> Here it is even trickier because the words god, Gods, Christianity, religion, atheism
> are the exact same words, and yet people are assigning different meanings to them that are not compatibly defined.
> 
> I value everyone's input and what we all have to share and gain from each other.
> I want to get to the content behind what each person believes and how they see and say it.
> 
> I am willing to accept the fact that people may not use the same words the same way.
> Why waste time, why not just find out what we do mean and stick to the meanings.
> 
> We may have to use more specific words, but that's not the same as insulting someone or saying they
> are delusional or trying to deny truth. it's not either person's fault we have these preferences or biases.
> these are very difficult subjects to discern these finer distinctions, so I commend everyone for at least
> trying to resolve where we are talking past each other and making generalizations other people are not following.
> 
> Thanks for this. sorry for the confusion and any insult I don't think is necessary or intended. I think it is mutual
> and just coming from the conflicts between how we use words differently.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear @emilynghiem ,
> After reading further, I must reverse my contention that Buddhism is not considered a religion.  It is apparently considered a religion...even by Buddhists.  It is a nontheistic religion...having no god.  That does not detract from its be a totally respectable basic philosophy of life..
> 
> The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
> 
> Buddhism Beliefs
> I can't copy from this site to post the very enlightening quote of Lama Yeshe at the top of the page.  Essentially it says that religion is one's basic philosophy of life, not just some dry intellectual idea.  This is in support of the argument that Atheism is also a religion.
> 
> 
> Buddhism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cutting and pasting rote lists from wiki doesn't support your religion of "atheism is a religion".
> 
> Why not cut and paste the organized rituals, practices and traditions that define the "atheism is a religion", you are a convert to.
Click to expand...

The incessant attack on god-worshipers, led by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens and other Atheist "leaders of the church" based on the silly nontion that there is a war between religion and science suffices for me.  That is the doctrine of modern day Atheism.

Just because you have no rituals doesn't mean anything.  Your present day practice is to scorn and demean those that have a god.

Mind you, I'm not asking you to convert...just saying that Atheism is a religion.  You can be one forever for all I care.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say that.  Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious.  Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities.  If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. One can conclude that your gods don't exist without any requirement of belief.
> 
> On the other hand, Cults, (especially religious based cults), have a presumption of "belief" in supernatural entities in spite of a complete lack of evidence for such magical, supernatural entities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are delusional.
> 
> A conclusion of such a thought process is a belief that you have determined what is correct.  You are laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm hardly the delusional one.
> 
> Let's remember that it is you who believes in supernatural, magical entities. It is you who is attempting to impose your belief on others. I've made the rational, reasonable conclusion that your inventions of gods are no different than other inventions of gods. All of them products of fear and superstition.
> 
> So who, really, is the delusional one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not trying to impose my set of religious beliefs on anyone.  Just arguing that Atheism is defined as being a religion.  The fact that you ignore the definitions put before you is a result of your hard headed stupidity.
Click to expand...

Atheism is being defined as a religion by you. You are assigning that identity. Your false assignment has been refuted thoroughly with among other evidences by pointing out that drawing conclusions that separate your belief in supernatural realms and gods of magical abilities from contingent reality is a rational position to take. 

I don't need to believe your super-magical gods or the gods of others don't exist. I can draw conclusions about your gods consistent with conclusions about fairies and jinn,


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi dblack: I think the trick here is to keep Asaratis use of the term religion/religious
> within his context, and not apply it outside.
> 
> By his literal definition, Buddhism is also NOT a religion.
> 
> So if in your system and mine, Buddhism CAN be counted or IS counted as a religion,
> clearly we are not using the words the same way as Asaratis.
> 
> This is causing confusion because we are all using the same term religion/religious
> but each person uses it in different ways.
> 
> This is as confusing is if we each have a concept of 1, 2 and 3.
> 
> But some people use the symbol 2 to mean 1.
> Some people use the symbol 2 to mean 3.
> And here I come saying wait a minute, the same symbol 2
> is being used in different contexts by different people to mean 1, 2, and 3:
> so let's talk about the concept 1, 2 or 3 we mean, and let's not use the symbol 2 and argue over it.
> 
> Of course it will cause conflict if we keep using the symbol 2,
> knowing that not all people are assigning the same values to that symbol.
> 
> I don't think anyone here is delusional or ill intending,
> but is stubborn and used to thinking and speaking in those terms,
> where it offends us if someone tries to insult us or tell us we are the ones who need to change
> to their way of using these words.
> 
> If we stick to the concepts, we can agree what is what.
> * when are people being religious about something as in ardently adhering to it almost superstitiously as an absolute given
> or necessity to follow period, absolutely and unquestioned
> * when do people think something strongly but do not consider it part of a larger collective identity or system
> * when do people use religion to mean a belief system that does or does not necessarily require a deity or
> supernatural explantions for things in the world -- since people here do not agree on this,
> why can't we just accept if some people do or do not count deifying things or explanations as religion or not
> * when do people perceive some collective belief as a religion, regardless of this reason or that reason
> 
> So what if we don't all agree, of course we don't.
> But why can't we take each person's system, such as Asaratis system for him,
> and Derideo Te system for him, and let each person explain what they do or do not see
> and let them have that way of expressing it for themselves.
> 
> Clearly we do not use the terms atheism or religion the same way.
> Hollie does not mean the same thing by Christianity that I do.
> 
> So we cannot get caught up on terms, we need to talk about the content.
> 
> Just like any other language barrier.
> If gato means cat in Spanish and gateaux means cake in French,
> we cannot use those sounds or it causes confusion if one person hears cake and the other hears cat.
> We would have to spell out do we mean a feline animal or do we mean a baked dessert?
> If we stick to the concept, we don't have to argue what gato or gateaux mean to each person.
> 
> Here it is even trickier because the words god, Gods, Christianity, religion, atheism
> are the exact same words, and yet people are assigning different meanings to them that are not compatibly defined.
> 
> I value everyone's input and what we all have to share and gain from each other.
> I want to get to the content behind what each person believes and how they see and say it.
> 
> I am willing to accept the fact that people may not use the same words the same way.
> Why waste time, why not just find out what we do mean and stick to the meanings.
> 
> We may have to use more specific words, but that's not the same as insulting someone or saying they
> are delusional or trying to deny truth. it's not either person's fault we have these preferences or biases.
> these are very difficult subjects to discern these finer distinctions, so I commend everyone for at least
> trying to resolve where we are talking past each other and making generalizations other people are not following.
> 
> Thanks for this. sorry for the confusion and any insult I don't think is necessary or intended. I think it is mutual
> and just coming from the conflicts between how we use words differently.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear @emilynghiem ,
> After reading further, I must reverse my contention that Buddhism is not considered a religion.  It is apparently considered a religion...even by Buddhists.  It is a nontheistic religion...having no god.  That does not detract from its be a totally respectable basic philosophy of life..
> 
> The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
> 
> Buddhism Beliefs
> I can't copy from this site to post the very enlightening quote of Lama Yeshe at the top of the page.  Essentially it says that religion is one's basic philosophy of life, not just some dry intellectual idea.  This is in support of the argument that Atheism is also a religion.
> 
> 
> Buddhism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cutting and pasting rote lists from wiki doesn't support your religion of "atheism is a religion".
> 
> Why not cut and paste the organized rituals, practices and traditions that define the "atheism is a religion", you are a convert to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The incessant attack on god-worshipers, led by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens and other Atheist "leaders of the church" based on the silly nontion that there is a war between religion and science suffices for me.  That is the doctrine of modern day Atheism.
> 
> Just because you have no rituals doesn't mean anything.  Your present day practice is to scorn and demean those that have a god.
> 
> Mind you, I'm not asking you to convert...just saying that Atheism is a religion.  You can be one forever for all I care.
Click to expand...

Yours are more of the expressions of the zealot who sees all challenges to his supernatural beliefs as an "attack". Legitimate questioning about your beliefs in the supernatural is... well, Legitimate questioning about your beliefs in the supernatural. 

I feel fortunate that we're not in some middle eastern Islamist fear society where you religious zealots are in a position to squash any challenges to your supernaturalism.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I didn't say that.  Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious.  Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities.  If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. One can conclude that your gods don't exist without any requirement of belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is that what you believe?........
Click to expand...

More of your pointlesness.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi dblack: I think the trick here is to keep Asaratis use of the term religion/religious
> within his context, and not apply it outside.
> 
> By his literal definition, Buddhism is also NOT a religion.
> 
> So if in your system and mine, Buddhism CAN be counted or IS counted as a religion,
> clearly we are not using the words the same way as Asaratis.
> 
> This is causing confusion because we are all using the same term religion/religious
> but each person uses it in different ways.
> 
> This is as confusing is if we each have a concept of 1, 2 and 3.
> 
> But some people use the symbol 2 to mean 1.
> Some people use the symbol 2 to mean 3.
> And here I come saying wait a minute, the same symbol 2
> is being used in different contexts by different people to mean 1, 2, and 3:
> so let's talk about the concept 1, 2 or 3 we mean, and let's not use the symbol 2 and argue over it.
> 
> Of course it will cause conflict if we keep using the symbol 2,
> knowing that not all people are assigning the same values to that symbol.
> 
> I don't think anyone here is delusional or ill intending,
> but is stubborn and used to thinking and speaking in those terms,
> where it offends us if someone tries to insult us or tell us we are the ones who need to change
> to their way of using these words.
> 
> If we stick to the concepts, we can agree what is what.
> * when are people being religious about something as in ardently adhering to it almost superstitiously as an absolute given
> or necessity to follow period, absolutely and unquestioned
> * when do people think something strongly but do not consider it part of a larger collective identity or system
> * when do people use religion to mean a belief system that does or does not necessarily require a deity or
> supernatural explantions for things in the world -- since people here do not agree on this,
> why can't we just accept if some people do or do not count deifying things or explanations as religion or not
> * when do people perceive some collective belief as a religion, regardless of this reason or that reason
> 
> So what if we don't all agree, of course we don't.
> But why can't we take each person's system, such as Asaratis system for him,
> and Derideo Te system for him, and let each person explain what they do or do not see
> and let them have that way of expressing it for themselves.
> 
> Clearly we do not use the terms atheism or religion the same way.
> Hollie does not mean the same thing by Christianity that I do.
> 
> So we cannot get caught up on terms, we need to talk about the content.
> 
> Just like any other language barrier.
> If gato means cat in Spanish and gateaux means cake in French,
> we cannot use those sounds or it causes confusion if one person hears cake and the other hears cat.
> We would have to spell out do we mean a feline animal or do we mean a baked dessert?
> If we stick to the concept, we don't have to argue what gato or gateaux mean to each person.
> 
> Here it is even trickier because the words god, Gods, Christianity, religion, atheism
> are the exact same words, and yet people are assigning different meanings to them that are not compatibly defined.
> 
> I value everyone's input and what we all have to share and gain from each other.
> I want to get to the content behind what each person believes and how they see and say it.
> 
> I am willing to accept the fact that people may not use the same words the same way.
> Why waste time, why not just find out what we do mean and stick to the meanings.
> 
> We may have to use more specific words, but that's not the same as insulting someone or saying they
> are delusional or trying to deny truth. it's not either person's fault we have these preferences or biases.
> these are very difficult subjects to discern these finer distinctions, so I commend everyone for at least
> trying to resolve where we are talking past each other and making generalizations other people are not following.
> 
> Thanks for this. sorry for the confusion and any insult I don't think is necessary or intended. I think it is mutual
> and just coming from the conflicts between how we use words differently.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, in spite of your claim not to care what others believe, you actually perceive it as an affront that people can conclude that your gods, like all the other asserted gods, don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear @emilynghiem ,
> After reading further, I must reverse my contention that Buddhism is not considered a religion.  It is apparently considered a religion...even by Buddhists.  It is a nontheistic religion...having no god.  That does not detract from its be a totally respectable basic philosophy of life..
> 
> The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
> 
> Buddhism Beliefs
> I can't copy from this site to post the very enlightening quote of Lama Yeshe at the top of the page.  Essentially it says that religion is one's basic philosophy of life, not just some dry intellectual idea.  This is in support of the argument that Atheism is also a religion.
> 
> 
> Buddhism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cutting and pasting rote lists from wiki doesn't support your religion of "atheism is a religion".
> 
> Why not cut and paste the organized rituals, practices and traditions that define the "atheism is a religion", you are a convert to.
Click to expand...

Your puerile nature is showing.  If you bother to read the links and cannot understand them, you are either a stupid adult or an innocent child.  I suspect the former is the case.  Your pals have been proved wrong about the definition of Atheism in claiming that it is simply a non-belief.  The definition of _atheist_ (defined from 1570 AD) is ignored by the modern day Atheists because they have chosen replace a belief that there is no god with a failure to believe either way.  In other words, they have attempted to redefine themselves as agnostic.

What you are generally thought of to espouse as life's purpose is "Since there is no afterlife, this one life is of great importance. Only humans can help themselves and each other solve the world's problems."  this being from:
The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts

I will admit only that you are entirely too hard headed to be convinced that Atheism is just a faith-based godless religion.  Why? I do not know.  I tried to get to that issue in another thread, but the trolls and detractors intervened despite being asked to confine the discussion to the motives behind not wanting it to be so defined.  As expected, many "brilliant Atheists" and their parrots could not stick to the OP question.  I do recall one or two, but for the most part it was trolls like you that kept derailing it.

Your continued dismissal of legitimate links that are contrary to your claim based solely upon the source is typical of liberals....and Atheists.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi dblack: I think the trick here is to keep Asaratis use of the term religion/religious
> within his context, and not apply it outside.
> 
> By his literal definition, Buddhism is also NOT a religion.
> 
> So if in your system and mine, Buddhism CAN be counted or IS counted as a religion,
> clearly we are not using the words the same way as Asaratis.
> 
> This is causing confusion because we are all using the same term religion/religious
> but each person uses it in different ways.
> 
> This is as confusing is if we each have a concept of 1, 2 and 3.
> 
> But some people use the symbol 2 to mean 1.
> Some people use the symbol 2 to mean 3.
> And here I come saying wait a minute, the same symbol 2
> is being used in different contexts by different people to mean 1, 2, and 3:
> so let's talk about the concept 1, 2 or 3 we mean, and let's not use the symbol 2 and argue over it.
> 
> Of course it will cause conflict if we keep using the symbol 2,
> knowing that not all people are assigning the same values to that symbol.
> 
> I don't think anyone here is delusional or ill intending,
> but is stubborn and used to thinking and speaking in those terms,
> where it offends us if someone tries to insult us or tell us we are the ones who need to change
> to their way of using these words.
> 
> If we stick to the concepts, we can agree what is what.
> * when are people being religious about something as in ardently adhering to it almost superstitiously as an absolute given
> or necessity to follow period, absolutely and unquestioned
> * when do people think something strongly but do not consider it part of a larger collective identity or system
> * when do people use religion to mean a belief system that does or does not necessarily require a deity or
> supernatural explantions for things in the world -- since people here do not agree on this,
> why can't we just accept if some people do or do not count deifying things or explanations as religion or not
> * when do people perceive some collective belief as a religion, regardless of this reason or that reason
> 
> So what if we don't all agree, of course we don't.
> But why can't we take each person's system, such as Asaratis system for him,
> and Derideo Te system for him, and let each person explain what they do or do not see
> and let them have that way of expressing it for themselves.
> 
> Clearly we do not use the terms atheism or religion the same way.
> Hollie does not mean the same thing by Christianity that I do.
> 
> So we cannot get caught up on terms, we need to talk about the content.
> 
> Just like any other language barrier.
> If gato means cat in Spanish and gateaux means cake in French,
> we cannot use those sounds or it causes confusion if one person hears cake and the other hears cat.
> We would have to spell out do we mean a feline animal or do we mean a baked dessert?
> If we stick to the concept, we don't have to argue what gato or gateaux mean to each person.
> 
> Here it is even trickier because the words god, Gods, Christianity, religion, atheism
> are the exact same words, and yet people are assigning different meanings to them that are not compatibly defined.
> 
> I value everyone's input and what we all have to share and gain from each other.
> I want to get to the content behind what each person believes and how they see and say it.
> 
> I am willing to accept the fact that people may not use the same words the same way.
> Why waste time, why not just find out what we do mean and stick to the meanings.
> 
> We may have to use more specific words, but that's not the same as insulting someone or saying they
> are delusional or trying to deny truth. it's not either person's fault we have these preferences or biases.
> these are very difficult subjects to discern these finer distinctions, so I commend everyone for at least
> trying to resolve where we are talking past each other and making generalizations other people are not following.
> 
> Thanks for this. sorry for the confusion and any insult I don't think is necessary or intended. I think it is mutual
> and just coming from the conflicts between how we use words differently.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear @emilynghiem ,
> After reading further, I must reverse my contention that Buddhism is not considered a religion.  It is apparently considered a religion...even by Buddhists.  It is a nontheistic religion...having no god.  That does not detract from its be a totally respectable basic philosophy of life..
> 
> The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
> 
> Buddhism Beliefs
> I can't copy from this site to post the very enlightening quote of Lama Yeshe at the top of the page.  Essentially it says that religion is one's basic philosophy of life, not just some dry intellectual idea.  This is in support of the argument that Atheism is also a religion.
> 
> 
> Buddhism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cutting and pasting rote lists from wiki doesn't support your religion of "atheism is a religion".
> 
> Why not cut and paste the organized rituals, practices and traditions that define the "atheism is a religion", you are a convert to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your puerile nature is showing.  If you bother to read the links and cannot understand them, you are either a stupid adult or an innocent child.  I suspect the former is the case.  Your pals have been proved wrong about the definition of Atheism in claiming that it is simply a non-belief.  The definition of _atheist_ (defined from 1570 AD) is ignored by the modern day Atheists because they have chosen replace a belief that there is no god with a failure to believe either way.  In other words, they have attempted to redefine themselves as agnostic.
> 
> What you are generally thought of to espouse as life's purpose is "Since there is no afterlife, this one life is of great importance. Only humans can help themselves and each other solve the world's problems."  this being from:
> The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
> 
> I will admit only that you are entirely too hard headed to be convinced that Atheism is just a faith-based godless religion.  Why? I do not know.  I tried to get to that issue in another thread, but the trolls and detractors intervened despite being asked to confine the discussion to the motives behind not wanting it to be so defined.  As expected, many "brilliant Atheists" and their parrots could not stick to the OP question.  I do recall one or two, but for the most part it was trolls like you that kept derailing it.
> 
> Your continued dismissal of legitimate links that are contrary to your claim based solely upon the source is typical of liberals....and Atheists.
Click to expand...



*Atheism:*

"The term atheism comes from the Greek word atheos, meaning godless. Atheos is derived from a, meaning "without," and theos, meaning "deity"." -The Atheist Empire

"An Atheist has no religious belief. An Atheist does not believe in a god or gods, or other supernatural entities...We are not a "religion." The concept of an agency outside of nature with the ability to reach into natural law and control events is supernaturalism, the foundation of any religion. Belief in the existence of that agency is based on faith. An Atheist has no specific belief system. We accept only that which is scientifically verifiable. Since god concepts are unverifiable, we do not accept them. " - American Atheists

"Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods. Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods - no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons. Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called "gnostic atheism" because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it - that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist." - Atheism.com


----------



## Carla_Danger

Unlike a religion, atheism is not organized under a common doctrine (belief system). The only shared opinion among atheists is the nonexistence of a deity. There are a few common beliefs among atheists such as views regarding morality, religion and spirituality, but these beliefs vary greatly and are outside the definition of atheism and thus are not required to be an atheist.

Largely, atheism remains unorganized and as some would say, "_organizing atheists is like trying to heard cats_".


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi dblack: I think the trick here is to keep Asaratis use of the term religion/religious
> within his context, and not apply it outside.
> 
> By his literal definition, Buddhism is also NOT a religion.
> 
> So if in your system and mine, Buddhism CAN be counted or IS counted as a religion,
> clearly we are not using the words the same way as Asaratis.
> 
> This is causing confusion because we are all using the same term religion/religious
> but each person uses it in different ways.
> 
> This is as confusing is if we each have a concept of 1, 2 and 3.
> 
> But some people use the symbol 2 to mean 1.
> Some people use the symbol 2 to mean 3.
> And here I come saying wait a minute, the same symbol 2
> is being used in different contexts by different people to mean 1, 2, and 3:
> so let's talk about the concept 1, 2 or 3 we mean, and let's not use the symbol 2 and argue over it.
> 
> Of course it will cause conflict if we keep using the symbol 2,
> knowing that not all people are assigning the same values to that symbol.
> 
> I don't think anyone here is delusional or ill intending,
> but is stubborn and used to thinking and speaking in those terms,
> where it offends us if someone tries to insult us or tell us we are the ones who need to change
> to their way of using these words.
> 
> If we stick to the concepts, we can agree what is what.
> * when are people being religious about something as in ardently adhering to it almost superstitiously as an absolute given
> or necessity to follow period, absolutely and unquestioned
> * when do people think something strongly but do not consider it part of a larger collective identity or system
> * when do people use religion to mean a belief system that does or does not necessarily require a deity or
> supernatural explantions for things in the world -- since people here do not agree on this,
> why can't we just accept if some people do or do not count deifying things or explanations as religion or not
> * when do people perceive some collective belief as a religion, regardless of this reason or that reason
> 
> So what if we don't all agree, of course we don't.
> But why can't we take each person's system, such as Asaratis system for him,
> and Derideo Te system for him, and let each person explain what they do or do not see
> and let them have that way of expressing it for themselves.
> 
> Clearly we do not use the terms atheism or religion the same way.
> Hollie does not mean the same thing by Christianity that I do.
> 
> So we cannot get caught up on terms, we need to talk about the content.
> 
> Just like any other language barrier.
> If gato means cat in Spanish and gateaux means cake in French,
> we cannot use those sounds or it causes confusion if one person hears cake and the other hears cat.
> We would have to spell out do we mean a feline animal or do we mean a baked dessert?
> If we stick to the concept, we don't have to argue what gato or gateaux mean to each person.
> 
> Here it is even trickier because the words god, Gods, Christianity, religion, atheism
> are the exact same words, and yet people are assigning different meanings to them that are not compatibly defined.
> 
> I value everyone's input and what we all have to share and gain from each other.
> I want to get to the content behind what each person believes and how they see and say it.
> 
> I am willing to accept the fact that people may not use the same words the same way.
> Why waste time, why not just find out what we do mean and stick to the meanings.
> 
> We may have to use more specific words, but that's not the same as insulting someone or saying they
> are delusional or trying to deny truth. it's not either person's fault we have these preferences or biases.
> these are very difficult subjects to discern these finer distinctions, so I commend everyone for at least
> trying to resolve where we are talking past each other and making generalizations other people are not following.
> 
> Thanks for this. sorry for the confusion and any insult I don't think is necessary or intended. I think it is mutual
> and just coming from the conflicts between how we use words differently.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear @emilynghiem ,
> After reading further, I must reverse my contention that Buddhism is not considered a religion.  It is apparently considered a religion...even by Buddhists.  It is a nontheistic religion...having no god.  That does not detract from its be a totally respectable basic philosophy of life..
> 
> The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
> 
> Buddhism Beliefs
> I can't copy from this site to post the very enlightening quote of Lama Yeshe at the top of the page.  Essentially it says that religion is one's basic philosophy of life, not just some dry intellectual idea.  This is in support of the argument that Atheism is also a religion.
> 
> 
> Buddhism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cutting and pasting rote lists from wiki doesn't support your religion of "atheism is a religion".
> 
> Why not cut and paste the organized rituals, practices and traditions that define the "atheism is a religion", you are a convert to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your puerile nature is showing.  If you bother to read the links and cannot understand them, you are either a stupid adult or an innocent child.  I suspect the former is the case.  Your pals have been proved wrong about the definition of Atheism in claiming that it is simply a non-belief.  The definition of _atheist_ (defined from 1570 AD) is ignored by the modern day Atheists because they have chosen replace a belief that there is no god with a failure to believe either way.  In other words, they have attempted to redefine themselves as agnostic.
> 
> What you are generally thought of to espouse as life's purpose is "Since there is no afterlife, this one life is of great importance. Only humans can help themselves and each other solve the world's problems."  this being from:
> The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
> 
> I will admit only that you are entirely too hard headed to be convinced that Atheism is just a faith-based godless religion.  Why? I do not know.  I tried to get to that issue in another thread, but the trolls and detractors intervened despite being asked to confine the discussion to the motives behind not wanting it to be so defined.  As expected, many "brilliant Atheists" and their parrots could not stick to the OP question.  I do recall one or two, but for the most part it was trolls like you that kept derailing it.
> 
> Your continued dismissal of legitimate links that are contrary to your claim based solely upon the source is typical of liberals....and Atheists.
Click to expand...




asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi dblack: I think the trick here is to keep Asaratis use of the term religion/religious
> within his context, and not apply it outside.
> 
> By his literal definition, Buddhism is also NOT a religion.
> 
> So if in your system and mine, Buddhism CAN be counted or IS counted as a religion,
> clearly we are not using the words the same way as Asaratis.
> 
> This is causing confusion because we are all using the same term religion/religious
> but each person uses it in different ways.
> 
> This is as confusing is if we each have a concept of 1, 2 and 3.
> 
> But some people use the symbol 2 to mean 1.
> Some people use the symbol 2 to mean 3.
> And here I come saying wait a minute, the same symbol 2
> is being used in different contexts by different people to mean 1, 2, and 3:
> so let's talk about the concept 1, 2 or 3 we mean, and let's not use the symbol 2 and argue over it.
> 
> Of course it will cause conflict if we keep using the symbol 2,
> knowing that not all people are assigning the same values to that symbol.
> 
> I don't think anyone here is delusional or ill intending,
> but is stubborn and used to thinking and speaking in those terms,
> where it offends us if someone tries to insult us or tell us we are the ones who need to change
> to their way of using these words.
> 
> If we stick to the concepts, we can agree what is what.
> * when are people being religious about something as in ardently adhering to it almost superstitiously as an absolute given
> or necessity to follow period, absolutely and unquestioned
> * when do people think something strongly but do not consider it part of a larger collective identity or system
> * when do people use religion to mean a belief system that does or does not necessarily require a deity or
> supernatural explantions for things in the world -- since people here do not agree on this,
> why can't we just accept if some people do or do not count deifying things or explanations as religion or not
> * when do people perceive some collective belief as a religion, regardless of this reason or that reason
> 
> So what if we don't all agree, of course we don't.
> But why can't we take each person's system, such as Asaratis system for him,
> and Derideo Te system for him, and let each person explain what they do or do not see
> and let them have that way of expressing it for themselves.
> 
> Clearly we do not use the terms atheism or religion the same way.
> Hollie does not mean the same thing by Christianity that I do.
> 
> So we cannot get caught up on terms, we need to talk about the content.
> 
> Just like any other language barrier.
> If gato means cat in Spanish and gateaux means cake in French,
> we cannot use those sounds or it causes confusion if one person hears cake and the other hears cat.
> We would have to spell out do we mean a feline animal or do we mean a baked dessert?
> If we stick to the concept, we don't have to argue what gato or gateaux mean to each person.
> 
> Here it is even trickier because the words god, Gods, Christianity, religion, atheism
> are the exact same words, and yet people are assigning different meanings to them that are not compatibly defined.
> 
> I value everyone's input and what we all have to share and gain from each other.
> I want to get to the content behind what each person believes and how they see and say it.
> 
> I am willing to accept the fact that people may not use the same words the same way.
> Why waste time, why not just find out what we do mean and stick to the meanings.
> 
> We may have to use more specific words, but that's not the same as insulting someone or saying they
> are delusional or trying to deny truth. it's not either person's fault we have these preferences or biases.
> these are very difficult subjects to discern these finer distinctions, so I commend everyone for at least
> trying to resolve where we are talking past each other and making generalizations other people are not following.
> 
> Thanks for this. sorry for the confusion and any insult I don't think is necessary or intended. I think it is mutual
> and just coming from the conflicts between how we use words differently.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear @emilynghiem ,
> After reading further, I must reverse my contention that Buddhism is not considered a religion.  It is apparently considered a religion...even by Buddhists.  It is a nontheistic religion...having no god.  That does not detract from its be a totally respectable basic philosophy of life..
> 
> The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
> 
> Buddhism Beliefs
> I can't copy from this site to post the very enlightening quote of Lama Yeshe at the top of the page.  Essentially it says that religion is one's basic philosophy of life, not just some dry intellectual idea.  This is in support of the argument that Atheism is also a religion.
> 
> 
> Buddhism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cutting and pasting rote lists from wiki doesn't support your religion of "atheism is a religion".
> 
> Why not cut and paste the organized rituals, practices and traditions that define the "atheism is a religion", you are a convert to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your puerile nature is showing.  If you bother to read the links and cannot understand them, you are either a stupid adult or an innocent child.  I suspect the former is the case.  Your pals have been proved wrong about the definition of Atheism in claiming that it is simply a non-belief.  The definition of _atheist_ (defined from 1570 AD) is ignored by the modern day Atheists because they have chosen replace a belief that there is no god with a failure to believe either way.  In other words, they have attempted to redefine themselves as agnostic.
> 
> What you are generally thought of to espouse as life's purpose is "Since there is no afterlife, this one life is of great importance. Only humans can help themselves and each other solve the world's problems."  this being from:
> The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
> 
> I will admit only that you are entirely too hard headed to be convinced that Atheism is just a faith-based godless religion.  Why? I do not know.  I tried to get to that issue in another thread, but the trolls and detractors intervened despite being asked to confine the discussion to the motives behind not wanting it to be so defined.  As expected, many "brilliant Atheists" and their parrots could not stick to the OP question.  I do recall one or two, but for the most part it was trolls like you that kept derailing it.
> 
> Your continued dismissal of legitimate links that are contrary to your claim based solely upon the source is typical of liberals....and Atheists.
Click to expand...

Not surprisingly, you sidestepped ant attempt to define the rituals, customs and traditions that are a part of religious belief. That was expected as your compulsive need to assign a belief system to something that is not a belief system thoroughly refutes your argument.

I can see that as your desperate arguments are stripped away, you're getting angrier and more emotive. I have to question your motives. Is your madrassah on a recruitment drive? Your floundering around with desperate attempts to force your malformed opinions has taken on proportions of an obsession; an OCD- like obsession that haunts your world. 

I think the issue you're having is that your fundamentalist beliefs cause to to revile the infidels/ non-believers. You attack atheism because there are a great many people who rationally and reasonably conclude that there are solid reasons to accept natural processes and events to account for existence. There is simply no rational reason to accept magic and supernaturalism as the cause for existence and the diversity of life on the planet.

I can offer some good news. Most of the planet either rejects your gods or, due to geographic and familial happenstance believes in other gods. The good news I alluded to earlier suggests that you can expand your horizons of hate and revulsion for people besides those who are A-theistic belief in connection with your gods.


----------



## Hollie

Carla_Danger said:


> Unlike a religion, atheism is not organized under a common doctrine (belief system). The only shared opinion among atheists is the nonexistence of a deity. There are a few common beliefs among atheists such as views regarding morality, religion and spirituality, but these beliefs vary greatly and are outside the definition of atheism and thus are not required to be an atheist.
> 
> Largely, atheism remains unorganized and as some would say, "_organizing atheists is like trying to heard cats_".


Yep. But directing the comments above to the more excitable of the religious folks makes them as nervous as a bunch of long-tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi dblack: I think the trick here is to keep Asaratis use of the term religion/religious
> within his context, and not apply it outside.
> 
> By his literal definition, Buddhism is also NOT a religion.
> 
> So if in your system and mine, Buddhism CAN be counted or IS counted as a religion,
> clearly we are not using the words the same way as Asaratis.
> 
> This is causing confusion because we are all using the same term religion/religious
> but each person uses it in different ways.
> 
> This is as confusing is if we each have a concept of 1, 2 and 3.
> 
> But some people use the symbol 2 to mean 1.
> Some people use the symbol 2 to mean 3.
> And here I come saying wait a minute, the same symbol 2
> is being used in different contexts by different people to mean 1, 2, and 3:
> so let's talk about the concept 1, 2 or 3 we mean, and let's not use the symbol 2 and argue over it.
> 
> Of course it will cause conflict if we keep using the symbol 2,
> knowing that not all people are assigning the same values to that symbol.
> 
> I don't think anyone here is delusional or ill intending,
> but is stubborn and used to thinking and speaking in those terms,
> where it offends us if someone tries to insult us or tell us we are the ones who need to change
> to their way of using these words.
> 
> If we stick to the concepts, we can agree what is what.
> * when are people being religious about something as in ardently adhering to it almost superstitiously as an absolute given
> or necessity to follow period, absolutely and unquestioned
> * when do people think something strongly but do not consider it part of a larger collective identity or system
> * when do people use religion to mean a belief system that does or does not necessarily require a deity or
> supernatural explantions for things in the world -- since people here do not agree on this,
> why can't we just accept if some people do or do not count deifying things or explanations as religion or not
> * when do people perceive some collective belief as a religion, regardless of this reason or that reason
> 
> So what if we don't all agree, of course we don't.
> But why can't we take each person's system, such as Asaratis system for him,
> and Derideo Te system for him, and let each person explain what they do or do not see
> and let them have that way of expressing it for themselves.
> 
> Clearly we do not use the terms atheism or religion the same way.
> Hollie does not mean the same thing by Christianity that I do.
> 
> So we cannot get caught up on terms, we need to talk about the content.
> 
> Just like any other language barrier.
> If gato means cat in Spanish and gateaux means cake in French,
> we cannot use those sounds or it causes confusion if one person hears cake and the other hears cat.
> We would have to spell out do we mean a feline animal or do we mean a baked dessert?
> If we stick to the concept, we don't have to argue what gato or gateaux mean to each person.
> 
> Here it is even trickier because the words god, Gods, Christianity, religion, atheism
> are the exact same words, and yet people are assigning different meanings to them that are not compatibly defined.
> 
> I value everyone's input and what we all have to share and gain from each other.
> I want to get to the content behind what each person believes and how they see and say it.
> 
> I am willing to accept the fact that people may not use the same words the same way.
> Why waste time, why not just find out what we do mean and stick to the meanings.
> 
> We may have to use more specific words, but that's not the same as insulting someone or saying they
> are delusional or trying to deny truth. it's not either person's fault we have these preferences or biases.
> these are very difficult subjects to discern these finer distinctions, so I commend everyone for at least
> trying to resolve where we are talking past each other and making generalizations other people are not following.
> 
> Thanks for this. sorry for the confusion and any insult I don't think is necessary or intended. I think it is mutual
> and just coming from the conflicts between how we use words differently.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear @emilynghiem ,
> After reading further, I must reverse my contention that Buddhism is not considered a religion.  It is apparently considered a religion...even by Buddhists.  It is a nontheistic religion...having no god.  That does not detract from its be a totally respectable basic philosophy of life..
> 
> The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
> 
> Buddhism Beliefs
> I can't copy from this site to post the very enlightening quote of Lama Yeshe at the top of the page.  Essentially it says that religion is one's basic philosophy of life, not just some dry intellectual idea.  This is in support of the argument that Atheism is also a religion.
> 
> 
> Buddhism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cutting and pasting rote lists from wiki doesn't support your religion of "atheism is a religion".
> 
> Why not cut and paste the organized rituals, practices and traditions that define the "atheism is a religion", you are a convert to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your puerile nature is showing.  If you bother to read the links and cannot understand them, you are either a stupid adult or an innocent child.  I suspect the former is the case.  Your pals have been proved wrong about the definition of Atheism in claiming that it is simply a non-belief.  The definition of _atheist_ (defined from 1570 AD) is ignored by the modern day Atheists because they have chosen replace a belief that there is no god with a failure to believe either way.  In other words, they have attempted to redefine themselves as agnostic.
> 
> What you are generally thought of to espouse as life's purpose is "Since there is no afterlife, this one life is of great importance. Only humans can help themselves and each other solve the world's problems."  this being from:
> The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
> 
> I will admit only that you are entirely too hard headed to be convinced that Atheism is just a faith-based godless religion.  Why? I do not know.  I tried to get to that issue in another thread, but the trolls and detractors intervened despite being asked to confine the discussion to the motives behind not wanting it to be so defined.  As expected, many "brilliant Atheists" and their parrots could not stick to the OP question.  I do recall one or two, but for the most part it was trolls like you that kept derailing it.
> 
> Your continued dismissal of legitimate links that are contrary to your claim based solely upon the source is typical of liberals....and Atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism:*
> 
> "The term atheism comes from the Greek word atheos, meaning godless. Atheos is derived from a, meaning "without," and theos, meaning "deity"." -The Atheist Empire
> 
> "An Atheist has no religious belief. An Atheist does not believe in a god or gods, or other supernatural entities...We are not a "religion." The concept of an agency outside of nature with the ability to reach into natural law and control events is supernaturalism, the foundation of any religion. Belief in the existence of that agency is based on faith. An Atheist has no specific belief system. We accept only that which is scientifically verifiable. Since god concepts are unverifiable, we do not accept them. " - American Atheists
> 
> "Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods. Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods - no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons. Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called "gnostic atheism" because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it - that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist." - Atheism.com
Click to expand...

I repeat:


To be an Atheist is to deny that gods exist.  See below.  Atheists do not have the option of redefining themselves.  If you claim simply to have no belief regarding the existence of deities, you are agnostic.  If you deny that deities exist, you are Atheist.

The modern day Atheists are evidently trying to redefine Atheism to suit themselves.

What is the problem with being a godless religion?


Online Etymology Dictionary
atheist (n.) 


1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-).


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi dblack: I think the trick here is to keep Asaratis use of the term religion/religious
> within his context, and not apply it outside.
> 
> By his literal definition, Buddhism is also NOT a religion.
> 
> So if in your system and mine, Buddhism CAN be counted or IS counted as a religion,
> clearly we are not using the words the same way as Asaratis.
> 
> This is causing confusion because we are all using the same term religion/religious
> but each person uses it in different ways.
> 
> This is as confusing is if we each have a concept of 1, 2 and 3.
> 
> But some people use the symbol 2 to mean 1.
> Some people use the symbol 2 to mean 3.
> And here I come saying wait a minute, the same symbol 2
> is being used in different contexts by different people to mean 1, 2, and 3:
> so let's talk about the concept 1, 2 or 3 we mean, and let's not use the symbol 2 and argue over it.
> 
> Of course it will cause conflict if we keep using the symbol 2,
> knowing that not all people are assigning the same values to that symbol.
> 
> I don't think anyone here is delusional or ill intending,
> but is stubborn and used to thinking and speaking in those terms,
> where it offends us if someone tries to insult us or tell us we are the ones who need to change
> to their way of using these words.
> 
> If we stick to the concepts, we can agree what is what.
> * when are people being religious about something as in ardently adhering to it almost superstitiously as an absolute given
> or necessity to follow period, absolutely and unquestioned
> * when do people think something strongly but do not consider it part of a larger collective identity or system
> * when do people use religion to mean a belief system that does or does not necessarily require a deity or
> supernatural explantions for things in the world -- since people here do not agree on this,
> why can't we just accept if some people do or do not count deifying things or explanations as religion or not
> * when do people perceive some collective belief as a religion, regardless of this reason or that reason
> 
> So what if we don't all agree, of course we don't.
> But why can't we take each person's system, such as Asaratis system for him,
> and Derideo Te system for him, and let each person explain what they do or do not see
> and let them have that way of expressing it for themselves.
> 
> Clearly we do not use the terms atheism or religion the same way.
> Hollie does not mean the same thing by Christianity that I do.
> 
> So we cannot get caught up on terms, we need to talk about the content.
> 
> Just like any other language barrier.
> If gato means cat in Spanish and gateaux means cake in French,
> we cannot use those sounds or it causes confusion if one person hears cake and the other hears cat.
> We would have to spell out do we mean a feline animal or do we mean a baked dessert?
> If we stick to the concept, we don't have to argue what gato or gateaux mean to each person.
> 
> Here it is even trickier because the words god, Gods, Christianity, religion, atheism
> are the exact same words, and yet people are assigning different meanings to them that are not compatibly defined.
> 
> I value everyone's input and what we all have to share and gain from each other.
> I want to get to the content behind what each person believes and how they see and say it.
> 
> I am willing to accept the fact that people may not use the same words the same way.
> Why waste time, why not just find out what we do mean and stick to the meanings.
> 
> We may have to use more specific words, but that's not the same as insulting someone or saying they
> are delusional or trying to deny truth. it's not either person's fault we have these preferences or biases.
> these are very difficult subjects to discern these finer distinctions, so I commend everyone for at least
> trying to resolve where we are talking past each other and making generalizations other people are not following.
> 
> Thanks for this. sorry for the confusion and any insult I don't think is necessary or intended. I think it is mutual
> and just coming from the conflicts between how we use words differently.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear @emilynghiem ,
> After reading further, I must reverse my contention that Buddhism is not considered a religion.  It is apparently considered a religion...even by Buddhists.  It is a nontheistic religion...having no god.  That does not detract from its be a totally respectable basic philosophy of life..
> 
> The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
> 
> Buddhism Beliefs
> I can't copy from this site to post the very enlightening quote of Lama Yeshe at the top of the page.  Essentially it says that religion is one's basic philosophy of life, not just some dry intellectual idea.  This is in support of the argument that Atheism is also a religion.
> 
> 
> Buddhism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cutting and pasting rote lists from wiki doesn't support your religion of "atheism is a religion".
> 
> Why not cut and paste the organized rituals, practices and traditions that define the "atheism is a religion", you are a convert to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your puerile nature is showing.  If you bother to read the links and cannot understand them, you are either a stupid adult or an innocent child.  I suspect the former is the case.  Your pals have been proved wrong about the definition of Atheism in claiming that it is simply a non-belief.  The definition of _atheist_ (defined from 1570 AD) is ignored by the modern day Atheists because they have chosen replace a belief that there is no god with a failure to believe either way.  In other words, they have attempted to redefine themselves as agnostic.
> 
> What you are generally thought of to espouse as life's purpose is "Since there is no afterlife, this one life is of great importance. Only humans can help themselves and each other solve the world's problems."  this being from:
> The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
> 
> I will admit only that you are entirely too hard headed to be convinced that Atheism is just a faith-based godless religion.  Why? I do not know.  I tried to get to that issue in another thread, but the trolls and detractors intervened despite being asked to confine the discussion to the motives behind not wanting it to be so defined.  As expected, many "brilliant Atheists" and their parrots could not stick to the OP question.  I do recall one or two, but for the most part it was trolls like you that kept derailing it.
> 
> Your continued dismissal of legitimate links that are contrary to your claim based solely upon the source is typical of liberals....and Atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism:*
> 
> "The term atheism comes from the Greek word atheos, meaning godless. Atheos is derived from a, meaning "without," and theos, meaning "deity"." -The Atheist Empire
> 
> "An Atheist has no religious belief. An Atheist does not believe in a god or gods, or other supernatural entities...We are not a "religion." The concept of an agency outside of nature with the ability to reach into natural law and control events is supernaturalism, the foundation of any religion. Belief in the existence of that agency is based on faith. An Atheist has no specific belief system. We accept only that which is scientifically verifiable. Since god concepts are unverifiable, we do not accept them. " - American Atheists
> 
> "Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods. Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods - no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons. Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called "gnostic atheism" because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it - that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist." - Atheism.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I repeat:
> 
> 
> To be an Atheist is to deny that gods exist.  See below.  Atheists do not have the option of redefining themselves.  If you claim simply to have no belief regarding the existence of deities, you are agnostic.  If you deny that deities exist, you are Atheist.
> 
> The modern day Atheists are evidently trying to redefine Atheism to suit themselves.
> 
> What is the problem with being a godless religion?
> 
> 
> Online Etymology Dictionary
> atheist (n.)
> 
> 
> 1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-).
Click to expand...

Cutting and pasting the same, tired, refuted dictionary definitions many times won't magically float the boat anchor that defines your compulsion. 

As usual, you have side-stepped addressing those refutations to your cut and paste dictionary themes. 

Really, do you understand how desperate you appear by being so consumed with trying to force your religious beliefs on others?


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike a religion, atheism is not organized under a common doctrine (belief system). The only shared opinion among atheists is the nonexistence of a deity. There are a few common beliefs among atheists such as views regarding morality, religion and spirituality, but these beliefs vary greatly and are outside the definition of atheism and thus are not required to be an atheist.
> 
> Largely, atheism remains unorganized and as some would say, "_organizing atheists is like trying to heard cats_".
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. But directing the comments above to the more excitable of the religious folks makes them as nervous as a bunch of long-tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs.
Click to expand...

And that ^^^^ is exemplary of the doctrine of the religion of Atheism.

You are deluded to infer that I am being hateful, emotional or overly excitable about this ongoing discussion.  You don't bother me one bit.  You narcissism is exposing itself.

I am simply using logic and references to accepted definitions to argue against the posit in the OP.  Atheism is a religion.


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> I repeat:



Yes you do!


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike a religion, atheism is not organized under a common doctrine (belief system). The only shared opinion among atheists is the nonexistence of a deity. There are a few common beliefs among atheists such as views regarding morality, religion and spirituality, but these beliefs vary greatly and are outside the definition of atheism and thus are not required to be an atheist.
> 
> Largely, atheism remains unorganized and as some would say, "_organizing atheists is like trying to heard cats_".
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. But directing the comments above to the more excitable of the religious folks makes them as nervous as a bunch of long-tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that ^^^^ is exemplary of the doctrine of the religion of Atheism.
> 
> You are deluded to infer that I am being hateful, emotional or overly excitable about this ongoing discussion.  You don't bother me one bit.  You narcissism is exposing itself.
> 
> I am simply using logic and references to accepted definitions to argue against the posit in the OP.  Atheism is a religion.
Click to expand...


When are religious beliefs involving magic and supernaturalism defined as   "Logical"?

*syn: *See despair.
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
Desperation 
*any port in a storm* See *EXPEDIENCE*.

*at the end of one’s rope or tether* At the end of one’s endurance or resources, out of options; exasperated,frustrated. The rope or tether is generally conceded to be that formerly attached to a grazing animal, restricting hismovement and area of pasturage.

He was at the end of his rope when he had consumed all the provender within reach.

*climb walls* To be stir-crazy from confinement; to feel trapped or hemmed-in; to suffer from a lack of options. Onewho is “climbing the walls” suffers from a claustrophobic feeling of confinement—physical or mental—from whichthere is no apparent relief. The image is of a person trapped in a room with no doors or windows—the only way forreleasing his pent-up energies being to climb the walls.

*forlorn hope* A desperate hope or undertaking; an expedition in which the survival of the participants is doubtful.This phrase is homonymously derived from the Dutch _verloren hoop_ ‘lost troop,’ and formerly referred to the frontline of soldiers in a military confrontation:

Called the forlorn hope, because they … fall on first, and make a passage for the rest. (_Gaya’s Art of Wan_, 1678)

*grasp at straws* To seek substance in the flimsy or meaning in the insignificant; to find ground for hope where noneexists. In common use since the 18th century, the expression derives from the even older self-explanatory proverb:“A drowning man will catch at a straw.”


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear @emilynghiem ,
> After reading further, I must reverse my contention that Buddhism is not considered a religion.  It is apparently considered a religion...even by Buddhists.  It is a nontheistic religion...having no god.  That does not detract from its be a totally respectable basic philosophy of life..
> 
> The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
> 
> Buddhism Beliefs
> I can't copy from this site to post the very enlightening quote of Lama Yeshe at the top of the page.  Essentially it says that religion is one's basic philosophy of life, not just some dry intellectual idea.  This is in support of the argument that Atheism is also a religion.
> 
> 
> Buddhism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Cutting and pasting rote lists from wiki doesn't support your religion of "atheism is a religion".
> 
> Why not cut and paste the organized rituals, practices and traditions that define the "atheism is a religion", you are a convert to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your puerile nature is showing.  If you bother to read the links and cannot understand them, you are either a stupid adult or an innocent child.  I suspect the former is the case.  Your pals have been proved wrong about the definition of Atheism in claiming that it is simply a non-belief.  The definition of _atheist_ (defined from 1570 AD) is ignored by the modern day Atheists because they have chosen replace a belief that there is no god with a failure to believe either way.  In other words, they have attempted to redefine themselves as agnostic.
> 
> What you are generally thought of to espouse as life's purpose is "Since there is no afterlife, this one life is of great importance. Only humans can help themselves and each other solve the world's problems."  this being from:
> The Big Religion Comparison Chart Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
> 
> I will admit only that you are entirely too hard headed to be convinced that Atheism is just a faith-based godless religion.  Why? I do not know.  I tried to get to that issue in another thread, but the trolls and detractors intervened despite being asked to confine the discussion to the motives behind not wanting it to be so defined.  As expected, many "brilliant Atheists" and their parrots could not stick to the OP question.  I do recall one or two, but for the most part it was trolls like you that kept derailing it.
> 
> Your continued dismissal of legitimate links that are contrary to your claim based solely upon the source is typical of liberals....and Atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism:*
> 
> "The term atheism comes from the Greek word atheos, meaning godless. Atheos is derived from a, meaning "without," and theos, meaning "deity"." -The Atheist Empire
> 
> "An Atheist has no religious belief. An Atheist does not believe in a god or gods, or other supernatural entities...We are not a "religion." The concept of an agency outside of nature with the ability to reach into natural law and control events is supernaturalism, the foundation of any religion. Belief in the existence of that agency is based on faith. An Atheist has no specific belief system. We accept only that which is scientifically verifiable. Since god concepts are unverifiable, we do not accept them. " - American Atheists
> 
> "Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods. Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods - no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons. Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called "gnostic atheism" because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it - that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist." - Atheism.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I repeat:
> 
> 
> To be an Atheist is to deny that gods exist.  See below.  Atheists do not have the option of redefining themselves.  If you claim simply to have no belief regarding the existence of deities, you are agnostic.  If you deny that deities exist, you are Atheist.
> 
> The modern day Atheists are evidently trying to redefine Atheism to suit themselves.
> 
> What is the problem with being a godless religion?
> 
> 
> Online Etymology Dictionary
> atheist (n.)
> 
> 
> 1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cutting and pasting the same, tired, refuted dictionary definitions many times won't magically float the boat anchor that defines your compulsion.
> 
> As usual, you have side-stepped addressing those refutations to your cut and paste dictionary themes.
> 
> Really, do you understand how desperate you appear by being so consumed with trying to force your religious beliefs on others?
Click to expand...

You are obtuse beyond all reason.  I am NOT trying to force my religious beliefs on anyone.  I am simply claiming that Atheism IS a religion.  You presented a modern day definition made up by an Atheist and I took you back to the original and long accepted definition.

You haven't refuted my linked definitions.  Atheist.com can't change long standing definitions on a whim.

I'm not trying to convert you or anybody else. Be an Atheist if you will.  Be agnostic if you will.   I am a live-and-let-live kind of guy.  Do you own thing.  Just don't try to redefine things to suit yourself.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike a religion, atheism is not organized under a common doctrine (belief system). The only shared opinion among atheists is the nonexistence of a deity. There are a few common beliefs among atheists such as views regarding morality, religion and spirituality, but these beliefs vary greatly and are outside the definition of atheism and thus are not required to be an atheist.
> 
> Largely, atheism remains unorganized and as some would say, "_organizing atheists is like trying to heard cats_".
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. But directing the comments above to the more excitable of the religious folks makes them as nervous as a bunch of long-tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that ^^^^ is exemplary of the doctrine of the religion of Atheism.
> 
> You are deluded to infer that I am being hateful, emotional or overly excitable about this ongoing discussion.  You don't bother me one bit.  You narcissism is exposing itself.
> 
> I am simply using logic and references to accepted definitions to argue against the posit in the OP.  Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When are religious beliefs involving magic and supernaturalism defined as   "Logical"?
> 
> *syn: *See despair.
> Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
> Desperation
> *any port in a storm* See *EXPEDIENCE*.
> 
> *at the end of one’s rope or tether* At the end of one’s endurance or resources, out of options; exasperated,frustrated. The rope or tether is generally conceded to be that formerly attached to a grazing animal, restricting hismovement and area of pasturage.
> 
> He was at the end of his rope when he had consumed all the provender within reach.
> 
> *climb walls* To be stir-crazy from confinement; to feel trapped or hemmed-in; to suffer from a lack of options. Onewho is “climbing the walls” suffers from a claustrophobic feeling of confinement—physical or mental—from whichthere is no apparent relief. The image is of a person trapped in a room with no doors or windows—the only way forreleasing his pent-up energies being to climb the walls.
> 
> *forlorn hope* A desperate hope or undertaking; an expedition in which the survival of the participants is doubtful.This phrase is homonymously derived from the Dutch _verloren hoop_ ‘lost troop,’ and formerly referred to the frontline of soldiers in a military confrontation:
> 
> Called the forlorn hope, because they … fall on first, and make a passage for the rest. (_Gaya’s Art of Wan_, 1678)
> 
> *grasp at straws* To seek substance in the flimsy or meaning in the insignificant; to find ground for hope where noneexists. In common use since the 18th century, the expression derives from the even older self-explanatory proverb:“A drowning man will catch at a straw.”
Click to expand...

Strawman desperation on your part.  The logical discussion of definitions of religion is not discussion of religious beliefs.  You fail again.

Your references to despair, forlorn hope, climb walls, ends of ropes, any port, etc., have nothing to do with this discussion.  You obviously think they apply to me.  Here again, you put your narcissism on display.  I'm simply having fun toying with hardshell Atheists, giving you a taste of your own shit.

Not to worry.  I shall soon enough tire of it and vacate this thread.  You can take that as meaning anything you wish.  I'm not admitting defeat regarding the OP statement...just relieving myself of continuous replies to illogical posts.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.

Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.

Please stick this out to the end.
We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.

If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.

If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
until we can get to the ones underneath?  please do not give up and walk away.
I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
every step to get there. 

the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.



asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike a religion, atheism is not organized under a common doctrine (belief system). The only shared opinion among atheists is the nonexistence of a deity. There are a few common beliefs among atheists such as views regarding morality, religion and spirituality, but these beliefs vary greatly and are outside the definition of atheism and thus are not required to be an atheist.
> 
> Largely, atheism remains unorganized and as some would say, "_organizing atheists is like trying to heard cats_".
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. But directing the comments above to the more excitable of the religious folks makes them as nervous as a bunch of long-tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that ^^^^ is exemplary of the doctrine of the religion of Atheism.
> 
> You are deluded to infer that I am being hateful, emotional or overly excitable about this ongoing discussion.  You don't bother me one bit.  You narcissism is exposing itself.
> 
> I am simply using logic and references to accepted definitions to argue against the posit in the OP.  Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When are religious beliefs involving magic and supernaturalism defined as   "Logical"?
> 
> *syn: *See despair.
> Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
> Desperation
> *any port in a storm* See *EXPEDIENCE*.
> 
> *at the end of one’s rope or tether* At the end of one’s endurance or resources, out of options; exasperated,frustrated. The rope or tether is generally conceded to be that formerly attached to a grazing animal, restricting hismovement and area of pasturage.
> 
> He was at the end of his rope when he had consumed all the provender within reach.
> 
> *climb walls* To be stir-crazy from confinement; to feel trapped or hemmed-in; to suffer from a lack of options. Onewho is “climbing the walls” suffers from a claustrophobic feeling of confinement—physical or mental—from whichthere is no apparent relief. The image is of a person trapped in a room with no doors or windows—the only way forreleasing his pent-up energies being to climb the walls.
> 
> *forlorn hope* A desperate hope or undertaking; an expedition in which the survival of the participants is doubtful.This phrase is homonymously derived from the Dutch _verloren hoop_ ‘lost troop,’ and formerly referred to the frontline of soldiers in a military confrontation:
> 
> Called the forlorn hope, because they … fall on first, and make a passage for the rest. (_Gaya’s Art of Wan_, 1678)
> 
> *grasp at straws* To seek substance in the flimsy or meaning in the insignificant; to find ground for hope where noneexists. In common use since the 18th century, the expression derives from the even older self-explanatory proverb:“A drowning man will catch at a straw.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman desperation on your part.  The logical discussion of definitions of religion is not discussion of religious beliefs.  You fail again.
> 
> Your references to despair, forlorn hope, climb walls, ends of ropes, any port, etc., have nothing to do with this discussion.  You obviously think they apply to me.  Here again, you put your narcissism on display.  I'm simply having fun toying with hardshell Atheists, giving you a taste of your own shit.
> 
> Not to worry.  I shall soon enough tire of it and vacate this thread.  You can take that as meaning anything you wish.  I'm not admitting defeat regarding the OP statement...just relieving myself of continuous replies to illogical posts.
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> When are religious beliefs involving magic and supernaturalism defined as   "Logical"?



Hi Hollie: here is some natural logic I have found taught in religions and even by atheists:
1. by forgiving ourselves and others, we detach from emotions that otherwise bias our judgment in negative ways.
When we open ourselves to positive solutions, we are more apt to attract and receive that kind of help to solve problems.

This has been called the law of attraction, the abundance mentality,
the power of positive thinking, and is the basis behind spiritual healing
and even recovery from addiction and abuse like AA and ending codependency and enabling

letting go so we don't hold on to the very negative memories and emotions
causing us suffering and stress that impedes our minds from seeing clearly and openly to solve problems

2. law of cause and effect, karma, equal justice, reciprocity

if you live by retributive justice, you get that in return
if you live by restorative justice, you invite that in return

ifyou want others to treat you with respect
it helps to treat them with respect

if you reject others they tend to reject you

what comes around goes around
you reap what you sow

The Golden Rule of Reciprocity is a universal natural law
taught in all religions and even secular laws of equal justice and equal protection of the laws:

Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions

This is consistent with plain common sense about human nature.
we tend to reciprocate, we respond to social cues from environment,
we mimic people we trust and respect and reject people we don't.

How is this illogical just because it is taught in religion?


----------



## emilynghiem

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike a religion, atheism is not organized under a common doctrine (belief system). The only shared opinion among atheists is the nonexistence of a deity. There are a few common beliefs among atheists such as views regarding morality, religion and spirituality, but these beliefs vary greatly and are outside the definition of atheism and thus are not required to be an atheist.
> 
> Largely, atheism remains unorganized and as some would say, "_organizing atheists is like trying to heard cats_".
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. But directing the comments above to the more excitable of the religious folks makes them as nervous as a bunch of long-tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that ^^^^ is exemplary of the doctrine of the religion of Atheism.
> 
> You are deluded to infer that I am being hateful, emotional or overly excitable about this ongoing discussion.  You don't bother me one bit.  You narcissism is exposing itself.
> 
> I am simply using logic and references to accepted definitions to argue against the posit in the OP.  Atheism is a religion.
Click to expand...


Dear Asaratis: please do not take Hollie's rejection as a personal affront to you.
She is also rejecting what I say because of her complete disdain and distrust of religion particularly Christianity.
She is not as forgiving or objective about that as you and I are.
Her bias is based on fearing and not forgiving the abuses and atrocities associated with reliigions like this.

So of course she is projecting this reaction to past injustice
on you and me, for arguing anything that appears to be enabling negative behavior.

Hollie cannot even hear what we are saying
until this barrier is removed or loosened up.

I tried to post things that show the positive things taught in religion
that are universal and even common sense practical wisdom.
Yet she is convinced that religion is all unnatural superstition for false motives
that are abused and do not serve any good purpose.

Until she lets go of that block of unforgiveness for what religions have
done andmean to her, she cannot even hear anything else.

It does not make sense to her given her understanding and experience
that religions only mean negative cultish things for control and manipulation.

We might as well be telling a rape victim who is afraid of all men as inherently violent and evil
that some men are good and protective not rapists.

As long as they fear it is all propaganda to allow more men to rape,
they are not going to understand the exceptions to the rule i their minds.

Forgiveness is the key
and if Hollie is too afraid that religion is abused to harm people
she is not going to forgive something that looks like more enabling of collective abuses,
and projecting blame on people like her who reject for valid reasons.

If I were her I would object for the same reasons she
is explaining as honestly as she can. I commend her for that
and still believe this is workable with, as long as you and she
continue to explain as honestly and transparently as you are .

that is all we can do, and that is enough to sort this out.
just beig honest. thanks for that.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike a religion, atheism is not organized under a common doctrine (belief system). The only shared opinion among atheists is the nonexistence of a deity. There are a few common beliefs among atheists such as views regarding morality, religion and spirituality, but these beliefs vary greatly and are outside the definition of atheism and thus are not required to be an atheist.
> 
> Largely, atheism remains unorganized and as some would say, "_organizing atheists is like trying to heard cats_".
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. But directing the comments above to the more excitable of the religious folks makes them as nervous as a bunch of long-tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that ^^^^ is exemplary of the doctrine of the religion of Atheism.
> 
> You are deluded to infer that I am being hateful, emotional or overly excitable about this ongoing discussion.  You don't bother me one bit.  You narcissism is exposing itself.
> 
> I am simply using logic and references to accepted definitions to argue against the posit in the OP.  Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When are religious beliefs involving magic and supernaturalism defined as   "Logical"?
> 
> *syn: *See despair.
> Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
> Desperation
> *any port in a storm* See *EXPEDIENCE*.
> 
> *at the end of one’s rope or tether* At the end of one’s endurance or resources, out of options; exasperated,frustrated. The rope or tether is generally conceded to be that formerly attached to a grazing animal, restricting hismovement and area of pasturage.
> 
> He was at the end of his rope when he had consumed all the provender within reach.
> 
> *climb walls* To be stir-crazy from confinement; to feel trapped or hemmed-in; to suffer from a lack of options. Onewho is “climbing the walls” suffers from a claustrophobic feeling of confinement—physical or mental—from whichthere is no apparent relief. The image is of a person trapped in a room with no doors or windows—the only way forreleasing his pent-up energies being to climb the walls.
> 
> *forlorn hope* A desperate hope or undertaking; an expedition in which the survival of the participants is doubtful.This phrase is homonymously derived from the Dutch _verloren hoop_ ‘lost troop,’ and formerly referred to the frontline of soldiers in a military confrontation:
> 
> Called the forlorn hope, because they … fall on first, and make a passage for the rest. (_Gaya’s Art of Wan_, 1678)
> 
> *grasp at straws* To seek substance in the flimsy or meaning in the insignificant; to find ground for hope where noneexists. In common use since the 18th century, the expression derives from the even older self-explanatory proverb:“A drowning man will catch at a straw.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman desperation on your part.  The logical discussion of definitions of religion is not discussion of religious beliefs.  You fail again.
> 
> Your references to despair, forlorn hope, climb walls, ends of ropes, any port, etc., have nothing to do with this discussion.  You obviously think they apply to me.  Here again, you put your narcissism on display.  I'm simply having fun toying with hardshell Atheists, giving you a taste of your own shit.
> 
> Not to worry.  I shall soon enough tire of it and vacate this thread.  You can take that as meaning anything you wish.  I'm not admitting defeat regarding the OP statement...just relieving myself of continuous replies to illogical posts.
Click to expand...

Sheesh. You are the typical, angry fundie. Although, I do commend you on the first bit of honesty you have displayed. 



> I'm simply having fun toying with hardshell Atheists, giving you a taste of your own shit.



The above really does encapsulate the dangers of religious extremism. Your pointless tirades are borne of your learned hatreds for anyone who reaches conclusions that contradict the fears and superstitions you embrace. 

It is possible to let go of fear. Trembling before angry gods is a prescription for a maladjusted personality. 

What a shame this thread was such a fraud. But honestly, that only reflects negatively on you. It seems your own self-hate and insecurities causes you to lash out at those who don't accept your trying to impose your fundamentalist beliefs as any pedestrian cultist would do.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Hollie:
To you, I may come across as enabling or endorsing religious abuse.
You also come across to me as projecting your hatred of this instead of teaching the proper use of religion
to check and prevent abuses and to promote equal respect and inclusion of all humanity as equal children under God or law.

Asaratis may come across to you as pushing his own views.
So he is saying Atheists do this, and he appears to do it, too. At least it is consistent.

If you look, all of us come across the same way we say that others are pushing.

Asaratis came out and admitted he sees holding such beliefs as a religion,
and he holds his beliefs and they look like religious adherence to others as well! consistent.

You are saying he or others are projecting, and you appear to be doing that as well. consistent.

I apologize where I come across as projecting as well.
we all have our views and don't agree where to draw the line between what constitutes a religion or not.

at least we are honest about our views. why isnt that good enough.

If I tell you that i don't use or associate with the word religion the same way as you do,
why can't we accept it doesn't line up pefectly and deal with it. 

like dealing with people having different accents. and just focus on what people mean
even if we don't say things exactly clearly because of the language barriers.

if we forgive each other's accents in language, even using the wrong word or saying it backwards,
why can't we forgive when our religious terms or language conflcits with each other?



Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike a religion, atheism is not organized under a common doctrine (belief system). The only shared opinion among atheists is the nonexistence of a deity. There are a few common beliefs among atheists such as views regarding morality, religion and spirituality, but these beliefs vary greatly and are outside the definition of atheism and thus are not required to be an atheist.
> 
> Largely, atheism remains unorganized and as some would say, "_organizing atheists is like trying to heard cats_".
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. But directing the comments above to the more excitable of the religious folks makes them as nervous as a bunch of long-tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that ^^^^ is exemplary of the doctrine of the religion of Atheism.
> 
> You are deluded to infer that I am being hateful, emotional or overly excitable about this ongoing discussion.  You don't bother me one bit.  You narcissism is exposing itself.
> 
> I am simply using logic and references to accepted definitions to argue against the posit in the OP.  Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When are religious beliefs involving magic and supernaturalism defined as   "Logical"?
> 
> *syn: *See despair.
> Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
> Desperation
> *any port in a storm* See *EXPEDIENCE*.
> 
> *at the end of one’s rope or tether* At the end of one’s endurance or resources, out of options; exasperated,frustrated. The rope or tether is generally conceded to be that formerly attached to a grazing animal, restricting hismovement and area of pasturage.
> 
> He was at the end of his rope when he had consumed all the provender within reach.
> 
> *climb walls* To be stir-crazy from confinement; to feel trapped or hemmed-in; to suffer from a lack of options. Onewho is “climbing the walls” suffers from a claustrophobic feeling of confinement—physical or mental—from whichthere is no apparent relief. The image is of a person trapped in a room with no doors or windows—the only way forreleasing his pent-up energies being to climb the walls.
> 
> *forlorn hope* A desperate hope or undertaking; an expedition in which the survival of the participants is doubtful.This phrase is homonymously derived from the Dutch _verloren hoop_ ‘lost troop,’ and formerly referred to the frontline of soldiers in a military confrontation:
> 
> Called the forlorn hope, because they … fall on first, and make a passage for the rest. (_Gaya’s Art of Wan_, 1678)
> 
> *grasp at straws* To seek substance in the flimsy or meaning in the insignificant; to find ground for hope where noneexists. In common use since the 18th century, the expression derives from the even older self-explanatory proverb:“A drowning man will catch at a straw.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman desperation on your part.  The logical discussion of definitions of religion is not discussion of religious beliefs.  You fail again.
> 
> Your references to despair, forlorn hope, climb walls, ends of ropes, any port, etc., have nothing to do with this discussion.  You obviously think they apply to me.  Here again, you put your narcissism on display.  I'm simply having fun toying with hardshell Atheists, giving you a taste of your own shit.
> 
> Not to worry.  I shall soon enough tire of it and vacate this thread.  You can take that as meaning anything you wish.  I'm not admitting defeat regarding the OP statement...just relieving myself of continuous replies to illogical posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sheesh. You are the typical, angry fundie. Although, I do commend you on the first bit of honesty you have displayed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm simply having fun toying with hardshell Atheists, giving you a taste of your own shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The above really does encapsulate the dangers of religious extremism. Your pointless tirades are borne of your learned hatreds for anyone who reaches conclusions that contradict the fears and superstitions you embrace.
> 
> It is possible to let go of fear. Trembling before angry gods is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.
> 
> What a shame this thread was such a fraud. But honestly, that only reflects negatively on you. It seems your own self-hate and insecurities causes you to lash out at those who don't accept your trying to impose your fundamentalist beliefs as any pedestrian cultist would do.
Click to expand...


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist.  I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion.  What you believe is up to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I didn't say that.  Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious.  Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities.  If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. One can conclude that your gods don't exist without any requirement of belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is that what you believe?........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More of your pointlesness.
Click to expand...

only if you fail to realize that concluding gods don't exist without the requirement of belief, in itself requires belief......


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say that.  Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious.  Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities.  If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. One can conclude that your gods don't exist without any requirement of belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is that what you believe?........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More of your pointlesness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only if you fail to realize that concluding gods don't exist without the requirement of belief, in itself requires belief......
Click to expand...

How did you so sweepingly miss the nonsensical nature of your prattling?

Have you not been paying attention to any of what has been written?


----------



## PostmodernProph

I have seen nothing from you worth a second glance.....


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Sheesh. You are the typical, angry fundie.
> It is possible to let go of fear. Trembling before angry gods is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.
> 
> What a shame this thread was such a fraud. But honestly, that only reflects negatively on you. It seems your own self-hate and insecurities causes you to lash out at those who don't accept your trying to impose your fundamentalist beliefs as any pedestrian cultist would do.



^ here Hollie, here is where I feel you are projecting your own perceptions and expeirences onto Asaratis because of other people.^ 

1. From my expeirences with real religious fundamentalists who only discuss the Bible, and I do not even qualify as worthy to debate since I am too secular, Asaratis is far too open to discussion in secular terms to be one of these fundamentalists
who see that as compromising. 

Asaratis and PF are closer to the center of the scale, where at least they can talk and explain things objectively
which the extreme fundamentalists cannot do. 

So from my experience A and PF are even more secular gentile than I am. They are even more objective in explaining.

The religious fundamentalists I know would call these two allies of atheists and new age lost people who dilute the faith to include witchcraft, Buddhism and false religions to harm people. I've been accused of this.

They aer very liberal minded and inclusive on my scale of having dealt with true fundamentalists who would not even want to associate for fear that they would be misled and fall out of favor.

2. as for fear and hatred, I see this in your projections against religion as well.

A, PF and I are very openminded and inclusive in comparison with raving fundies, and yet you are associating us with fundamentalists who would not even have this conversation at all. so that is project fear from something else in the past.

Can we be honest that mutual projection is going on?
we all have our beliefs we are projecting as biases?

from my experiences, I see A and PF as more liberal.
from your experiences we look like fundies!


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> I have seen nothing from you worth a second glance.....


Then what prompted your prattling?


----------



## PostmodernProph

my first glance....it showed my you didn't realize that the statement of what you believed didn't require belief.....


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> How did you so sweepingly miss the nonsensical nature of your prattling?
> 
> Have you not been paying attention to any of what has been written?



Nor have you, Hollie, responded to anything I posted about Christianity and religions
that is based on universal natural laws and common sense about human nature
and does not require any faith in anything supernatural. 

If you respond to that, and admit there is something more there than what you originally assumed,
maybe more people would respond to valid points in what you are saying, instead of assuming it is projected rhetoric.

Again the rule of reciprocity. If you want to be heard and respected, 
it helps to hear and respect what other ppl are trying to say too!

the more we open up to hear each other, we benefit mutually and these walls come down
that are otherwise preventing us from communicating effectively. Thanks Hollie
I appreciate your directness, your intellectual honesty in saying exactly what you see and feel is going on.
this is completely workable with, it may take trial and error, but we are all committed to correcting the error.
if we continue there are only so many errors and we can resolve those and get to the points that do hit their targets. thanks!


----------



## asaratis

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
> You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.
> 
> Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.
> 
> Please stick this out to the end.
> We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
> and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.
> 
> If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
> like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.
> 
> If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
> and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
> until we can get to the ones underneath?  please do not give up and walk away.
> I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
> every step to get there.
> 
> the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
> when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
> what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.


Emily,
I've not left yet.  However, all things must come to an end....eventually.  It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.

The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:

dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
use strawman arguments
infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say
These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here.  While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults.  It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger.  It takes a lot to piss me off.  No poster here has ever come close.

I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan.  Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
> You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.
> 
> Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.
> 
> Please stick this out to the end.
> We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
> and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.
> 
> If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
> like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.
> 
> If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
> and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
> until we can get to the ones underneath?  please do not give up and walk away.
> I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
> every step to get there.
> 
> the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
> when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
> what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> I've not left yet.  However, all things must come to an end....eventually.  It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.
> 
> The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:
> 
> dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
> use strawman arguments
> infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
> post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
> either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
> incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say
> These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here.  While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults.  It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger.  It takes a lot to piss me off.  No poster here has ever come close.
> 
> I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan.  Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.
Click to expand...

There's not a great of logic behind your admitted fraud as the purpose of this thread.

Not surprisingly, your bulleted items precisely define your failed attempts to bolster your religious dogma as opposed to actually furthering a defendable argument.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi Asaratis: Hollie for one is still projecting her anti-theist views.
we cannot even discuss the differences between atheism, agnosticism, and nontheism
if she is still not over the anti-theism which has the most emotional attached associations with 
negative negative negative.

Sealybobo also has negative biases against theism, but is able to put that aside better than Hollie
who is not over ranting and projecting onto anyone who appears to be supporting any theist view.

Can we try to work with Sealybobo to get Hollie closer to where SB and DT are?
DT does not project as much, but tends to stay objective and address the points not attack the person.

I do not recommend trying to assess or judge Hollie's responses while she is still in such a state
of distrusting religion and anyone appearig to be on the side of religionists known to attack atheists.

in other threads I have found Hollie to be as honest in explaining as possible.

it is this damn bias against theists and theism that keeps distracting her from even getting to the other points
you bring up.

how can we remove that barrier? I want to see what she thinks and says underneath
MINUS that projection of bullets and defensiveness aimed at anyone theist or protheist she thinks are anti-atheist.

she does not respond to my posts which means I may be on ignore.
Can you take some of the things I said and reply to them to Hollie to see if you can explain it better than I did.

Thanks A
DT is one of the more open and workable people on here, and Sealybobo is somewhre between 
DT and Hollie. So maybe Sealybobo can help bridge some of these gaps where anti-theist bias is blocking
us from even discussign this other content.

I dont see it as Hollie's fault; there aren't enough Christians or theists correcting the poblems with religious abuse so it looks like a big ploy to keep the same old control games going abusing religion to do it. I can't blame her for distrusting that.



asaratis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
> You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.
> 
> Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.
> 
> Please stick this out to the end.
> We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
> and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.
> 
> If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
> like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.
> 
> If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
> and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
> until we can get to the ones underneath?  please do not give up and walk away.
> I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
> every step to get there.
> 
> the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
> when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
> what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> I've not left yet.  However, all things must come to an end....eventually.  It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.
> 
> The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:
> 
> dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
> use strawman arguments
> infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
> post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
> either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
> incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say
> These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here.  While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults.  It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger.  It takes a lot to piss me off.  No poster here has ever come close.
> 
> I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan.  Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.
Click to expand...


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
> You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.
> 
> Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.
> 
> Please stick this out to the end.
> We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
> and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.
> 
> If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
> like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.
> 
> If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
> and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
> until we can get to the ones underneath?  please do not give up and walk away.
> I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
> every step to get there.
> 
> the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
> when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
> what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> I've not left yet.  However, all things must come to an end....eventually.  It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.
> 
> The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:
> 
> dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
> use strawman arguments
> infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
> post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
> either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
> incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say
> These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here.  While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults.  It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger.  It takes a lot to piss me off.  No poster here has ever come close.
> 
> I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan.  Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's not a great of logic behind your admitted fraud as the purpose of this thread.
> 
> Not surprisingly, your bulleted items precisely define your failed attempts to bolster your religious dogma as opposed to actually furthering a defendable argument.
Click to expand...

I've not tried to bolster religious dogma. I've tried to stay on the topic of whether Atheism is a religion or not.  I really, actually, honest to God do not give a tinker's damn whether you adopt any dogma at all.  Atheism is a religion and you are just too goddamned hard headed to agree.


----------



## emilynghiem

asaratis said:


> I've not tried to bolster religious dogma. I've tried to stay on the topic of whether Atheism is a religion or not.  I really, actually, honest to God do not give a tinker's damn whether you adopt any dogma at all.  Atheism is a religion and you are just too goddamned hard headed to agree.



Hi Asaratis where you and Hollie may be talking past each other:
1. if the spirit of your intent "COMES across" as trying to show fault in Atheists as a group, that takes away the focus from the content of your post.
if you get sidetracked at all addressing someone like Hollie personally,  it can come across as opposing each other as "theist vs. atheist" instead of sticking to the content.
I don't intend this either, but the distrust can make me look this way to others.
2. likewise Hollie keeps replying to you and me as pro-theists with some agenda
other than what you are stating. this happens with me, too, though it is not my intent.

so let's remove that pro-theist and anti-theist chip from the equation

if we truly agree to focus on objecting only to points within the content and not the perceived affiliation or agenda of the person,
can we finish hashing out hte content without sidetracking on what we think of each other's affiliations or groupings?

Maybe if you and I make sure we do not come across as being anti-atheist
then Hollie would not waste her posts objecting to that and coming across as anti-theist.

Can we agree to drop that part mutually and see if that helps? thanks!


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
> You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.
> 
> Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.
> 
> Please stick this out to the end.
> We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
> and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.
> 
> If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
> like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.
> 
> If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
> and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
> until we can get to the ones underneath?  please do not give up and walk away.
> I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
> every step to get there.
> 
> the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
> when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
> what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> I've not left yet.  However, all things must come to an end....eventually.  It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.
> 
> The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:
> 
> dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
> use strawman arguments
> infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
> post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
> either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
> incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say
> These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here.  While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults.  It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger.  It takes a lot to piss me off.  No poster here has ever come close.
> 
> I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan.  Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's not a great of logic behind your admitted fraud as the purpose of this thread.
> 
> Not surprisingly, your bulleted items precisely define your failed attempts to bolster your religious dogma as opposed to actually furthering a defendable argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've not tried to bolster religious dogma. I've tried to stay on the topic of whether Atheism is a religion or not.  I really, actually, honest to God do not give a tinker's damn whether you adopt any dogma at all.  Atheism is a religion and you are just too goddamned hard headed to agree.
Click to expand...

You confuse your nonsensical "... because I say so", meme as a valid argument. That may work at your madrassah with a captive audience of like-minded, slack-jawed types but honestly Bunky, your attempts to force your religious beliefs on others is a waste of your time.

I know, right. There was a time when mere rumor or speculation was enough to send a Christian mob on a mission to do gawds work and burn me at the stake for refusing your forced religion.

Most of the world has grown up. Try it.


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
> You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.
> 
> Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.
> 
> Please stick this out to the end.
> We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
> and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.
> 
> If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
> like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.
> 
> If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
> and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
> until we can get to the ones underneath?  please do not give up and walk away.
> I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
> every step to get there.
> 
> the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
> when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
> what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> I've not left yet.  However, all things must come to an end....eventually.  It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.
> 
> The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:
> 
> dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
> use strawman arguments
> infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
> post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
> either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
> incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say
> These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here.  While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults.  It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger.  It takes a lot to piss me off.  No poster here has ever come close.
> 
> I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan.  Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.
Click to expand...


I can't be sure what your motives are, but most here are responding to the political movement to have atheism categorized as a religion. It's possible to construct a religion around atheistic views, and some have done this, but your claim that having any belief concerning the existence of deities constitutes a religion is specious. When this claim has been challenged, you dodge it and throw out diversions instead. 

I feel like I've given you the benefit of the doubt but, unlike emily, I don't respect your views and I don't think your discussion here is in earnest. You're either here to further the campaign to treat atheism as religion for political reasons, or you're just plain trolling for attention.


----------



## asaratis

emilynghiem said:


> Hi Asaratis: Hollie for one is still projecting her anti-theist views.
> we cannot even discuss the differences between atheism, agnosticism, and nontheism
> if she is still not over the anti-theism which has the most emotional attached associations with
> negative negative negative.
> 
> Sealybobo also has negative biases against theism, but is able to put that aside better than Hollie
> who is not over ranting and projecting onto anyone who appears to be supporting any theist view.
> 
> Can we try to work with Sealybobo to get Hollie closer to where SB and DT are?
> DT does not project as much, but tends to stay objective and address the points not attack the person.
> 
> I do not recommend trying to assess or judge Hollie's responses while she is still in such a state
> of distrusting religion and anyone appearig to be on the side of religionists known to attack atheists.
> 
> in other threads I have found Hollie to be as honest in explaining as possible.
> 
> it is this damn bias against theists and theism that keeps distracting her from even getting to the other points
> you bring up.
> 
> how can we remove that barrier? I want to see what she thinks and says underneath
> MINUS that projection of bullets and defensiveness aimed at anyone theist or protheist she thinks are anti-atheist.
> 
> she does not respond to my posts which means I may be on ignore.
> Can you take some of the things I said and reply to them to Hollie to see if you can explain it better than I did.
> 
> Thanks A
> DT is one of the more open and workable people on here, and Sealybobo is somewhre between
> DT and Hollie. So maybe Sealybobo can help bridge some of these gaps where anti-theist bias is blocking
> us from even discussign this other content.
> 
> I dont see it as Hollie's fault; there aren't enough Christians or theists correcting the poblems with religious abuse so it looks like a big ploy to keep the same old control games going abusing religion to do it. I can't blame her for distrusting that.


Your posts will be easier to reply to if you will type below what you quote rather than above it.  Just saying....

Bold text below is copied from your quoted post^^^^.

*
Hi Asaratis: Hollie for one is still projecting her anti-theist views.
we cannot even discuss the differences between atheism, agnosticism, and nontheism
if she is still not over the anti-theism which has the most emotional attached associations with 
negative negative negative.* 
That is a problem that we will likely never overcome.  Her modus operandi was described above in my bullet item post.
*
Sealybobo also has negative biases against theism, but is able to put that aside better than Hollie
who is not over ranting and projecting onto anyone who appears to be supporting any theist view.* 
This is true.  I did have one exchange with Sealybobo in my somewhat related thread asking why Atheists insist that Atheism is not a religion.  She seems much more level headed and capable of carrying on adult conversation than does Hollie and some of her ilk.
*
Can we try to work with Sealybobo to get Hollie closer to where SB and DT are?
DT does not project as much, but tends to stay objective and address the points not attack the person.* 
You can try. 
*
I do not recommend trying to assess or judge Hollie's responses while she is still in such a state
of distrusting religion and anyone appearig to be on the side of religionists known to attack atheists.* 
Assessment and judging of posts is what this forum is all about.
*
in other threads I have found Hollie to be as honest in explaining as possible.

it is this damn bias against theists and theism that keeps distracting her from even getting to the other points
you bring up.* 
She may be paranoid...thinking that I and Oral Roberts are out to get her.
*
how can we remove that barrier? I want to see what she thinks and says underneath
MINUS that projection of bullets and defensiveness aimed at anyone theist or protheist she thinks are anti-atheist.* 
That would be nice, but I suspect it will be long after she grows up.
*
she does not respond to my posts which means I may be on ignore.
Can you take some of the things I said and reply to them to Hollie to see if you can explain it better than I did.* 
Have you tried sending her a PM?

*
...<SNIP>...*


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> su·per·nat·u·ral·ism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (s
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> p
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> r-n
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> r-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -l
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> m)
> _n._
> *1. *The quality of being supernatural.
> *2. *Belief in a supernatural agency that intervenes in the course of natural laws.
> 
> Therefore, the religion of Christianity is not a religion at all. It is the belief system of supernaturalism. Some of its adherents being _Fundamentalist Supernaturalists_.



Be honest now, someone is writing those jokes for you. You are getting funnier every day.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> Sealy isn't redefining atheism. While it's true that some atheists adopt the kind of anti-religious posture Christians fixate on, all that is required to be an atheist is to _not_ be a theist. The kind of atheists that this thread is targeting are a subset of all atheists, and a small subset at that.



Wrong.

Not being a theist does not make you an atheist. Agnostics are not theists, yet they are not atheists either.



dblack said:


> I agree. Atheism can be approached as a religion. And I'm not insisting that a religion has to involve gods. I'm just rejecting the notion that a belief about the existence of gods, in and of itself, constitutes a religion.



Yet that is exactly what some atheist define religion as. They refuse to accept the idea that one can believe in the existence of gods and not be religious. That is sealy's, among others I could name, major hangup. They cannot accept the reality religion is not defined by what you believe, it is defined by how you approach those beliefs.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> Unlike a religion, atheism is not organized under a common doctrine (belief system). The only shared opinion among atheists is the nonexistence of a deity. There are a few common beliefs among atheists such as views regarding morality, religion and spirituality, but these beliefs vary greatly and are outside the definition of atheism and thus are not required to be an atheist.
> 
> Largely, atheism remains unorganized and as some would say, "_organizing atheists is like trying to heard cats_".



Ever try to get Baptists to agree about Calvinism?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> Cutting and pasting the same, tired, refuted dictionary definitions many times won't magically float the boat anchor that defines your compulsion.
> 
> As usual, you have side-stepped addressing those refutations to your cut and paste dictionary themes.
> 
> Really, do you understand how desperate you appear by being so consumed with trying to force your religious beliefs on others?



You refuted the dictionary?

Dayam.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi dblack and asaratis: 
Thanks for your assessments.
I think we will go in a loop if we keep criticizing each other's reactions.

If Asaratis happens to use religion to mean even having a belief, then let's either not use that word
or just agree Asaratis uses it differently.

I use Christianity very loosely where in some contexts it does mean teh traditional religion and practice
but in others it means the spirit of Charity for humanity sake, unconditional without expectation of reward,
or Restorative Justice, or being of Good Conscience.  so this is not going to match when Hollie uses
the word Christianity as a dirty word that means the abusive killing and oppression in the name of religion.

To his credit, Asaratis did revise what he stated about Buddhism being considered a religion.
So this shows Asaratis will be honest if something needs clarification or change to be more consistent
with his beliefs and standards. There is not denial going on for the sake of being right, but actually
trying to make things consistent and right to avoid conflict or contradictions.

i also misunderstood Asaratis msg and will have to go back and correct those points.

Can we set aside the defensiveness and focus on the points?

I believe the real issue that determines if there is denial, projection and abuse going on is
* if people believe in a retributive approach to justice, with one sided judgment punishment and rejection
* if people believe in a restorative approach to justice with mutual forgiveness, correction and restitution

I find if people practice retributive justice, they will even clash with members of their own groups,
becaus they are projecting conflicts from the past onto other people and relations.

But if people believe in peace and justice, restorative justice by conflict resolution and consensus building
that includes all parties equally, they will get along with even people of opposing religious or political views.

the critical factor I think we should be discussing is our approach to justice
and how this affects us regardless of our conflicting views and differences.

the other thing I'd rather discuss is what makes a political religion?
how can we have equal protection of the laws of religious freedom and
no discrimination base don creed, if we allow political parties to legislate their beliefs
but not other collective groups considered religious? how is this fair. isn't that discriminating by creed
or by size of the affiliation if it is recognized as a religion or a party or not?

I'd rather get to the really interesting issues that can change the face of
religion and politics. how doyou suggest we get past the stage of not 
trusting each other's motives, objecting to how each other states beliefs,
and get to the real issues that determine if we can resolve conflcits or not?

thanks dblack
I really think the political belief issue is critical and may
bring on the next constitutional convention to address political equality in representation and govt



dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> I've not left yet.  However, all things must come to an end....eventually.  It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.
> 
> The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:
> 
> dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
> use strawman arguments
> infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
> post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
> either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
> incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say
> These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here.  While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults.  It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger.  It takes a lot to piss me off.  No poster here has ever come close.
> 
> I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan.  Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't be sure what your motives are, but most here are responding to the political movement to have atheism categorized as a religion. It's possible to construct a religion around atheistic views, and some have done this, but your claim that having any belief concerning the existence of deities constitutes a religion is specious. When this claim has been challenged, you dodge it and throw out diversions instead.
> 
> I feel like I've given you the benefit of the doubt but, unlike emily, I don't respect your views and I don't think your discussion here is in earnest. You're either here to further the campaign to treat atheism as religion for political reasons, or you're just plain trolling for attention.
Click to expand...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> When are religious beliefs involving magic and supernaturalism defined as   "Logical"?




FYI, all it takes for something to be logical is for someone to construct a logical argument to support it. Aristotle managed to use logic to prove the existence of god long before before Jesus was even born.

That, by the way, does  not make atheism illogical. Funny thing about logic, it can prove anything you want it to, if you know how to use it. One day, you should consider taking a class in logic just to see how absurd it is. If yo do perhaps you will stop grasping at straws and give up your forlorn hope that logic will save you from theism.


----------



## emilynghiem

Quantum Windbag said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike a religion, atheism is not organized under a common doctrine (belief system). The only shared opinion among atheists is the nonexistence of a deity. There are a few common beliefs among atheists such as views regarding morality, religion and spirituality, but these beliefs vary greatly and are outside the definition of atheism and thus are not required to be an atheist.
> 
> Largely, atheism remains unorganized and as some would say, "_organizing atheists is like trying to heard cats_".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever try to get Baptists to agree about Calvinism?
Click to expand...


Dear Quantum Windbag:
the way Hollie stated that all Christianity was a cult under a central authority figure
showed me she had no understanding of the political rift between protestant and catholic
that is as diverse as the liberals and conservatives. 

We all have one Constitution, yet don't agree if rights come from God or from Govt.
So we have two split groups, similar to the federalists and antifederalist,
the Locke class liberals who wanted freedom from oppressive govt and trusting in natural rights
inherent in the people to govern themselves with limited govt;
and the Rousseau radical liberals who wanted equality by govt as the controlling institution
to ensure the will of the people was followed by all.

To argue that atheism is one big collective belief,
can't the same be said of Constitutionalism.

To say that some people make Constitutionalism their religion
but others do not, is the same with Atheism. Some do
* get religious about it personally
* collectively form movements or groups to push as a whole identity

when are we going to talk about that?

People aren't afraid to argue about Atheism.
What about Constitutionalism and how are we going
to deal with political religions that cannot be separated from govt
because they involve how we use or do not use govt and laws?

Anyone dare to take that on?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PostmodernProph said:


> only if you fail to realize that concluding gods don't exist without the requirement of belief, in itself requires belief......



How can you conclude something without believing?

Yes, I know that is the point of what you said, I am simplifying for the idiots that think everyone is a fundie.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When are religious beliefs involving magic and supernaturalism defined as   "Logical"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, all it takes for something to be logical is for someone to construct a logical argument to support it. Aristotle managed to use logic to prove the existence of god long before before Jesus was even born.
> 
> That, by the way, does  not make atheism illogical. Funny thing about logic, it can prove anything you want it to, if you know how to use it. One day, you should consider taking a class in logic just to see how absurd it is. If yo do perhaps you will stop grasping at straws and give up your forlorn hope that logic will save you from theism.
Click to expand...

For all your stuttering and mumbling, all it would take for you supernaturalists who have invented configurations and gods and spirit realms to make a supportable case is to provide some testable evidence of your gods. You have three of them and you can't support a single one?


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> only if you fail to realize that concluding gods don't exist without the requirement of belief, in itself requires belief......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you conclude something without believing?
> 
> Yes, I know that is the point of what you said, I am simplifying for the idiots that think everyone is a fundie.
Click to expand...

You and the other pointless whiner. What a joke.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
> You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.
> 
> Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.
> 
> Please stick this out to the end.
> We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
> and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.
> 
> If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
> like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.
> 
> If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
> and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
> until we can get to the ones underneath?  please do not give up and walk away.
> I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
> every step to get there.
> 
> the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
> when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
> what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> I've not left yet.  However, all things must come to an end....eventually.  It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.
> 
> The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:
> 
> dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
> use strawman arguments
> infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
> post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
> either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
> incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say
> These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here.  While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults.  It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger.  It takes a lot to piss me off.  No poster here has ever come close.
> 
> I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan.  Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's not a great of logic behind your admitted fraud as the purpose of this thread.
> 
> Not surprisingly, your bulleted items precisely define your failed attempts to bolster your religious dogma as opposed to actually furthering a defendable argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've not tried to bolster religious dogma. I've tried to stay on the topic of whether Atheism is a religion or not.  I really, actually, honest to God do not give a tinker's damn whether you adopt any dogma at all.  Atheism is a religion and you are just too goddamned hard headed to agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You confuse your nonsensical "... because I say so", meme as a valid argument. That may work at your madrassah with a captive audience of like-minded, slack-jawed types but honestly Bunky, your attempts to force your religious beliefs on others is a waste of your time.
> 
> I know, right. There was a time when mere rumor or speculation was enough to send a Christian mob on a mission to do gawds work and burn me at the stake for refusing your forced religion.
> 
> Most of the world has grown up. Try it.
Click to expand...

Again, you are being obtuse.  I don't try to force my religious beliefs on anyone.  To state that Atheism is a religion is NOT a religious belief.  The fact that Atheism is a religion does not mean that its doctrine must be similar to that of other religions.  So far as I care, its doctrine can and will remain as it is today...to incessantly ridicule, scorn and attack other religions.  I don't expect anything about Atheism and Atheists to change.  I simply argue against the posit the Atheism is not a religion.

It is a religion.  That has been proved here in this thread.  It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless.  If you claim that you have no belief in deities, then you are agnostic and not Atheist.  If you claim that deities do not exist, you are an Atheist.  All this Richard Dawkins bullshit about a sliding scale is just that...bullshit.  The word _atheist_ was defined centuries ago.  It is only the modern day Atheists that want to change it...for what reason I do not know....save maybe that you don't even want to be associated with the word _religion_ except to be known as religion's arch enemy.   I see your dilemma...don't you just hate yourself?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> For all your stuttering and mumbling, all it would take for you supernaturalists who have invented configurations and gods and spirit realms to make a supportable case is to provide some testable evidence of your gods. You have three of them and you can't support a single one?



Excuse me? What the fuck makes you think you can read my mind? How would you know how many gods I have?

By the way, there is a difference between empirical evidence, which is the term you want to use here, and logic. I am sorry I didn't make that clear in my post, but I keep hoping that you will actually learn to think before you let your fingers type your posts.

That said, there is empirical evidence for the existence of god. I won't bother to list it all since I really don't have a few thousand years to spare, but it does exist. You just refuse to see it because you prefer to live in a world defined by your bias and bigotry.


----------



## asaratis

dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
> You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.
> 
> Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.
> 
> Please stick this out to the end.
> We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
> and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.
> 
> If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
> like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.
> 
> If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
> and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
> until we can get to the ones underneath?  please do not give up and walk away.
> I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
> every step to get there.
> 
> the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
> when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
> what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> I've not left yet.  However, all things must come to an end....eventually.  It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.
> 
> The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:
> 
> dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
> use strawman arguments
> infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
> post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
> either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
> incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say
> These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here.  While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults.  It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger.  It takes a lot to piss me off.  No poster here has ever come close.
> 
> I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan.  Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't be sure what your motives are, but most here are responding to the political movement to have atheism categorized as a religion. It's possible to construct a religion around atheistic views, and some have done this, but your claim that having any belief concerning the existence of deities constitutes a religion is specious. When this claim has been challenged, you dodge it and throw out diversions instead.
> 
> I feel like I've given you the benefit of the doubt but, unlike emily, I don't respect your views and I don't think your discussion here is in earnest. You're either here to further the campaign to treat atheism as religion for political reasons, or you're just plain trolling for attention.
Click to expand...

Atheism has already been characterized as a religion.  It has been shown in this thread to be a religion.  It has been the Atheists and supporters thereof that have created diversions.  I have no political motives.  I leave those to the courts....which have, by the way, already determined that...

*...Atheism is a religion, folks!*


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
> You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.
> 
> Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.
> 
> Please stick this out to the end.
> We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
> and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.
> 
> If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
> like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.
> 
> If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
> and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
> until we can get to the ones underneath?  please do not give up and walk away.
> I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
> every step to get there.
> 
> the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
> when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
> what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> I've not left yet.  However, all things must come to an end....eventually.  It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.
> 
> The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:
> 
> dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
> use strawman arguments
> infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
> post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
> either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
> incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say
> These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here.  While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults.  It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger.  It takes a lot to piss me off.  No poster here has ever come close.
> 
> I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan.  Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's not a great of logic behind your admitted fraud as the purpose of this thread.
> 
> Not surprisingly, your bulleted items precisely define your failed attempts to bolster your religious dogma as opposed to actually furthering a defendable argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've not tried to bolster religious dogma. I've tried to stay on the topic of whether Atheism is a religion or not.  I really, actually, honest to God do not give a tinker's damn whether you adopt any dogma at all.  Atheism is a religion and you are just too goddamned hard headed to agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You confuse your nonsensical "... because I say so", meme as a valid argument. That may work at your madrassah with a captive audience of like-minded, slack-jawed types but honestly Bunky, your attempts to force your religious beliefs on others is a waste of your time.
> 
> I know, right. There was a time when mere rumor or speculation was enough to send a Christian mob on a mission to do gawds work and burn me at the stake for refusing your forced religion.
> 
> Most of the world has grown up. Try it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you are being obtuse.  I don't try to force my religious beliefs on anyone.  To state that Atheism is a religion is NOT a religious belief.  The fact that Atheism is a religion does not mean that its doctrine must be similar to that of other religions.  So far as I care, its doctrine can and will remain as it is today...to incessantly ridicule, scorn and attack other religions.  I don't expect anything about Atheism and Atheists to change.  I simply argue against the posit the Atheism is not a religion.
> 
> It is a religion.  That has been proved here in this thread.  It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless.  If you claim that you have no belief in deities, then you are agnostic and not Atheist.  If you claim that deities do not exist, you are an Atheist.  All this Richard Dawkins bullshit about a sliding scale is just that...bullshit.  The word _atheist_ was defined centuries ago.  It is only the modern day Atheists that want to change it...for what reason I do not know....save maybe that you don't even want to be associated with the word _religion_ except to be known as religions arch enemy.   I see your dilemma...don't you just hate yourself?
Click to expand...

We're left with your whining about atheism being a religion yet you offer nothing to support that claim. 

What a shame, for you, that you angry fundies are not able to force your superstitious beliefs on others.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi Asaratis: by your use of religion to mean you don't have to be religious about it, only hold that belief.
Could you say these are religions then:
1. people who believe atheism is a religion
2. people who believe it isn't, or don't believe it is, and just think they are stating it, not a belief
3. people like me who see that some people see it different ways, some are just stating it and some believe in it

if these are all beliefs, can these be religions?
if these are just statements, can these be not religions?

And my real question:
can't both be going on at the same time?
can some people see your and my statements as a religion while we don't,
and likewise we will see their beliefs as a religion, but they don't!



asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
> You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.
> 
> Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.
> 
> Please stick this out to the end.
> We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
> and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.
> 
> If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
> like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.
> 
> If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
> and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
> until we can get to the ones underneath?  please do not give up and walk away.
> I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
> every step to get there.
> 
> the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
> when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
> what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> I've not left yet.  However, all things must come to an end....eventually.  It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.
> 
> The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:
> 
> dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
> use strawman arguments
> infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
> post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
> either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
> incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say
> These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here.  While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults.  It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger.  It takes a lot to piss me off.  No poster here has ever come close.
> 
> I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan.  Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's not a great of logic behind your admitted fraud as the purpose of this thread.
> 
> Not surprisingly, your bulleted items precisely define your failed attempts to bolster your religious dogma as opposed to actually furthering a defendable argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've not tried to bolster religious dogma. I've tried to stay on the topic of whether Atheism is a religion or not.  I really, actually, honest to God do not give a tinker's damn whether you adopt any dogma at all.  Atheism is a religion and you are just too goddamned hard headed to agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You confuse your nonsensical "... because I say so", meme as a valid argument. That may work at your madrassah with a captive audience of like-minded, slack-jawed types but honestly Bunky, your attempts to force your religious beliefs on others is a waste of your time.
> 
> I know, right. There was a time when mere rumor or speculation was enough to send a Christian mob on a mission to do gawds work and burn me at the stake for refusing your forced religion.
> 
> Most of the world has grown up. Try it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you are being obtuse.  I don't try to force my religious beliefs on anyone.  To state that Atheism is a religion is NOT a religious belief.  The fact that Atheism is a religion does not mean that its doctrine must be similar to that of other religions.  So far as I care, its doctrine can and will remain as it is today...to incessantly ridicule, scorn and attack other religions.  I don't expect anything about Atheism and Atheists to change.  I simply argue against the posit the Atheism is not a religion.
> 
> It is a religion.  That has been proved here in this thread.  It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless.  If you claim that you have no belief in deities, then you are agnostic and not Atheist.  If you claim that deities do not exist, you are an Atheist.  All this Richard Dawkins bullshit about a sliding scale is just that...bullshit.  The word _atheist_ was defined centuries ago.  It is only the modern day Atheists that want to change it...for what reason I do not know....save maybe that you don't even want to be associated with the word _religion_ except to be known as religions arch enemy.   I see your dilemma...don't you just hate yourself?
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
> You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.
> 
> Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.
> 
> Please stick this out to the end.
> We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
> and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.
> 
> If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
> like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.
> 
> If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
> and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
> until we can get to the ones underneath?  please do not give up and walk away.
> I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
> every step to get there.
> 
> the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
> when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
> what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> I've not left yet.  However, all things must come to an end....eventually.  It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.
> 
> The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:
> 
> dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
> use strawman arguments
> infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
> post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
> either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
> incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say
> These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here.  While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults.  It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger.  It takes a lot to piss me off.  No poster here has ever come close.
> 
> I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan.  Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't be sure what your motives are, but most here are responding to the political movement to have atheism categorized as a religion. It's possible to construct a religion around atheistic views, and some have done this, but your claim that having any belief concerning the existence of deities constitutes a religion is specious. When this claim has been challenged, you dodge it and throw out diversions instead.
> 
> I feel like I've given you the benefit of the doubt but, unlike emily, I don't respect your views and I don't think your discussion here is in earnest. You're either here to further the campaign to treat atheism as religion for political reasons, or you're just plain trolling for attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheism has already been characterized as a religion.  It has been shown in this thread to be a religion.  It has been the Atheists and supporters thereof that have created diversions.  I have no political motives.  I leave those to the courts....which have, by the way, already determined that...
> 
> *...Atheism is a religion, folks!*
Click to expand...

If you bind your bibles together with duct tape, they're a more formidable weapon than mere gargantuan text as a way to force your superstitious beliefs on others.


----------



## dblack

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sealy isn't redefining atheism. While it's true that some atheists adopt the kind of anti-religious posture Christians fixate on, all that is required to be an atheist is to _not_ be a theist. The kind of atheists that this thread is targeting are a subset of all atheists, and a small subset at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Not being a theist does not make you an atheist. Agnostics are not theists, yet they are not atheists either
Click to expand...


Well, then you're using a very narrow definition of atheist that really only encompasses one type of atheistic belief. Atheist is synonymous with non-theist. That's what the 'a' prefix means. 

And you're using a popular misrepresentation of agnosticism. But in point of fact, it's possible for an agnostic to be either a theist, or an atheist.

If we were just disagreeing on definitions, it would be a pretty boring conversation, but I think both sides recognize there's more to it than that. The subtext here is the fact that our government treats religious beliefs and non-theist beliefs (science and philosophy) differently in matters of education and government sponsorship. So, those with a vested interest have strong incentive to manipulate the definitions used by government in determining which beliefs are considered 'religious' and which aren't.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> What a shame, for you, that you angry fundies are not able to force your superstitious beliefs on others.



Hi Hollie I think you come across as angrier at Christians/Christianity
than both Asaratis and I combined.

I think QW may be as angry at atheists as you are toward theists.

Can you see the difference between QW reactions
and Asaratis and mine trying to address the points not attack the persons?

I think I am about as open as DT is and don't get as personal.
We tend to respect each other and try our best to focus on correcting the points we conflict or differ over.

Sealybobo and Asaratis may get a little bit reactionary personally to other people
and get a little off the content and start responding to people personally. But both
are plenty able to argue about the content, and steer away from any personal sidetracking
even after it starts, they are both more concerned about the issues.

QW and you both seem to jump past the content and start
making negative assessment about the person personally.

Do you see this also. Can you compare the levels we are at?

Would you agree that QW and you get the most personal and
start making generalizations about the GROUP or LABEL people are associated with Personally.
So if anyone is expressing anger at a group, it is how you and QW react.

Next I saw a bit of reaction in return from Sealybobo and also Asaratis
but generally only if they are addressed that way first, then they give it right back.
if not attacked, then they both stay on topic and focus on the content and corrections.

DT and I are actively trying to correct things.
DT may jump on rightwing more, and I jump on both;
but I tend to address more leftwing as a fellow liberal
since I have a better chance to communicate a point
than someone too far right they don't trust.

Hollie if you can see that QW comes across as more angry or reactionary
than Asaratis or PratchettFan, can you see the same in yourself?

Do all these people really look the same to you?
how can you argue with Asartis not to lump all Atheists
together as one collective ID under a religion
if you lump all people together and don't distinguish
who is angry and who is being open and fair and not projecting anger?


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> su·per·nat·u·ral·ism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (s
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> p
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> r-n
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> r-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -l
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> m)
> _n._
> *1. *The quality of being supernatural.
> *2. *Belief in a supernatural agency that intervenes in the course of natural laws.
> 
> Therefore, the religion of Christianity is not a religion at all. It is the belief system of supernaturalism. Some of its adherents being _Fundamentalist Supernaturalists_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be honest now, someone is writing those jokes for you. You are getting funnier every day.
Click to expand...

Be honest. You're just incapable of stringing words into coherent sentences so you post these dull messages just to get attention.


----------



## dblack

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Atheism can be approached as a religion. And I'm not insisting that a religion has to involve gods. I'm just rejecting the notion that a belief about the existence of gods, in and of itself, constitutes a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet that is exactly what some atheist define religion as. They refuse to accept the idea that one can believe in the existence of gods and not be religious. That is sealy's, among others I could name, major hangup. They cannot accept the reality religion is not defined by what you believe, it is defined by how you approach those beliefs.
Click to expand...


That's a good point. In fact, I'd classify myself as someone who believes in the existence of gods (though I might not accept every power attributed to a given god), yet I'm not religious. I don't follow any god.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
> You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.
> 
> Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.
> 
> Please stick this out to the end.
> We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
> and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.
> 
> If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
> like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.
> 
> If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
> and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
> until we can get to the ones underneath?  please do not give up and walk away.
> I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
> every step to get there.
> 
> the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
> when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
> what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> I've not left yet.  However, all things must come to an end....eventually.  It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.
> 
> The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:
> 
> dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
> use strawman arguments
> infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
> post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
> either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
> incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say
> These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here.  While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults.  It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger.  It takes a lot to piss me off.  No poster here has ever come close.
> 
> I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan.  Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's not a great of logic behind your admitted fraud as the purpose of this thread.
> 
> Not surprisingly, your bulleted items precisely define your failed attempts to bolster your religious dogma as opposed to actually furthering a defendable argument.
Click to expand...

#1
I've not admitted to fraud of any sort here.

#2
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the OP claim that Atheism is NOT a religion. 

#3
My arguments have linked references to support my claims.  Some of them are irrefutable.  Some of them can be refuted only by inserting a redefinition of a long standing definition of _atheist._

You fail again.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> If you bind your bibles together with duct tape, they're a more formidable weapon than mere gargantuan text as a way to force your superstitious beliefs on others.



Hollie: forced faith is not faith at all but fake.

Teaching Christianity is like teaching forgiveness.
it cannot be forced or it is faked.

it can only be chosen freely in order to be real.
And only taught by example where forgiveness inspires others to forgive.

Hollie have you ever met anyone who could pretend to forgive and it would be real?
have you ever seen any case of forgiveness that was forced?

this is not possible.

I think you do not understand what Christianity means
because the only examples you have seen were false, fear based, and forced.

That is Antichrist and the opposite of what Christ means.

human nature and conscience is based on free will and reason.
anything forced on people by fear is false and not the truth which is chosen freely in order to work.

all your understanding about religion and Christianity
appears to be based on the religious abuse of it.

This is like judging math and science to be full of flaws and impossible
to make sense of by only looking at the errors and false science,
like the sun revolving around the earth or like man evolving from apes,
which is not true science but the false teachings. if you would not
judge science by the wrong way to teach it, why judge religions by the wrongs.

that is the opposite approach I don't recommend.

to correct what is wrong with religion the most effective
ways is to find the teachers within that religion who are
effective at correcting peers. then they correct it from inside that group.
just like finding the best math teachers, and letting them correct the math mistakes.
in the process you get rid of the errors and people abusing math to teach wrong answers.
those get corrected by letting the effective teachers teach the right answers instead!


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
> You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.
> 
> Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.
> 
> Please stick this out to the end.
> We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
> and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.
> 
> If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
> like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.
> 
> If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
> and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
> until we can get to the ones underneath?  please do not give up and walk away.
> I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
> every step to get there.
> 
> the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
> when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
> what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> I've not left yet.  However, all things must come to an end....eventually.  It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.
> 
> The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:
> 
> dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
> use strawman arguments
> infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
> post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
> either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
> incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say
> These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here.  While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults.  It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger.  It takes a lot to piss me off.  No poster here has ever come close.
> 
> I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan.  Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's not a great of logic behind your admitted fraud as the purpose of this thread.
> 
> Not surprisingly, your bulleted items precisely define your failed attempts to bolster your religious dogma as opposed to actually furthering a defendable argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> #1
> I've not admitted to fraud of any sort here.
> 
> #2
> The purpose of this thread is to discuss the OP claim that Atheism is NOT a religion.
> 
> #3
> My arguments have linked references to support my claims.  Some of them are irrefutable.  Some of them can be refuted only by inserting a redefinition of a long standing definition of _atheist._
> 
> You fail again.
Click to expand...

Does the jeebus approve of your behavior?

Really, how desperate have you become that your posts are drenched in gargantuan text? You're like a petulant child who has dropped to the floor and is kicking and stomping his feet because he's not getting the attention he thinks he deserves. 

No one is suggesting that you can't believe in spirit realms and versions of supernatural entities. It's just that your false claims and distorted worldview which derive from your underlying ideology of hate cause you to make unsupportable claims.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sorry asaratis I also misread Hollie's post, and went back and revised my response.

Can we look at it this way:
1. With Buddhism, yes this is recognized as a collective belief system or religion, Hinduism also.
yet followers of spiritual laws will say they do not practice this as a religion.
So both are going on.

2. With Constitutionalism, I am aware I am part of a larger collective group that teaches this religiously
as a universal set of laws that apply to all people on some level. 
yet my friends who teach the same things, do not necessarily label themselves as Constiutionalist
and do not identify with that collective group or movement. I have a Muslim friend who uses
Mohammed's principles to teach religious freedom and follows the due process in the Bible
by nature not by consciously or religiously practicing doctrine on this, etc. 
so to him it is just the right way to address people, and is not part of the religion.

3. with liberal views and beliefs, some of this is tied to the Democrat party formally
and some is independent. Some do not have any allegiance or relate to the 
Democrats or liberal politicians or media as a collective identity as others lump together as one huge movement.

4. with feminism or secular humanism,
some are aligned and draw authority or empowerment as a collective identity or group.

some are independent and not aligned and dont see themselves as a religious body.

Asaratis why can't it be both things?

Are all MEN members of a religious group because men's brains tend to prioritize the same way
and create a collective mindset?

Are all WOMEN part of the feminist mindset that focuses on women's perspectives?

How can you lump all Atheists together?
Not all Blacks follow some preconceived notion of the Black Movement.
Some are independent and have their own approach to empowerment of themselves
and others as members of the Black community, but they are not aligned as one identity or agenda.



asaratis said:


> #1
> I've not admitted to fraud of any sort here.
> 
> #2
> The purpose of this thread is to discuss the OP claim that Atheism is NOT a religion.
> 
> #3
> My arguments have linked references to support my claims.  Some of them are irrefutable.  Some of them can be refuted only by inserting a redefinition of a long standing definition of _atheist._
> 
> You fail again.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Does the jeebus approve of your behavior?
> 
> Really, how desperate have you become that your posts are drenched in gargantuan text? You're like a petulant child who has dropped to the floor and is kicking and stomping his feet because he's not getting the attention he thinks he deserves.
> 
> No one is suggesting that you can't believe in spirit realms and versions of supernatural entities. It's just that your false claims and distorted worldview which derive from your underlying ideology of hate cause you to make unsupportable claims.



???? Hollie may I ask where are you getting this perception?
The strongest reactions I have seen are from QW and they
are far from a child kicking and stomping.

I can see you doing indirect namecalling by throwing in references to enabling worship of a murderous god.

where is Asaratis saying something like this.
the worst he said is you were too obtuse to argue with.

I called it you projecting your views of abusive religions and Christianity
onto me and him when we are separate from that.

Hollie how can you ask Asaratis to distinguish you and other atheist thinkers
from some collective movement or identity in his mind,
if you keep associating us with some collective notion of religion or Christianity?

why not set an example of how to separate use from that collective image in your mind?
if you are going to ask Asaratis not to lump you together with other Atheists under one convenient religious label?

Can you please show Asaratis an example of how it's done?
how to separate you as the individual from the collective perception or group?

Can you please try to do that with us? Thanks Hollie
I don't think you are too obtuse, I think you are rightfully
indignant abotu religious abuses that nobody seems to be addressing;
however from my experience it takes this approach to correct those problems
with religious abuse CAUSED by lumping people together and trying to
judge or punish them collectively. the first step is to address each other one on one
and quit addressing each other as if we represent some larger group not present outside of ourselves.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> I've not left yet.  However, all things must come to an end....eventually.  It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.
> 
> The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:
> 
> dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
> use strawman arguments
> infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
> post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
> either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
> incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say
> These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here.  While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults.  It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger.  It takes a lot to piss me off.  No poster here has ever come close.
> 
> I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan.  Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.
> 
> 
> 
> There's not a great of logic behind your admitted fraud as the purpose of this thread.
> 
> Not surprisingly, your bulleted items precisely define your failed attempts to bolster your religious dogma as opposed to actually furthering a defendable argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've not tried to bolster religious dogma. I've tried to stay on the topic of whether Atheism is a religion or not.  I really, actually, honest to God do not give a tinker's damn whether you adopt any dogma at all.  Atheism is a religion and you are just too goddamned hard headed to agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You confuse your nonsensical "... because I say so", meme as a valid argument. That may work at your madrassah with a captive audience of like-minded, slack-jawed types but honestly Bunky, your attempts to force your religious beliefs on others is a waste of your time.
> 
> I know, right. There was a time when mere rumor or speculation was enough to send a Christian mob on a mission to do gawds work and burn me at the stake for refusing your forced religion.
> 
> Most of the world has grown up. Try it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you are being obtuse.  I don't try to force my religious beliefs on anyone.  To state that Atheism is a religion is NOT a religious belief.  The fact that Atheism is a religion does not mean that its doctrine must be similar to that of other religions.  So far as I care, its doctrine can and will remain as it is today...to incessantly ridicule, scorn and attack other religions.  I don't expect anything about Atheism and Atheists to change.  I simply argue against the posit the Atheism is not a religion.
> 
> It is a religion.  That has been proved here in this thread.  It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless.  If you claim that you have no belief in deities, then you are agnostic and not Atheist.  If you claim that deities do not exist, you are an Atheist.  All this Richard Dawkins bullshit about a sliding scale is just that...bullshit.  The word _atheist_ was defined centuries ago.  It is only the modern day Atheists that want to change it...for what reason I do not know....save maybe that you don't even want to be associated with the word _religion_ except to be known as religions arch enemy.   I see your dilemma...don't you just hate yourself?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're left with your whining about atheism being a religion yet you offer nothing to support that claim.
> 
> What a shame, for you, that you angry fundies are not able to force your superstitious beliefs on others.
Click to expand...

  The needle is stuck on your record player, Hollie.  That's the same bullshit gibberish you posted before.


----------



## emilynghiem

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're left with your whining about atheism being a religion yet you offer nothing to support that claim.
> 
> What a shame, for you, that you angry fundies are not able to force your superstitious beliefs on others.
> 
> 
> 
> The needle is stuck on your record player, Hollie.  That's the same bullshit gibberish you posted before.
Click to expand...


Hi Asaratis and Hollie: can we skip the repeats and fast foward to get someplace good with this?

Can you answer this question
1. if there can be a Black Movement or a Women's Movement
and this is recognized as an organized identity or belief even loosely combined
2. can't there still be independent
Blacks or Women NOT associated with these movements
who have independent beliefs about empowering fellow Blacks
or equalizing respect for women that is NOT tied to the collective beliefs?

So can't this be true of Atheists?
Just because some people recognize a collective identity going on,
can't there be independent types who aren't part of that movement?


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
> You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.
> 
> Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.
> 
> Please stick this out to the end.
> We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
> and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.
> 
> If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
> like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.
> 
> If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
> and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
> until we can get to the ones underneath?  please do not give up and walk away.
> I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
> every step to get there.
> 
> the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
> when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
> what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> I've not left yet.  However, all things must come to an end....eventually.  It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.
> 
> The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:
> 
> dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
> use strawman arguments
> infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
> post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
> either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
> incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say
> These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here.  While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults.  It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger.  It takes a lot to piss me off.  No poster here has ever come close.
> 
> I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan.  Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's not a great of logic behind your admitted fraud as the purpose of this thread.
> 
> Not surprisingly, your bulleted items precisely define your failed attempts to bolster your religious dogma as opposed to actually furthering a defendable argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> #1
> I've not admitted to fraud of any sort here.
> 
> #2
> The purpose of this thread is to discuss the OP claim that Atheism is NOT a religion.
> 
> #3
> My arguments have linked references to support my claims.  Some of them are irrefutable.  Some of them can be refuted only by inserting a redefinition of a long standing definition of _atheist._
> 
> You fail again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does the jeebus approve of your behavior?
> 
> Really, how desperate have you become that your posts are drenched in gargantuan text? You're like a petulant child who has dropped to the floor and is kicking and stomping his feet because he's not getting the attention he thinks he deserves.
> 
> No one is suggesting that you can't believe in spirit realms and versions of supernatural entities. It's just that your false claims and distorted worldview which derive from your underlying ideology of hate cause you to make unsupportable claims.
Click to expand...

With that, dear child, you absolutely take the cake of incorrigibility.  You are beyond help by anyone other than a professional clinical psychologist.  Should one happen to read this thread he/she would likely want to meet you in person to see if you really can't keep up.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's not a great of logic behind your admitted fraud as the purpose of this thread.
> 
> Not surprisingly, your bulleted items precisely define your failed attempts to bolster your religious dogma as opposed to actually furthering a defendable argument.
> 
> 
> 
> I've not tried to bolster religious dogma. I've tried to stay on the topic of whether Atheism is a religion or not.  I really, actually, honest to God do not give a tinker's damn whether you adopt any dogma at all.  Atheism is a religion and you are just too goddamned hard headed to agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You confuse your nonsensical "... because I say so", meme as a valid argument. That may work at your madrassah with a captive audience of like-minded, slack-jawed types but honestly Bunky, your attempts to force your religious beliefs on others is a waste of your time.
> 
> I know, right. There was a time when mere rumor or speculation was enough to send a Christian mob on a mission to do gawds work and burn me at the stake for refusing your forced religion.
> 
> Most of the world has grown up. Try it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you are being obtuse.  I don't try to force my religious beliefs on anyone.  To state that Atheism is a religion is NOT a religious belief.  The fact that Atheism is a religion does not mean that its doctrine must be similar to that of other religions.  So far as I care, its doctrine can and will remain as it is today...to incessantly ridicule, scorn and attack other religions.  I don't expect anything about Atheism and Atheists to change.  I simply argue against the posit the Atheism is not a religion.
> 
> It is a religion.  That has been proved here in this thread.  It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless.  If you claim that you have no belief in deities, then you are agnostic and not Atheist.  If you claim that deities do not exist, you are an Atheist.  All this Richard Dawkins bullshit about a sliding scale is just that...bullshit.  The word _atheist_ was defined centuries ago.  It is only the modern day Atheists that want to change it...for what reason I do not know....save maybe that you don't even want to be associated with the word _religion_ except to be known as religions arch enemy.   I see your dilemma...don't you just hate yourself?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're left with your whining about atheism being a religion yet you offer nothing to support that claim.
> 
> What a shame, for you, that you angry fundies are not able to force your superstitious beliefs on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The needle is stuck on your record player, Hollie.  That's the same bullshit gibberish you posted before.
Click to expand...

It was a further refutation of your baseless screeching. For all your frantic and really pathetic attempts to force your beliefs on others, you're now reduced to screeching with gargantuan fonts. 

How sad that you're unwilling to accept that the entirety of your false arguments, now discredited, results in your silly rants and tantrums.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
> You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.
> 
> Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.
> 
> Please stick this out to the end.
> We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
> and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.
> 
> If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
> like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.
> 
> If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
> and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
> until we can get to the ones underneath?  please do not give up and walk away.
> I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
> every step to get there.
> 
> the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
> when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
> what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> I've not left yet.  However, all things must come to an end....eventually.  It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.
> 
> The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:
> 
> dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
> use strawman arguments
> infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
> post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
> either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
> incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say
> These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here.  While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults.  It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger.  It takes a lot to piss me off.  No poster here has ever come close.
> 
> I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan.  Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's not a great of logic behind your admitted fraud as the purpose of this thread.
> 
> Not surprisingly, your bulleted items precisely define your failed attempts to bolster your religious dogma as opposed to actually furthering a defendable argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> #1
> I've not admitted to fraud of any sort here.
> 
> #2
> The purpose of this thread is to discuss the OP claim that Atheism is NOT a religion.
> 
> #3
> My arguments have linked references to support my claims.  Some of them are irrefutable.  Some of them can be refuted only by inserting a redefinition of a long standing definition of _atheist._
> 
> You fail again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does the jeebus approve of your behavior?
> 
> Really, how desperate have you become that your posts are drenched in gargantuan text? You're like a petulant child who has dropped to the floor and is kicking and stomping his feet because he's not getting the attention he thinks he deserves.
> 
> No one is suggesting that you can't believe in spirit realms and versions of supernatural entities. It's just that your false claims and distorted worldview which derive from your underlying ideology of hate cause you to make unsupportable claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With that, dear child, you absolutely take the cake of incorrigibility.  You are beyond help by anyone other than a professional clinical psychologist.  Should one happen to read this thread he/she would likely want to meet you in person to see if you really can't keep up.
Click to expand...


And for all your whining, your attempts at argument are thoroughly discredited. 

Pathetic personal attacks are all you have left.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi Hollie: How is Asaratis posting his statement that Atheism is a religion
any different from you posting that God has proven not to exist?

If you have both failed to see any proof otherwise,
that is up to you. If it is not your responsibility if Asaratis
has provided no proof of his statement that makes sense to you,
what about your statement that is not proven in a way that makes sense to others either?

doesn't trying to prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of God
rely on agreement or understanding between people what we mean by God?

Doesn't trying to prove or disprove that Atheism is a religion or not
depend on agreement or understanding what each person means by religion?

How is this not relative?



Hollie said:


> And for all your whining, your attempts at argument are thoroughly discredited.
> 
> Pathetic personal attacks are all you have left.


----------



## asaratis

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the jeebus approve of your behavior?
> 
> Really, how desperate have you become that your posts are drenched in gargantuan text? You're like a petulant child who has dropped to the floor and is kicking and stomping his feet because he's not getting the attention he thinks he deserves.
> 
> No one is suggesting that you can't believe in spirit realms and versions of supernatural entities. It's just that your false claims and distorted worldview which derive from your underlying ideology of hate cause you to make unsupportable claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???? Hollie may I ask where are you getting this perception?
> The strongest reactions I have seen are from QW and they
> are far from a child kicking and stomping.
> 
> I can see you doing indirect namecalling by throwing in references to enabling worship of a murderous god.
> 
> where is Asaratis saying something like this.
> the worst he said is you were too obtuse to argue with.
> 
> I called it you projecting your views of abusive religions and Christianity
> onto me and him when we are separate from that.
> 
> Hollie how can you ask Asaratis to distinguish you and other atheist thinkers
> from some collective movement or identity in his mind,
> if you keep associating us with some collective notion of religion or Christianity?
> 
> why not set an example of how to separate use from that collective image in your mind?
> if you are going to ask Asaratis not to lump you together with other Atheists under one convenient religious label?
> 
> Can you please show Asaratis an example of how it's done?
> how to separate you as the individual from the collective perception or group?
> 
> Can you please try to do that with us? Thanks Hollie
> I don't think you are too obtuse, I think you are rightfully
> indignant abotu religious abuses that nobody seems to be addressing;
> however from my experience it takes this approach to correct those problems
> with religious abuse CAUSED by lumping people together and trying to
> judge or punish them collectively. the first step is to address each other one on one
> and quit addressing each other as if we represent some larger group not present outside of ourselves.
Click to expand...

Emily,
I do hate to point out a flaw in your post.  You are such a polite poster.  However, I do not lump all Atheists together.  I do not lump all (insert a defined group of similar people) together.  I firmly believe in the bell shaped curve.  It applies to all large samples of seemingly identical beings.

Draw a big circle and imagine that if contains all Atheists.  Draw a smaller circle within that circle and imagine that it contains religious Atheists only.  It does not matter to me which Atheists claim not to be within the smaller circle.  They are still within the large circle.

The fact that Atheism itself is a religion, does not mean that all Atheists are religious.

You might also draw an even smaller circle within the small circle and imagine it contains all religious Atheists that are members of an Atheist church.  Within that third circle, you might draw a miniscule circle to contain all of the religious Atheist church members that actually attend church services.

The above can be applied to any religion.  Not all Baptists are religious.  Not all Jews are religious. Not all Catholics are religious.  Not all Christians are "fundies".  Not all Christians deny evolution.

None of the above changes the fact that Atheism is a religion.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> It was a further refutation of your baseless screeching. For all your frantic and really pathetic attempts to force your beliefs on others, you're now reduced to screeching with gargantuan fonts.
> 
> How sad that you're unwilling to accept that the entirety of your false arguments, now discredited, results in your silly rants and tantrums.



Dear Hollie:
What about your statements about Christianity that sound like forcing your beliefs on others?
Did you not assume and portray Christianity as worship of some murderous god?

I don't believe it is true to teach anything in Christianity or religion in that way.
So I disagree this is the correct meaning of Christianity.

Do you agree to drop this, or just say that some people are misteaching Christianity
as false worship of a false concept of God?

If I don't agree or believe in teaching Christianity by your limited definition,
aren't you forcing your beliefs on others
the same way you say Asaratis is forcing the "belief" that Atheism is a religion,
based on how he sees or prioritizes things?

If his way counts as forcing beliefs on others,
what about your beliefs concerning the Christian God as murderous?


----------



## emilynghiem

Great! this helps and thank you for the clarification.
Now can we take it a step further,
that just because some people fit in these two groups
doesn't mean either of these applies to a third group
that is neither religious about it nor sees themselves as religious
in the definition or terms you provide. they don't relate to either one.

Is that okay also?

Incidentally I do see Hollie as being religious anti-theist right now.
I was hoping that could change. that is not from her atheist view directly.
there are many atheists who are not anti-theist.
so this part of her that gets religious about opposing theists
does come across as religious and pushing an agenda to counteract such theism.
(the reason I don't blame this all on Hollie is that to resolve it usually takes
mutual change connected with other people; so it is a mutual responsibility
to correct this and cannot always be done by one person out of the larger context).

this anti-theism is independent of "atheism per se" but gets into political conflict, reactions,
and behavior on the curve of recovery from past incidents that attached these negative associations.

thanks for your corrections.
this helps a lot!
can we take it one more step and recognize a third group as well
that do not see themselves as affiliated with the other two groupings?

I agree all are going on, and do not negate each other
there are always some people who are independent
and this happens with any group, why not with Atheists also.



asaratis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the jeebus approve of your behavior?
> 
> Really, how desperate have you become that your posts are drenched in gargantuan text? You're like a petulant child who has dropped to the floor and is kicking and stomping his feet because he's not getting the attention he thinks he deserves.
> 
> No one is suggesting that you can't believe in spirit realms and versions of supernatural entities. It's just that your false claims and distorted worldview which derive from your underlying ideology of hate cause you to make unsupportable claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???? Hollie may I ask where are you getting this perception?
> The strongest reactions I have seen are from QW and they
> are far from a child kicking and stomping.
> 
> I can see you doing indirect namecalling by throwing in references to enabling worship of a murderous god.
> 
> where is Asaratis saying something like this.
> the worst he said is you were too obtuse to argue with.
> 
> I called it you projecting your views of abusive religions and Christianity
> onto me and him when we are separate from that.
> 
> Hollie how can you ask Asaratis to distinguish you and other atheist thinkers
> from some collective movement or identity in his mind,
> if you keep associating us with some collective notion of religion or Christianity?
> 
> why not set an example of how to separate use from that collective image in your mind?
> if you are going to ask Asaratis not to lump you together with other Atheists under one convenient religious label?
> 
> Can you please show Asaratis an example of how it's done?
> how to separate you as the individual from the collective perception or group?
> 
> Can you please try to do that with us? Thanks Hollie
> I don't think you are too obtuse, I think you are rightfully
> indignant abotu religious abuses that nobody seems to be addressing;
> however from my experience it takes this approach to correct those problems
> with religious abuse CAUSED by lumping people together and trying to
> judge or punish them collectively. the first step is to address each other one on one
> and quit addressing each other as if we represent some larger group not present outside of ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily,
> I do hate to point out a flaw in your post.  You are such a polite poster.  However, I do not lump all Atheists together.  I do not lump all (insert a defined group of similar people) together.  I firmly believe in the bell shaped curve.  It applies to all large samples of seemingly identical beings.
> 
> Draw a big circle and imagine that if contains all Atheists.  Draw a smaller circle within that circle and imagine that it contains religious Atheists only.  It does not matter to me which Atheists claim not to be within the smaller circle.  They are still within the large circle.
> 
> The fact that Atheism itself is a religion, does not mean that all Atheists are religious.
> 
> You might also draw an even smaller circle within the small circle and imagine it contains all religious Atheists that are members of an Atheist church.  Within that third circle, you might draw a miniscule circle to contain all of the religious Atheist church members that actually attend church services.
> 
> The above can be applied to any religion.  Not all Baptists are religious.  Not all Jews are religious. Not all Catholics are religious.  Not all Christians are "fundies".  Not all Christians deny evolution.
> 
> None of the above changes the fact that Atheism is a religion.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the jeebus approve of your behavior?
> 
> Really, how desperate have you become that your posts are drenched in gargantuan text? You're like a petulant child who has dropped to the floor and is kicking and stomping his feet because he's not getting the attention he thinks he deserves.
> 
> No one is suggesting that you can't believe in spirit realms and versions of supernatural entities. It's just that your false claims and distorted worldview which derive from your underlying ideology of hate cause you to make unsupportable claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???? Hollie may I ask where are you getting this perception?
> The strongest reactions I have seen are from QW and they
> are far from a child kicking and stomping.
> 
> I can see you doing indirect namecalling by throwing in references to enabling worship of a murderous god.
> 
> where is Asaratis saying something like this.
> the worst he said is you were too obtuse to argue with.
> 
> I called it you projecting your views of abusive religions and Christianity
> onto me and him when we are separate from that.
> 
> Hollie how can you ask Asaratis to distinguish you and other atheist thinkers
> from some collective movement or identity in his mind,
> if you keep associating us with some collective notion of religion or Christianity?
> 
> why not set an example of how to separate use from that collective image in your mind?
> if you are going to ask Asaratis not to lump you together with other Atheists under one convenient religious label?
> 
> Can you please show Asaratis an example of how it's done?
> how to separate you as the individual from the collective perception or group?
> 
> Can you please try to do that with us? Thanks Hollie
> I don't think you are too obtuse, I think you are rightfully
> indignant abotu religious abuses that nobody seems to be addressing;
> however from my experience it takes this approach to correct those problems
> with religious abuse CAUSED by lumping people together and trying to
> judge or punish them collectively. the first step is to address each other one on one
> and quit addressing each other as if we represent some larger group not present outside of ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily,
> I do hate to point out a flaw in your post.  You are such a polite poster.  However, I do not lump all Atheists together.  I do not lump all (insert a defined group of similar people) together.  I firmly believe in the bell shaped curve.  It applies to all large samples of seemingly identical beings.
> 
> Draw a big circle and imagine that if contains all Atheists.  Draw a smaller circle within that circle and imagine that it contains religious Atheists only.  It does not matter to me which Atheists claim not to be within the smaller circle.  They are still within the large circle.
> 
> The fact that Atheism itself is a religion, does not mean that all Atheists are religious.
> 
> You might also draw an even smaller circle within the small circle and imagine it contains all religious Atheists that are members of an Atheist church.  Within that third circle, you might draw a miniscule circle to contain all of the religious Atheist church members that actually attend church services.
> 
> The above can be applied to any religion.  Not all Baptists are religious.  Not all Jews are religious. Not all Catholics are religious.  Not all Christians are "fundies".  Not all Christians deny evolution.
> 
> None of the above changes the fact that Atheism is a religion.
Click to expand...

There's no fact that defines atheism as a religion. 

Being an adherent to a cult that has ambiguous definitions of reality and the supernatural, we many have to excuse your inability to distinguish between the two. Let's just not pretend that you are a reliable source for determining facts when your agenda of religious fundamentalism is a bit fact challenged.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi Hollie:
Totally depends on how people define religion or God for these statements to stand.
How Asaratis describes defines and uses religion to include Atheism is consistent within his system.

Likewise, with God per se, 
defining God to mean Nature or forces/laws of Nature would mean God exists
provided you believe Nature or laws of Nature do exist.

If you don't agree with using God to mean that,
then there is where you argument is coming from.

Same with religion.
You and I may not agree fully with how Asaratis uses it.
To me, he explained how he uses it so that is valid for him.

I agree with you, it is going to cause conflicts with those who do not use or see it that way.
Same with why you insist God is proven not to exist,
and I keep saying it depends what you mean by God.

We could keep arguing in circles this way.
Or we could talk about what we mean and quit judging each other
if we don't use terms the same way across our different systems of dividing the spectrum.

I don't fully agree with Asaratis way, but I understand that is how he divides the spectrum.
I am trying to respect his way for him,
as I respect your way for you.

If we know we are not using the terms God and religion the same
way, at what point can we agree to talk about the contents and meaning
and not get lost in the terminology.

Do we agree there are three different levels:
1. the collective level of labeling a group a religion
2. the practical level of acting religious
3. the independent level where people do not see it as religious and do
not see themselves as acting religious, ie do not relate to either 1 or 2

If all three are going on, let's address these separately by content,
and don't get confused if someone uses religion to mean
some of these but not others. 

Same with how I approach God
1. God as collective truth, wisdom, knowledge
2. God's laws as universal science, nature, etc.
3. God as unconditional love or life energy and forces in life toward good
If one person understands Wisdom and the Universal laws without personifying a creator
why argue about that. why not focus on what are the universal laws we all relate to underneath the symbolism.
Isn't that more important as the main purpose anyway, to understand the workings in life in order to seek the greatest good?



Hollie said:


> There's no fact that defines atheism as a religion.
> 
> Being an adherent to a cult that has ambiguous definitions of reality and the supernatural, we many have to excuse your inability to distinguish between the two. Let's just not pretend that you are a reliable source for determining facts when your agenda of religious fundamentalism is a bit fact challenged.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="PratchettFan, post: 9828388, member: 37752"
> Really.  Which part isn't true?  Did you not say you think it is probable there is no God (I am number 6)?  Do you disagree with the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why you're so fixated with that Dawkins list.  I just happened to come across it online. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm right in between a 5 and a 6.
> 
> 5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.                        6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable                                 and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again, not answering the questions.  You said I was making shit up and I asked you to point out where.  You presented the list, not me.  Don't blame me for what you did.  You said you were a 6 and I took you at your word.  Don't blame me if you didn't mean it.  I have asked you if the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief and you have never once said it isn't.  In fact, you have never yet acknowledged the question.
> 
> Did you say you were a 6 on the Dawkins scale?  yes or no
> Do you agree the definition of Atheism is an absence of belief?  yes or no
> 
> I'll bet I don't get an answer.  Please prove me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking for something that isn't black and white, as you'd hoped.  Yes, I did say I was a 6, but now I think I'm between a 5 and 6, because this Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far. The Dawkins list is not going to fit every atheist like a glove, because all atheist are different.  No, I do not agree that the definition of atheism is an absence of belief.  I think it's a disbelief or doubt that there is a God/God's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was black and white because you claimed I had made it up.  I didn't.  And you were able to give me yes or no answers.  Not hard at all.
> 
> It doesn't matter to me where you fall on the scale.  Let's say you're a 5.5.  Sealybobo looks to be a 6.9.  I'm probably a 3.8.  All that shows is that Atheism is not a narrow concept as Pogo claims.  For that matter, neither is Theism.  Atheism entails a wide variance of belief from "eh" to "not a chance".  I'm at "yeah, I think there might be but I don't particularly give a damn".  There is nothing wrong with the belief at all.  It is just as valid as any theistic belief.  Nor does that belief make it a religion.
> 
> *What makes something a religion is not the belief but the construct built around the belief.*  If I say that I am certain there is no God, that is a statement of pure belief but that doesn't make it a religion.  However, if I say I am certain there is no God and anyone who thinks there might even be a chance there is a God isn't a true Atheist, then I am turning Atheism into a religion.  I am creating dogma.
Click to expand...





That's totally incorrect, because religion is the belief and worship of a superhuman power.  What you're saying is that religion is simply a belief, which is ridiculous. You're making up your own definition.[/QUOTE]

Religion is not a belief.... it is an action.


----------



## emilynghiem

PratchettFan said:


> Religion is not a belief.... it is an action.



Hi PF can't we acknowledge 3 different levels
1. belief on a purely abstract level
2. belief that is communicated in writing or spoken expression
where agreement or disagreement is manifested i nRELATIONS between
either people or with institutions
3. acting practicing or exercising those beliefs, or what you say is the action

I agree that technically govt should not be policing beliefs on a private level,
but when it comes to, say, exercising sacrifice of animals or people, or
having sex with children or multiple wives as part of one's beliefs,
those actions may conflict with criminal or civil laws and becomes an issue of the state.

However, what if I believe in consensus on policies in order to have equal protection and representation.
Isn't the current system of favoring only major political parties limiting the choice of
beliefs to just those ideologies, and precluding any room to exercise consensus?

What if as some prochoice and prolife people argue, the other views are imposing
so much that it is precluding and infringing on their ability to exercise their own beliefs?

if people do not agree how a law is WRITTEN that they already argue is
biased prolife or prochoice, the actions the law governs have not happened yet.
we are arguing on the other two levels of interpretation and legislation.

so those are also important to rsolve conflicts here, on those other levels
that are not physical actions of exercising one's beliefs yet.

in fact, in order to prevent conflicts on the level of action,
we would need to address beliefs on the other two levels.

if the state can only police actions, it is up to the people
to resolve the other levels privately ourselves. the level of
thought belief or interpretation and the level of written
and spoken perception and language in how we express these
in relationships or institutions that do influence other people.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="PratchettFan, post: 9828388, member: 37752"
> Really.  Which part isn't true?  Did you not say you think it is probable there is no God (I am number 6)?  Do you disagree with the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why you're so fixated with that Dawkins list.  I just happened to come across it online. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm right in between a 5 and a 6.
> 
> 5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.                        6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable                                 and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again, not answering the questions.  You said I was making shit up and I asked you to point out where.  You presented the list, not me.  Don't blame me for what you did.  You said you were a 6 and I took you at your word.  Don't blame me if you didn't mean it.  I have asked you if the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief and you have never once said it isn't.  In fact, you have never yet acknowledged the question.
> 
> Did you say you were a 6 on the Dawkins scale?  yes or no
> Do you agree the definition of Atheism is an absence of belief?  yes or no
> 
> I'll bet I don't get an answer.  Please prove me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking for something that isn't black and white, as you'd hoped.  Yes, I did say I was a 6, but now I think I'm between a 5 and 6, because this Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far. The Dawkins list is not going to fit every atheist like a glove, because all atheist are different.  No, I do not agree that the definition of atheism is an absence of belief.  I think it's a disbelief or doubt that there is a God/God's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was black and white because you claimed I had made it up.  I didn't.  And you were able to give me yes or no answers.  Not hard at all.
> 
> It doesn't matter to me where you fall on the scale.  Let's say you're a 5.5.  Sealybobo looks to be a 6.9.  I'm probably a 3.8.  All that shows is that Atheism is not a narrow concept as Pogo claims.  For that matter, neither is Theism.  Atheism entails a wide variance of belief from "eh" to "not a chance".  I'm at "yeah, I think there might be but I don't particularly give a damn".  There is nothing wrong with the belief at all.  It is just as valid as any theistic belief.  Nor does that belief make it a religion.
> 
> *What makes something a religion is not the belief but the construct built around the belief.*  If I say that I am certain there is no God, that is a statement of pure belief but that doesn't make it a religion.  However, if I say I am certain there is no God and anyone who thinks there might even be a chance there is a God isn't a true Atheist, then I am turning Atheism into a religion.  I am creating dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's totally incorrect, because religion is the belief and worship of a superhuman power.  What you're saying is that religion is simply a belief, which is ridiculous. You're making up your own definition.
Click to expand...


Religion is not a belief.... it is an action.[/QUOTE]



That's a new one.  Is jumping a religion?

Ridiculous.


----------



## PratchettFan

emilynghiem said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is not a belief.... it is an action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi PF can't we acknowledge 3 different levels
> 1. belief on a purely abstract level
> 2. belief that is communicated in writing or spoken expression
> where agreement or disagreement is manifested i nRELATIONS between
> either people or with institutions
> 3. acting practicing or exercising those beliefs, or what you say is the action
> 
> I agree that technically govt should not be policing beliefs on a private level,
> but when it comes to, say, exercising sacrifice of animals or people, or
> having sex with children or multiple wives as part of one's beliefs,
> those actions may conflict with criminal or civil laws and becomes an issue of the state.
> 
> However, what if I believe in consensus on policies in order to have equal protection and representation.
> Isn't the current system of favoring only major political parties limiting the choice of
> beliefs to just those ideologies, and precluding any room to exercise consensus?
> 
> What if as some prochoice and prolife people argue, the other views are imposing
> so much that it is precluding and infringing on their ability to exercise their own beliefs?
> 
> if people do not agree how a law is WRITTEN that they already argue is
> biased prolife or prochoice, the actions the law governs have not happened yet.
> we are arguing on the other two levels of interpretation and legislation.
> 
> so those are also important to rsolve conflicts here, on those other levels
> that are not physical actions of exercising one's beliefs yet.
> 
> in fact, in order to prevent conflicts on the level of action,
> we would need to address beliefs on the other two levels.
> 
> if the state can only police actions, it is up to the people
> to resolve the other levels privately ourselves. the level of
> thought belief or interpretation and the level of written
> and spoken perception and language in how we express these
> in relationships or institutions that do influence other people.
Click to expand...


No.  We can't.  I am talking about the nature of religion itself, which is a human action.  Belief is only an attribute of religion, it is not religion itself.  It is not even a particularly important attribute.


----------



## Carla_Danger

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When are religious beliefs involving magic and supernaturalism defined as   "Logical"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Hollie: here is some natural logic I have found taught in religions and even by atheists:
> 1. by forgiving ourselves and others, we detach from emotions that otherwise bias our judgment in negative ways.
> When we open ourselves to positive solutions, we are more apt to attract and receive that kind of help to solve problems.
> 
> This has been called the law of attraction, the abundance mentality,
> the power of positive thinking, and is the basis behind spiritual healing
> and even recovery from addiction and abuse like AA and ending codependency and enabling
> 
> letting go so we don't hold on to the very negative memories and emotions
> causing us suffering and stress that impedes our minds from seeing clearly and openly to solve problems
> 
> 2. law of cause and effect, karma, equal justice, reciprocity
> 
> if you live by retributive justice, you get that in return
> if you live by restorative justice, you invite that in return
> 
> ifyou want others to treat you with respect
> it helps to treat them with respect
> 
> if you reject others they tend to reject you
> 
> what comes around goes around
> you reap what you sow
> 
> The Golden Rule of Reciprocity is a universal natural law
> taught in all religions and even secular laws of equal justice and equal protection of the laws:
> 
> Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions
> 
> This is consistent with plain common sense about human nature.
> we tend to reciprocate, we respond to social cues from environment,
> we mimic people we trust and respect and reject people we don't.
> 
> How is this illogical just because it is taught in religion?
Click to expand...



That's funny, atheism isn't listed on your religious tolerance page.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why you're so fixated with that Dawkins list.  I just happened to come across it online. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm right in between a 5 and a 6.
> 
> 5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.                        6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable                                 and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again, not answering the questions.  You said I was making shit up and I asked you to point out where.  You presented the list, not me.  Don't blame me for what you did.  You said you were a 6 and I took you at your word.  Don't blame me if you didn't mean it.  I have asked you if the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief and you have never once said it isn't.  In fact, you have never yet acknowledged the question.
> 
> Did you say you were a 6 on the Dawkins scale?  yes or no
> Do you agree the definition of Atheism is an absence of belief?  yes or no
> 
> I'll bet I don't get an answer.  Please prove me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking for something that isn't black and white, as you'd hoped.  Yes, I did say I was a 6, but now I think I'm between a 5 and 6, because this Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far. The Dawkins list is not going to fit every atheist like a glove, because all atheist are different.  No, I do not agree that the definition of atheism is an absence of belief.  I think it's a disbelief or doubt that there is a God/God's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was black and white because you claimed I had made it up.  I didn't.  And you were able to give me yes or no answers.  Not hard at all.
> 
> It doesn't matter to me where you fall on the scale.  Let's say you're a 5.5.  Sealybobo looks to be a 6.9.  I'm probably a 3.8.  All that shows is that Atheism is not a narrow concept as Pogo claims.  For that matter, neither is Theism.  Atheism entails a wide variance of belief from "eh" to "not a chance".  I'm at "yeah, I think there might be but I don't particularly give a damn".  There is nothing wrong with the belief at all.  It is just as valid as any theistic belief.  Nor does that belief make it a religion.
> 
> *What makes something a religion is not the belief but the construct built around the belief.*  If I say that I am certain there is no God, that is a statement of pure belief but that doesn't make it a religion.  However, if I say I am certain there is no God and anyone who thinks there might even be a chance there is a God isn't a true Atheist, then I am turning Atheism into a religion.  I am creating dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's totally incorrect, because religion is the belief and worship of a superhuman power.  What you're saying is that religion is simply a belief, which is ridiculous. You're making up your own definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion is not a belief.... it is an action.
Click to expand...




That's a new one.  Is jumping a religion?

Ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

No.  Nor is jumping the same thing as swimming.  So I suppose you think swimming is not an action either.

You can sit quietly in a room and believe all you like, but that is not religion.  Religion requires people coming together, interacting, identifying themselves with the group and establishing doctrine.  Those are all actions.  Religion is an action.

You claim to be free of this belief in God.  If God is not a factor, then religion is entirely a human endeavor.  Why do you have such difficulty seeing it that way?


----------



## emilynghiem

PratchettFan said:


> No.  We can't.  I am talking about the nature of religion itself, which is a human action.  Belief is only an attribute of religion, it is not religion itself.  It is not even a particularly important attribute.



I agree with you that the belief is part of the religion, but not the religion itself.

can we talk about sharing or connecting beliefs between people in a relationship.
and that connection, expression or relationship is included in the religion.

can we talk about the collective level of beliefs, and how people like asaratis
are referring to this level when using the term religion as a collective belief shared by a common identity among people

and yes, can we also talk about the physical practice or rituals of religion

PF I understand you are focusing on how someone practices beliefs in action

what about the other levels also
* not just individual belief which I agree is not the religion itself
but the collective shared belief and mindset which asaratis is referring as a religious identity
* I tend to focus on religions as languages for expressing laws and principles
between likeminded people so it is a tool for communicating and enforcing shared principles
* you are saying it is the physical action that makes it a religion
and it is not enough just to have a belief, I understand that 

I agree the belief is not enough on its own, but it is the core part behind the rest

* one's belief about what is true or not
* one's expression of that belief
* one's perception or interpretation in relationship with other people

aren't all three levels going on as how beliefs are expressed or exercised as tangible religions?


----------



## emilynghiem

Neither is Constitutionalism or feminism or humanism which all push for equality.

I approach atheism not as someone's beliefs but way of communicating like a language.
If you are nontheist then we use nontheistic terms to discuss principles or points.
so within nontheism, it does not matter as much if you are Buddhist, secular humanity,
atheist or agnostic or how you define your beliefs. I am more focused on the language
people use. it looks like PF is more concerned with the physical practice and asaratis
sees the belief as what defines the religion.

where atheists fall on the list is if you believe in
* what comes aroudn goes around
* you treat others with equal respect you want to be treated with
* you get what you give and reap what you sow
these are natural laws of human behavior
so as long as atheists fall under secular gentiles who
follow natural laws, that includes atheists indirectly

wicca states it as do as you will but harm none
also seen this stated as your freedom ends where mine begins
in short we are under the same laws as equal humans and should respect for others what we want respected for us
just natural wisdom



Carla_Danger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When are religious beliefs involving magic and supernaturalism defined as   "Logical"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Hollie: here is some natural logic I have found taught in religions and even by atheists:
> 1. by forgiving ourselves and others, we detach from emotions that otherwise bias our judgment in negative ways.
> When we open ourselves to positive solutions, we are more apt to attract and receive that kind of help to solve problems.
> 
> This has been called the law of attraction, the abundance mentality,
> the power of positive thinking, and is the basis behind spiritual healing
> and even recovery from addiction and abuse like AA and ending codependency and enabling
> 
> letting go so we don't hold on to the very negative memories and emotions
> causing us suffering and stress that impedes our minds from seeing clearly and openly to solve problems
> 
> 2. law of cause and effect, karma, equal justice, reciprocity
> 
> if you live by retributive justice, you get that in return
> if you live by restorative justice, you invite that in return
> 
> ifyou want others to treat you with respect
> it helps to treat them with respect
> 
> if you reject others they tend to reject you
> 
> what comes around goes around
> you reap what you sow
> 
> The Golden Rule of Reciprocity is a universal natural law
> taught in all religions and even secular laws of equal justice and equal protection of the laws:
> 
> Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions
> 
> This is consistent with plain common sense about human nature.
> we tend to reciprocate, we respond to social cues from environment,
> we mimic people we trust and respect and reject people we don't.
> 
> How is this illogical just because it is taught in religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, atheism isn't listed on your religious tolerance page.
Click to expand...


----------



## PratchettFan

emilynghiem said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  We can't.  I am talking about the nature of religion itself, which is a human action.  Belief is only an attribute of religion, it is not religion itself.  It is not even a particularly important attribute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you that the belief is part of the religion, but not the religion itself.
> 
> can we talk about sharing or connecting beliefs between people in a relationship.
> and that connection, expression or relationship is included in the religion.
> 
> can we talk about the collective level of beliefs, and how people like asaratis
> are referring to this level when using the term religion as a collective belief shared by a common identity among people
> 
> and yes, can we also talk about the physical practice or rituals of religion
> 
> PF I understand you are focusing on how someone practices beliefs in action
> 
> what about the other levels also
> * not just individual belief which I agree is not the religion itself
> but the collective shared belief and mindset which asaratis is referring as a religious identity
> * I tend to focus on religions as languages for expressing laws and principles
> between likeminded people so it is a tool for communicating and enforcing shared principles
> * you are saying it is the physical action that makes it a religion
> and it is not enough just to have a belief, I understand that
> 
> I agree the belief is not enough on its own, but it is the core part behind the rest
> 
> * one's belief about what is true or not
> * one's expression of that belief
> * one's perception or interpretation in relationship with other people
> 
> aren't all three levels going on as how beliefs are expressed or exercised as tangible religions?
Click to expand...


I personally think religion is both more and less complicated than that.  I think it is a survival trait our species evolved in order to maintain social integrity.  Since it is an entirely group activity, it really doesn't matter whether an individual believes or finds any sort of fulfillment with it.  Just as it doesn't matter to a society as a whole if a single person dies of hunger.  Religion and government are essentially meeting the same need, but from different perspectives.  This is why all human societies have had religion as a central aspect of the society.  It doesn't matter what the belief is, all religions are the same once you strip them down to their essentials.


----------



## emilynghiem

PratchettFan said:


> I personally think religion is both more and less complicated than that.  I think it is a survival trait our species evolved in order to maintain social integrity.  Since it is an entirely group activity, it really doesn't matter whether an individual believes or finds any sort of fulfillment with it.  Just as it doesn't matter to a society as a whole if a single person dies of hunger.  Religion and government are essentially meeting the same need, but from different perspectives.  This is why all human societies have had religion as a central aspect of the society.  It doesn't matter what the belief is, all religions are the same once you strip them down to their essentials.



Hi PF yes I mostly agree with you.
I think the part where my faith may go one step further
is having faith that what we experience individually is like a microcosm of the whole.
there is a spiritual connection between the individual and collective level.
we co influence each other.

I see most religions or laws in both religion and politics
as a means of expressing that relationship between the individual and collective level
of either society, humanity, truth, etc.

so it does make a difference in how we act toward others
if we feel this connection or we do not

if I include you as my equal because what we experience in our relation
affects humanity's growth indireclty, I act differently towrds you
than someone who sees you as outside or adversarial

does that make sense

how each of us acts individually
collectively adds up to equal all humanity

so to me one aspect of faith is sensing and embracing that connection

the Bahai teach oneness of humanity
the Buddhists teach no separation between self and whole
and to let go attachment to individual selfish desire and work for the spiritual ideal for the whole
Christianity is to put love of neighbor and love of God on the same unconditional level and
just let go of our own material flesh and let this higher love flow through us and direct our lives

so this is the level that transforms individuals inside
and then the whole world as a result as the influence catches on


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> Well, then you're using a very narrow definition of atheist that really only encompasses one type of atheistic belief. Atheist is synonymous with non-theist. That's what the 'a' prefix means.
> 
> And you're using a popular misrepresentation of agnosticism. But in point of fact, it's possible for an agnostic to be either a theist, or an atheist.
> 
> If we were just disagreeing on definitions, it would be a pretty boring conversation, but I think both sides recognize there's more to it than that. The subtext here is the fact that our government treats religious beliefs and non-theist beliefs (science and philosophy) differently in matters of education and government sponsorship. So, those with a vested interest have strong incentive to manipulate the definitions used by government in determining which beliefs are considered 'religious' and which aren't.



Not at all, I am using it the way it is intended to be used. As evidence I present the following definitions.

Theism: the belief in god or gods.

Agnostiocism: Oops, not a word because it is not a belief.

Atheism: the belief that there are no gods.

If atheism simply meant not believing in god we wouldn't have another word to mean "I don't really know about god one way or another."

If you want to claim you do not have a belief you have to accept the fact that the word that you should use to describe that lack of belief is agnostic because it is the only word available to you that you cannot attach -ism to. By the way, that actually proves that you cannot be an agnostic theist, because if you are a theist you have a belief.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> That's a good point. In fact, I'd classify myself as someone who believes in the existence of gods (though I might not accept every power attributed to a given god), yet I'm not religious. I don't follow any god.



Bravo.

Just as an aside, most of the popular powers attributed to the God of Abraham do not come from the Bible, they come from Greek philosophy.


----------



## PratchettFan

emilynghiem said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally think religion is both more and less complicated than that.  I think it is a survival trait our species evolved in order to maintain social integrity.  Since it is an entirely group activity, it really doesn't matter whether an individual believes or finds any sort of fulfillment with it.  Just as it doesn't matter to a society as a whole if a single person dies of hunger.  Religion and government are essentially meeting the same need, but from different perspectives.  This is why all human societies have had religion as a central aspect of the society.  It doesn't matter what the belief is, all religions are the same once you strip them down to their essentials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi PF yes I mostly agree with you.
> I think the part where my faith may go one step further
> is having faith that what we experience individually is like a microcosm of the whole.
> there is a spiritual connection between the individual and collective level.
> we co influence each other.
> 
> I see most religions or laws in both religion and politics
> as a means of expressing that relationship between the individual and collective level
> of either society, humanity, truth, etc.
> 
> so it does make a difference in how we act toward others
> if we feel this connection or we do not
> 
> if I include you as my equal because what we experience in our relation
> affects humanity's growth indireclty, I act differently towrds you
> than someone who sees you as outside or adversarial
> 
> does that make sense
> 
> how each of us acts individually
> collectively adds up to equal all humanity
> 
> so to me one aspect of faith is sensing and embracing that connection
> 
> the Bahai teach oneness of humanity
> the Buddhists teach no separation between self and whole
> and to let go attachment to individual selfish desire and work for the spiritual ideal for the whole
> Christianity is to put love of neighbor and love of God on the same unconditional level and
> just let go of our own material flesh and let this higher love flow through us and direct our lives
> 
> so this is the level that transforms individuals inside
> and then the whole world as a result as the influence catches on
Click to expand...


I don't think there are influences and, if there are, they certainly don't catch on.  I think human beings have been treated other in the same way since the very beginning and they only thing we have done over our history is get more efficient at it.  Religions don't influence people, people create religions.  Christianity may speak about love, but Christians are not particularly loving.  Buddhists are no less selfish than anyone else.  I can't speak for Bahai, but I doubt they are any different.  Government and religion developed because without group identity the first thing we do is kill each other and then the lion eats the survivor.

Belief is involved because we are a species of believers.  This is another survival trait.  We believe the tiger is on the other side of the rock so we prepare for it.  That way we don't get surprised.  We don't like gaps because things with teeth and claws tend to be in the gaps.  So we make things up.  A lot of great art exists because of that.


----------



## emilynghiem

Quantum Windbag said:


> Not at all, I am using it the way it is intended to be used. As evidence I present the following definitions.
> 
> Theism: the belief in god or gods.
> 
> Agnostiocism: Oops, not a word because it is not a belief.
> 
> Atheism: the belief that there are no gods.
> 
> If atheism simply meant not believing in god we wouldn't have another word to mean "I don't really know about god one way or another."
> 
> If you want to claim you do not have a belief you have to accept the fact that the word that you should use to describe that lack of belief is agnostic because it is the only word available to you that you cannot attach -ism to. By the way, that actually proves that you cannot be an agnostic theist, because if you are a theist you have a belief.



Hi Quantum Windbag:
I'll try to use this to show the difference.

With THEISM, yes, my beliefs fall under THEISM yet I do not relate to this as a religion
or feel it represents my views.

I prefer to go through the list of all THEIST systems and say that
Constitutional beliefs that natural laws come from God are closest to my views
and relate to CONSTITUTIONALISM but not THEISM as my religion.

I can only guess that ATHEISTS on here may be doing similar.

Just because Theist or Nontheist/Atheist DESCRIBES the general category of our ways of seeing and saying things
does not mean that THEISM or ATHEISM is our religion.

in fact, my language is more Nontheist or secular gentile like an atheist who doesn't follow any God or religion.

I have the faith the same as a theist or christian
but I express it like a nontheist secular gentile or constitutionalist using natural laws.

so from that perspective
THEIST and Atheist or Nontheist
are more like descriptions and not religions unto themselves

I can understand this

I don't relate to being called a Theist just because my beliefs include theist beliefs and
i can use theist language

I can equally include nontheist language and beliefs
and prefer to focus on Constitutional and natural laws that are secular in focus and language

does this help at all

thanks QW


----------



## dblack

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then you're using a very narrow definition of atheist that really only encompasses one type of atheistic belief. Atheist is synonymous with non-theist. That's what the 'a' prefix means.
> 
> And you're using a popular misrepresentation of agnosticism. But in point of fact, it's possible for an agnostic to be either a theist, or an atheist.
> 
> If we were just disagreeing on definitions, it would be a pretty boring conversation, but I think both sides recognize there's more to it than that. The subtext here is the fact that our government treats religious beliefs and non-theist beliefs (science and philosophy) differently in matters of education and government sponsorship. So, those with a vested interest have strong incentive to manipulate the definitions used by government in determining which beliefs are considered 'religious' and which aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I am using it the way it is intended to be used. As evidence I present the following definitions.
> 
> Theism: the belief in god or gods.
> 
> Agnostiocism: Oops, not a word because it is not a belief.
> 
> Atheism: the belief that there are no gods.
> 
> If atheism simply meant not believing in god we wouldn't have another word to mean "I don't really know about god one way or another."
> 
> If you want to claim you do not have a belief you have to accept the fact that the word that you should use to describe that lack of belief is agnostic because it is the only word available to you that you cannot attach -ism to. By the way, that actually proves that you cannot be an agnostic theist, because if you are a theist you have a belief.
Click to expand...


Yeah. We're dealing with different definitions. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with the campaign to have evolution treated as an atheistic religious belief in regard to school curricula?


----------



## asaratis

emilynghiem said:


> Great! this helps and thank you for the clarification.
> Now can we take it a step further,
> that just because some people fit in these two groups
> doesn't mean either of these applies to a third group
> that is neither religious about it nor sees themselves as religious
> in the definition or terms you provide. they don't relate to either one.
> 
> Is that okay also?
> 
> Incidentally I do see Hollie as being religious anti-theist right now.
> I was hoping that could change. that is not from her atheist view directly.
> there are many atheists who are not anti-theist.
> so this part of her that gets religious about opposing theists
> does come across as religious and pushing an agenda to counteract such theism.
> (the reason I don't blame this all on Hollie is that to resolve it usually takes
> mutual change connected with other people; so it is a mutual responsibility
> to correct this and cannot always be done by one person out of the larger context).
> 
> this anti-theism is independent of "atheism per se" but gets into political conflict, reactions,
> and behavior on the curve of recovery from past incidents that attached these negative associations.
> 
> thanks for your corrections.
> this helps a lot!
> can we take it one more step and recognize a third group as well
> that do not see themselves as affiliated with the other two groupings?
> 
> I agree all are going on, and do not negate each other
> there are always some people who are independent
> and this happens with any group, why not with Atheists also.
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the jeebus approve of your behavior?
> 
> Really, how desperate have you become that your posts are drenched in gargantuan text? You're like a petulant child who has dropped to the floor and is kicking and stomping his feet because he's not getting the attention he thinks he deserves.
> 
> No one is suggesting that you can't believe in spirit realms and versions of supernatural entities. It's just that your false claims and distorted worldview which derive from your underlying ideology of hate cause you to make unsupportable claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???? Hollie may I ask where are you getting this perception?
> The strongest reactions I have seen are from QW and they
> are far from a child kicking and stomping.
> 
> I can see you doing indirect namecalling by throwing in references to enabling worship of a murderous god.
> 
> where is Asaratis saying something like this.
> the worst he said is you were too obtuse to argue with.
> 
> I called it you projecting your views of abusive religions and Christianity
> onto me and him when we are separate from that.
> 
> Hollie how can you ask Asaratis to distinguish you and other atheist thinkers
> from some collective movement or identity in his mind,
> if you keep associating us with some collective notion of religion or Christianity?
> 
> why not set an example of how to separate use from that collective image in your mind?
> if you are going to ask Asaratis not to lump you together with other Atheists under one convenient religious label?
> 
> Can you please show Asaratis an example of how it's done?
> how to separate you as the individual from the collective perception or group?
> 
> Can you please try to do that with us? Thanks Hollie
> I don't think you are too obtuse, I think you are rightfully
> indignant abotu religious abuses that nobody seems to be addressing;
> however from my experience it takes this approach to correct those problems
> with religious abuse CAUSED by lumping people together and trying to
> judge or punish them collectively. the first step is to address each other one on one
> and quit addressing each other as if we represent some larger group not present outside of ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily,
> I do hate to point out a flaw in your post.  You are such a polite poster.  However, I do not lump all Atheists together.  I do not lump all (insert a defined group of similar people) together.  I firmly believe in the bell shaped curve.  It applies to all large samples of seemingly identical beings.
> 
> Draw a big circle and imagine that if contains all Atheists.  Draw a smaller circle within that circle and imagine that it contains religious Atheists only.  It does not matter to me which Atheists claim not to be within the smaller circle.  They are still within the large circle.
> 
> The fact that Atheism itself is a religion, does not mean that all Atheists are religious.
> 
> You might also draw an even smaller circle within the small circle and imagine it contains all religious Atheists that are members of an Atheist church.  Within that third circle, you might draw a miniscule circle to contain all of the religious Atheist church members that actually attend church services.
> 
> The above can be applied to any religion.  Not all Baptists are religious.  Not all Jews are religious. Not all Catholics are religious.  Not all Christians are "fundies".  Not all Christians deny evolution.
> 
> None of the above changes the fact that Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




PratchettFan said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is not a belief.... it is an action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi PF can't we acknowledge 3 different levels
> 1. belief on a purely abstract level
> 2. belief that is communicated in writing or spoken expression
> where agreement or disagreement is manifested i nRELATIONS between
> either people or with institutions
> 3. acting practicing or exercising those beliefs, or what you say is the action
> 
> I agree that technically govt should not be policing beliefs on a private level,
> but when it comes to, say, exercising sacrifice of animals or people, or
> having sex with children or multiple wives as part of one's beliefs,
> those actions may conflict with criminal or civil laws and becomes an issue of the state.
> 
> However, what if I believe in consensus on policies in order to have equal protection and representation.
> Isn't the current system of favoring only major political parties limiting the choice of
> beliefs to just those ideologies, and precluding any room to exercise consensus?
> 
> What if as some prochoice and prolife people argue, the other views are imposing
> so much that it is precluding and infringing on their ability to exercise their own beliefs?
> 
> if people do not agree how a law is WRITTEN that they already argue is
> biased prolife or prochoice, the actions the law governs have not happened yet.
> we are arguing on the other two levels of interpretation and legislation.
> 
> so those are also important to rsolve conflicts here, on those other levels
> that are not physical actions of exercising one's beliefs yet.
> 
> in fact, in order to prevent conflicts on the level of action,
> we would need to address beliefs on the other two levels.
> 
> if the state can only police actions, it is up to the people
> to resolve the other levels privately ourselves. the level of
> thought belief or interpretation and the level of written
> and spoken perception and language in how we express these
> in relationships or institutions that do influence other people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  We can't.  I am talking about the nature of religion itself, which is a human action.  Belief is only an attribute of religion, it is not religion itself.  It is not even a particularly important attribute.
Click to expand...

IMHO.....
The religion exists whether its members _(those that adhere to the basic philosophies of that religion)_ are active or not. It is when the members become active at their religion that they become religious.  Whether they are religious (active) or not, they still fall within the religion the believe in by virtue of the basic philosophy of life and nature.

That is why Emily's proposed additional circle within the overall circle of Atheists does not work.  Each and every Atheist is either religious_ (acting according to the basic philosophies of Atheism)_ or non-religious _(dormant)_.


----------



## asaratis

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then you're using a very narrow definition of atheist that really only encompasses one type of atheistic belief. Atheist is synonymous with non-theist. That's what the 'a' prefix means.
> 
> And you're using a popular misrepresentation of agnosticism. But in point of fact, it's possible for an agnostic to be either a theist, or an atheist.
> 
> If we were just disagreeing on definitions, it would be a pretty boring conversation, but I think both sides recognize there's more to it than that. The subtext here is the fact that our government treats religious beliefs and non-theist beliefs (science and philosophy) differently in matters of education and government sponsorship. So, those with a vested interest have strong incentive to manipulate the definitions used by government in determining which beliefs are considered 'religious' and which aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I am using it the way it is intended to be used. As evidence I present the following definitions.
> 
> Theism: the belief in god or gods.
> 
> Agnostiocism: Oops, not a word because it is not a belief.
> 
> Atheism: the belief that there are no gods.
> 
> If atheism simply meant not believing in god we wouldn't have another word to mean "I don't really know about god one way or another."
> 
> If you want to claim you do not have a belief you have to accept the fact that the word that you should use to describe that lack of belief is agnostic because it is the only word available to you that you cannot attach -ism to. By the way, that actually proves that you cannot be an agnostic theist, because if you are a theist you have a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. We're dealing with different definitions. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with the campaign to have evolution treated as an atheistic religious belief in regard to school curricula?
Click to expand...

Not to answer for QW, but I would say no.  Evolution is scientifically proven fact.  It is not a religious philosophy.


----------



## emilynghiem

asaratis said:


> IMHO.....
> The religion exists whether its members _(those that adhere to the basic philosophies of that religion)_ are active or not. It is when the members become active at their religion that they become religious.  Whether they are religious (active) or not, they still fall within the religion the believe in by virtue of the basic philosophy of life and nature.
> 
> That is why Emily's proposed additional circle within the overall circle of Atheists does not work.  Each and every Atheist is either religious_ (acting according to the basic philosophies of Atheism)_ or non-religious _(dormant)_.



Hi Asaratis Please see my reply to QW where I see THEISM as describing my language or views but not my religion.
Likewise can't Atheism or Nontheism describe people's views without it being a religion to them.

When I actively invoke my Constitutional beliefs, it is within that context to address that audience.
Some people never take this on as a religion, it is not dormant as if they are a nonactive member.

I think we would do better to see
* theism as a blanket description of many groups and individuals who may not identify with any religion
* nontheism including atheism as a blanket description

anyway, that's how I do it to include all people and let them divide the terms their own way
if they agree they are either theist in language/approach or nontheist, we can work the rest out without arguing

I see myself as crossing over both groups
my beliefs fall under theism but my language tends to favor nontheism and secular explanations using natural laws
I had to learn how to translate and use religious terms and I still struggle with that as like a foreign language


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then you're using a very narrow definition of atheist that really only encompasses one type of atheistic belief. Atheist is synonymous with non-theist. That's what the 'a' prefix means.
> 
> And you're using a popular misrepresentation of agnosticism. But in point of fact, it's possible for an agnostic to be either a theist, or an atheist.
> 
> If we were just disagreeing on definitions, it would be a pretty boring conversation, but I think both sides recognize there's more to it than that. The subtext here is the fact that our government treats religious beliefs and non-theist beliefs (science and philosophy) differently in matters of education and government sponsorship. So, those with a vested interest have strong incentive to manipulate the definitions used by government in determining which beliefs are considered 'religious' and which aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I am using it the way it is intended to be used. As evidence I present the following definitions.
> 
> Theism: the belief in god or gods.
> 
> Agnostiocism: Oops, not a word because it is not a belief.
> 
> Atheism: the belief that there are no gods.
> 
> If atheism simply meant not believing in god we wouldn't have another word to mean "I don't really know about god one way or another."
> 
> If you want to claim you do not have a belief you have to accept the fact that the word that you should use to describe that lack of belief is agnostic because it is the only word available to you that you cannot attach -ism to. By the way, that actually proves that you cannot be an agnostic theist, because if you are a theist you have a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. We're dealing with different definitions. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with the campaign to have evolution treated as an atheistic religious belief in regard to school curricula?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to answer for QW, but I would say no.  Evolution is scientifically proven fact.  It is not a religious philosophy.
Click to expand...


Then what, in your view, are the practical implications of saying atheism is a religion?


----------



## emilynghiem

asaratis said:


> Not to answer for QW, but I would say no.  Evolution is scientifically proven fact.  It is not a religious philosophy.



Hi Asaratis:
If you and I weren't there physically and witnessed the acts of evolution ourselves it is still faith based.
My bf also says both creation and evolution have been proven, but many disagree with one or both as being proved or provable.

What about spiritual healing.

many people have seen medical and physical proof of how it works naturally.
but other people haven't seen such proof, and believe on faith it is either true or false.

So right now, as long as something is not proven to people as established to them
they will treat it as a belief requiring faith.

I believe we will sooner prove spiritual healing is a natural process
quantifiable by medicine and science, before we can prove evolution to people on the same collective scale.

Until people agree what is proven, it does involve religious beliefs and should be treated with equal respect.


----------



## Carla_Danger

emilynghiem said:


> Neither is Constitutionalism or feminism or humanism which all push for equality.
> 
> I approach atheism not as someone's beliefs but way of communicating like a language.
> If you are nontheist then we use nontheistic terms to discuss principles or points.
> so within nontheism, it does not matter as much if you are Buddhist, secular humanity,
> atheist or agnostic or how you define your beliefs. I am more focused on the language
> people use. it looks like PF is more concerned with the physical practice and asaratis
> sees the belief as what defines the religion.
> 
> where atheists fall on the list is if you believe in
> * what comes aroudn goes around
> * you treat others with equal respect you want to be treated with
> * you get what you give and reap what you sow
> these are natural laws of human behavior
> so as long as atheists fall under secular gentiles who
> follow natural laws, that includes atheists indirectly
> 
> wicca states it as do as you will but harm none
> also seen this stated as your freedom ends where mine begins
> in short we are under the same laws as equal humans and should respect for others what we want respected for us
> just natural wisdom





I don't believe in karma.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once again, not answering the questions.  You said I was making shit up and I asked you to point out where.  You presented the list, not me.  Don't blame me for what you did.  You said you were a 6 and I took you at your word.  Don't blame me if you didn't mean it.  I have asked you if the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief and you have never once said it isn't.  In fact, you have never yet acknowledged the question.
> 
> Did you say you were a 6 on the Dawkins scale?  yes or no
> Do you agree the definition of Atheism is an absence of belief?  yes or no
> 
> I'll bet I don't get an answer.  Please prove me wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking for something that isn't black and white, as you'd hoped.  Yes, I did say I was a 6, but now I think I'm between a 5 and 6, because this Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far. The Dawkins list is not going to fit every atheist like a glove, because all atheist are different.  No, I do not agree that the definition of atheism is an absence of belief.  I think it's a disbelief or doubt that there is a God/God's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was black and white because you claimed I had made it up.  I didn't.  And you were able to give me yes or no answers.  Not hard at all.
> 
> It doesn't matter to me where you fall on the scale.  Let's say you're a 5.5.  Sealybobo looks to be a 6.9.  I'm probably a 3.8.  All that shows is that Atheism is not a narrow concept as Pogo claims.  For that matter, neither is Theism.  Atheism entails a wide variance of belief from "eh" to "not a chance".  I'm at "yeah, I think there might be but I don't particularly give a damn".  There is nothing wrong with the belief at all.  It is just as valid as any theistic belief.  Nor does that belief make it a religion.
> 
> *What makes something a religion is not the belief but the construct built around the belief.*  If I say that I am certain there is no God, that is a statement of pure belief but that doesn't make it a religion.  However, if I say I am certain there is no God and anyone who thinks there might even be a chance there is a God isn't a true Atheist, then I am turning Atheism into a religion.  I am creating dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's totally incorrect, because religion is the belief and worship of a superhuman power.  What you're saying is that religion is simply a belief, which is ridiculous. You're making up your own definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion is not a belief.... it is an action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a new one.  Is jumping a religion?
> 
> Ridiculous.
Click to expand...


No.  Nor is jumping the same thing as swimming.  So I suppose you think swimming is not an action either.

You can sit quietly in a room and believe all you like, but that is not religion.  Religion requires people coming together, interacting, identifying themselves with the group and establishing doctrine.  Those are all actions.  Religion is an action.

You claim to be free of this belief in God.  If God is not a factor, then religion is entirely a human endeavor.  Why do you have such difficulty seeing it that way?[/QUOTE]


You can also sit in your room, read the Christian Bible, and be entitled to call yourself a Christian.

I disagree with the definition you made up, but even if I did agree, I would not fit your description.  You don't get to define me.


----------



## emilynghiem

Carla_Danger said:


> That's a new one.  Is jumping a religion?
> 
> Ridiculous.
> No.  Nor is jumping the same thing as swimming.  So I suppose you think swimming is not an action either.
> 
> RE: You can sit quietly in a room and believe all you like, but that is not religion.  Religion requires people coming together, interacting, identifying themselves with the group and establishing doctrine.  Those are all actions.  Religion is an action.
> 
> You claim to be free of this belief in God.  If God is not a factor, then religion is entirely a human endeavor.  Why do you have such difficulty seeing it that way?



Dear Carla: I see three different things here
1. no,  jumping and swimming are not religions just because they are actions
that is not what PF was saying. PF seems to be saying the opposite:
that just because a belief is held is not enough to make it a religion, it must be expressed outwardly as an action

2. I stated already that there are three levels the belief, the expression in words, and the actions.
so it looks like some people only need to focus on the belief, some like PF say it is the action that meets the
requirement before counting it as a religion and not just an internal belief, I say it can be all three, but I focus on the language.

3. Carla when you say religion is a human endeavor I understand this means the language or actions are manmade.
However, man did not make up the concept of life which comes from nature. nor the laws of physics or science.
just because we make up the language does not mean we make up the concepts behind them.
so that is what it means for people to say these laws came from God, or from  nature they are preexistent
and not coming from man.



			
				carla said:
			
		

> I don't believe in karma.



Karma means laws of cause and effect.
Carla do you believe there are preexisting laws not made up by man
that basically follow rules, such as if you intend to do good toward others this tends to result in good outcomes
and if you intend ill or harm to others this tends to end in bad outcomes?

simple common sense and natural order, if you go against the consent of others they tend to react in protest.
and same if others violate your free will and don't respect what you choose or want, you tend to protect and petition
to correct the problem.

do you believe in this simple sense of justice, that people want freedom and peace or security, to seek pleasure
or satisfaction,  adn tend to avoid things that cause fear, conflict, distress or anything negative.

so positive tends toward positive, and negative tends to reap negative consequences?


----------



## Carla_Danger

emilynghiem said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a new one.  Is jumping a religion?
> 
> Ridiculous.
> No.  Nor is jumping the same thing as swimming.  So I suppose you think swimming is not an action either.
> 
> RE: You can sit quietly in a room and believe all you like, but that is not religion.  Religion requires people coming together, interacting, identifying themselves with the group and establishing doctrine.  Those are all actions.  Religion is an action.
> 
> You claim to be free of this belief in God.  If God is not a factor, then religion is entirely a human endeavor.  Why do you have such difficulty seeing it that way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Carla: I see three different things here
> 1. no,  jumping and swimming are not religions just because they are actions
> that is not what PF was saying. PF seems to be saying the opposite:
> that just because a belief is held is not enough to make it a religion, it must be expressed outwardly as an action
> 
> 2. I stated already that there are three levels the belief, the expression in words, and the actions.
> so it looks like some people only need to focus on the belief, some like PF say it is the action that meets the
> requirement before counting it as a religion and not just an internal belief, I say it can be all three, but I focus on the language.
> 
> 3. Carla when you say religion is a human endeavor I understand this means the language or actions are manmade.
> However, man did not make up the concept of life which comes from nature. nor the laws of physics or science.
> just because we make up the language does not mean we make up the concepts behind them.
> so that is what it means for people to say these laws came from God, or from  nature they are preexistent
> and not coming from man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> carla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in karma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Karma means laws of cause and effect.
> Carla do you believe there are preexisting laws not made up by man
> that basically follow rules, such as if you intend to do good toward others this tends to result in good outcomes
> and if you intend ill or harm to others this tends to end in bad outcomes?
> 
> simple common sense and natural order, if you go against the consent of others they tend to react in protest.
> and same if others violate your free will and don't respect what you choose or want, you tend to protect and petition
> to correct the problem.
> 
> do you believe in this simple sense of justice, that people want freedom and peace or security, to seek pleasure
> or satisfaction,  adn tend to avoid things that cause fear, conflict, distress or anything negative.
> 
> so positive tends toward positive, and negative tends to reap negative consequences?
Click to expand...



I just said I do not believe in karma.....so no, I don't believe in Karma, nor do I agree with Pratchett's made up definition.


----------



## asaratis

emilynghiem said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO.....
> The religion exists whether its members _(those that adhere to the basic philosophies of that religion)_ are active or not. It is when the members become active at their religion that they become religious.  Whether they are religious (active) or not, they still fall within the religion the believe in by virtue of the basic philosophy of life and nature.
> 
> That is why Emily's proposed additional circle within the overall circle of Atheists does not work.  Each and every Atheist is either religious_ (acting according to the basic philosophies of Atheism)_ or non-religious _(dormant)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Asaratis Please see my reply to QW where I see THEISM as describing my language or views but not my religion.
> Likewise can't Atheism or Nontheism describe people's views without it being a religion to them.
> 
> When I actively invoke my Constitutional beliefs, it is within that context to address that audience.
> Some people never take this on as a religion, it is not dormant as if they are a nonactive member.
> 
> I think we would do better to see
> * theism as a blanket description of many groups and individuals who may not identify with any religion
> * nontheism including atheism as a blanket description
> 
> anyway, that's how I do it to include all people and let them divide the terms their own way
> if they agree they are either theist in language/approach or nontheist, we can work the rest out without arguing
> 
> I see myself as crossing over both groups
> my beliefs fall under theism but my language tends to favor nontheism and secular explanations using natural laws
> I had to learn how to translate and use religious terms and I still struggle with that as like a foreign language
Click to expand...

IMHO, a religion is defined by a basic philosophy of life centered around beliefs, especially those concerning deities, but not limited to beliefs in deities.

Here is a link to my preferred, well respected dictionary.  It is set to _theist._ Note that if you click on the Compare word _atheist, _then on its Compare word _agnostic, _you will have all three of these related definitions in a New York minute.  I will print them below so you don't even have to use the site.

theist definition meaning - what is theist in the British English Dictionary Thesaurus - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

*theist*
noun [C] /ˈθiː.ɪst/

› someone who believes in the existence of a god or gods
*Compare*
atheist
(Definition of theist from the  Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary & Thesaurus  © Cambridge University Press)



*atheist*
noun [C] uk   /ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/  us 

› someone who believes that God does not exist
*Compare*
agnostic noun
atheism
noun  uk   /-ɪ.zəm/  us  
atheist
adjective uk   (also atheistic,   /ˌeɪ.θiˈɪs.tɪk/   ) us  
(Definition of atheist from the  Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary & Thesaurus  © Cambridge University Press)







*agnostic*
noun [C] uk   /æɡˈnɒs.tɪk/  us    /-ˈnɑː.stɪk/

› someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, if a god exists: Although he was raised a Catholic, he was an agnostic for most of his adult life.
*Compare*
atheist





It may confuse matters to talk in terms of_ -ism_ forms of these words, but here they are.


*theism*
noun  uk   /ˈθiː.ɪ.zəm/  us  

› belief in the existence of a god or gods
*Compare*
atheism (atheist)
deism



Clicking on Compare atheism reverts to the definition of atheist.  A search for _atheism  _yields:

*atheism*
noun   /ˈeɪ·θiˌɪz·əm/  us  

› the belief that God does not exist
(Definition of atheism from the  Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary  © Cambridge University Press)
What is the pronunciation of atheism?


A search for _agnosticism _reverts back to _agnostic._

A search for nontheism yields:

We do not have an entry for *nontheism*. Have a look at how it is spelled. Did you type it correctly? We have these words with similar spellings or pronunciations:






monotheism

pantheism

polytheism

atheism

theism

pantheist

nonetheless

synthesise

monotheistic

nonces

...so I think your use of the word is confusing.  How does Emily define nontheism?  Shall we make it a new word?  I think we should not.


----------



## emilynghiem

asaratis said:


> ...so I think your use of the word is confusing.  How does Emily define nontheism?  Shall we make it a new word?  I think we should not.



I guess the difference is I focus on the LANGUAGE as nontheistic
while others focus on labeling the PERSON.

it's a difference if we are focusing on the level  of the person:
their beliefs as a personal identity
their language for expressing it
their physical practice

So I focus on the language level.

I don't think it is the definition so much as the application or focus.

Does that help?
So you can still use THEIST to mean the same thing.
but I am focusng on THEIST LANGUAGE
and you may focus on the PERSON as being THEIST as their identity by their belief.

labeling the language is different from labeling the person


----------



## asaratis

dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then you're using a very narrow definition of atheist that really only encompasses one type of atheistic belief. Atheist is synonymous with non-theist. That's what the 'a' prefix means.
> 
> And you're using a popular misrepresentation of agnosticism. But in point of fact, it's possible for an agnostic to be either a theist, or an atheist.
> 
> If we were just disagreeing on definitions, it would be a pretty boring conversation, but I think both sides recognize there's more to it than that. The subtext here is the fact that our government treats religious beliefs and non-theist beliefs (science and philosophy) differently in matters of education and government sponsorship. So, those with a vested interest have strong incentive to manipulate the definitions used by government in determining which beliefs are considered 'religious' and which aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I am using it the way it is intended to be used. As evidence I present the following definitions.
> 
> Theism: the belief in god or gods.
> 
> Agnostiocism: Oops, not a word because it is not a belief.
> 
> Atheism: the belief that there are no gods.
> 
> If atheism simply meant not believing in god we wouldn't have another word to mean "I don't really know about god one way or another."
> 
> If you want to claim you do not have a belief you have to accept the fact that the word that you should use to describe that lack of belief is agnostic because it is the only word available to you that you cannot attach -ism to. By the way, that actually proves that you cannot be an agnostic theist, because if you are a theist you have a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. We're dealing with different definitions. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with the campaign to have evolution treated as an atheistic religious belief in regard to school curricula?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to answer for QW, but I would say no.  Evolution is scientifically proven fact.  It is not a religious philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what, in your view, are the practical implications of saying atheism is a religion?
Click to expand...

That is a different question and difficult to answer in the waking time I have left tonight.  I am about to count sheep.

BTW, the campaign to have evolution declared an atheist religious view is intended to have the teaching of it precluded from government schools.  Since evolution is a science and not an unsubstantiated belief, it does not qualify as promotion of religion to teach it.  Evolution should be taught...and pi should not be rounded off to 3.0!

The teaching that God does not exist SHOULD be precluded as it is a belief of the religion of Atheism.  Likewise, the teaching that God does exist or that the earth is only 6000 years old should be precluded as they are religious beliefs of other religions.

I am a Christian that believes in evolution....and does not believe in literal translation of the Bible....but all that's for another thread.

As for the practicality of Atheism being defined as a religion:

gives it the same protections that other religions have under the 1st Amendment
gives it the tax relief available to other religions
gives it a vehicle to establish more churches and expand its membership (I suspect that there are many Atheists that desire the social interactions and fellowship of like minded homo sapiens.)
I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.


----------



## asaratis

emilynghiem said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...so I think your use of the word is confusing.  How does Emily define nontheism?  Shall we make it a new word?  I think we should not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the difference is I focus on the LANGUAGE as nontheistic
> while others focus on labeling the PERSON.
> 
> it's a difference if we are focusing on the level  of the person:
> their beliefs as a personal identity
> their language for expressing it
> their physical practice
> 
> So I focus on the language level.
> 
> I don't think it is the definition so much as the application or focus.
> 
> Does that help?
> So you can still use THEIST to mean the same thing.
> but I am focusng on THEIST LANGUAGE
> and you may focus on the PERSON as being THEIST as their identity by their belief.
> 
> labeling the language is different from labeling the person
Click to expand...

A theist is one who believes in a deity.
Language can be theistic but cannot be a theist.

More properly, if you insist on separating the two, call it THEISTIC LANGUAGE. (i.e. the language of a theist)


----------



## emilynghiem

asaratis said:


> A theist is one who believes in a deity.
> Language can be theistic but cannot be a theist.
> 
> More properly, if you insist on separating the two, call it THEISTIC LANGUAGE. (i.e. the language of a theist)



Great, so I agree to focus on whether someone's LANGUAGE is Theistic or Nontheistic.
I am not going to impose my definitions on their beliefs, because that's up to them to
tell me what they believe or don't believe in using their own language and terms.

Like Carla said she doesn't believe in karma.
Let's get specific about what we mean or don't mean.
If karma doesn't mean anything to her, what about natural laws of cause and effect?

Thanks for your help with all this, asartis!
"Good night sweet prince: And flights
of angels sing thee to thy rest."


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> Yeah. We're dealing with different definitions. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with the campaign to have evolution treated as an atheistic religious belief in regard to school curricula?



Why would I agree with that?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

emilynghiem said:


> Hi Asaratis:
> If you and I weren't there physically and witnessed the acts of evolution ourselves it is still faith based.
> My bf also says both creation and evolution have been proven, but many disagree with one or both as being proved or provable.
> 
> What about spiritual healing.
> 
> many people have seen medical and physical proof of how it works naturally.
> but other people haven't seen such proof, and believe on faith it is either true or false.
> 
> So right now, as long as something is not proven to people as established to them
> they will treat it as a belief requiring faith.
> 
> I believe we will sooner prove spiritual healing is a natural process
> quantifiable by medicine and science, before we can prove evolution to people on the same collective scale.
> 
> Until people agree what is proven, it does involve religious beliefs and should be treated with equal respect.



It being a belief does not make it a religion. I have faith in lots of things, including a faith that the house I am living in will not fall down around my ears. The simple existence of faith does not make a religion. Like I said earlier, it is how people deal with thier beliefs that make a religion.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then you're using a very narrow definition of atheist that really only encompasses one type of atheistic belief. Atheist is synonymous with non-theist. That's what the 'a' prefix means.
> 
> And you're using a popular misrepresentation of agnosticism. But in point of fact, it's possible for an agnostic to be either a theist, or an atheist.
> 
> If we were just disagreeing on definitions, it would be a pretty boring conversation, but I think both sides recognize there's more to it than that. The subtext here is the fact that our government treats religious beliefs and non-theist beliefs (science and philosophy) differently in matters of education and government sponsorship. So, those with a vested interest have strong incentive to manipulate the definitions used by government in determining which beliefs are considered 'religious' and which aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I am using it the way it is intended to be used. As evidence I present the following definitions.
> 
> Theism: the belief in god or gods.
> 
> Agnostiocism: Oops, not a word because it is not a belief.
> 
> Atheism: the belief that there are no gods.
> 
> If atheism simply meant not believing in god we wouldn't have another word to mean "I don't really know about god one way or another."
> 
> If you want to claim you do not have a belief you have to accept the fact that the word that you should use to describe that lack of belief is agnostic because it is the only word available to you that you cannot attach -ism to. By the way, that actually proves that you cannot be an agnostic theist, because if you are a theist you have a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. We're dealing with different definitions. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with the campaign to have evolution treated as an atheistic religious belief in regard to school curricula?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to answer for QW, but I would say no.  Evolution is scientifically proven fact.  It is not a religious philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what, in your view, are the practical implications of saying atheism is a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a different question and difficult to answer in the waking time I have left tonight.  I am about to count sheep.
> 
> BTW, the campaign to have evolution declared an atheist religious view is intended to have the teaching of it precluded from government schools.  Since evolution is a science and not an unsubstantiated belief, it does not qualify as promotion of religion to teach it.  Evolution should be taught...and pi should not be rounded off to 3.0!
> 
> The teaching that God does not exist SHOULD be precluded as it is a belief of the religion of Atheism.  Likewise, the teaching that God does exist or that the earth is only 6000 years old should be precluded as they are religious beliefs of other religions.
> 
> I am a Christian that believes in evolution....and does not believe in literal translation of the Bible....but all that's for another thread.
> 
> As for the practicality of Atheism being defined as a religion:
> 
> gives it the same protections that other religions have under the 1st Amendment
> gives it the tax relief available to other religions
> gives it a vehicle to establish more churches and expand its membership (I suspect that there are many Atheists that desire the social interactions and fellowship of like minded homo sapiens.)
> I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.
Click to expand...

Your religious fundamentalist views makes it difficult for you to reach rational conclusions.

There's no reason to associate atheism with religion as the two are different. Atheism is not a belief or a religion as it has none of the components typically associated with religions; dogma, belief in supernatural entities, rituals, traditions, customs, etc.

Other than to press your fundie agenda, why are still promoting falsehoods?


----------



## dblack

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. We're dealing with different definitions. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with the campaign to have evolution treated as an atheistic religious belief in regard to school curricula?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I agree with that?
Click to expand...


Usually theses struggles to control the definition of different words, in the public sphere at least, are related to how they will impact different policies. "What is a right?", "Is it a tax, or a mandate?" etc...  I'm just curious why it's important to you that atheism be thought of as a religion. 

The most immediate practical implication I've seen is related to those who feel like the separation of church and state amounts to foisting atheism on people via government. They seem to be addressing this concern by insisting that atheism is a 'religion' and that efforts to keep religion out of government are, in reality, promoting the religion of atheism.


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then you're using a very narrow definition of atheist that really only encompasses one type of atheistic belief. Atheist is synonymous with non-theist. That's what the 'a' prefix means.
> 
> And you're using a popular misrepresentation of agnosticism. But in point of fact, it's possible for an agnostic to be either a theist, or an atheist.
> 
> If we were just disagreeing on definitions, it would be a pretty boring conversation, but I think both sides recognize there's more to it than that. The subtext here is the fact that our government treats religious beliefs and non-theist beliefs (science and philosophy) differently in matters of education and government sponsorship. So, those with a vested interest have strong incentive to manipulate the definitions used by government in determining which beliefs are considered 'religious' and which aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I am using it the way it is intended to be used. As evidence I present the following definitions.
> 
> Theism: the belief in god or gods.
> 
> Agnostiocism: Oops, not a word because it is not a belief.
> 
> Atheism: the belief that there are no gods.
> 
> If atheism simply meant not believing in god we wouldn't have another word to mean "I don't really know about god one way or another."
> 
> If you want to claim you do not have a belief you have to accept the fact that the word that you should use to describe that lack of belief is agnostic because it is the only word available to you that you cannot attach -ism to. By the way, that actually proves that you cannot be an agnostic theist, because if you are a theist you have a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. We're dealing with different definitions. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with the campaign to have evolution treated as an atheistic religious belief in regard to school curricula?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to answer for QW, but I would say no.  Evolution is scientifically proven fact.  It is not a religious philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what, in your view, are the practical implications of saying atheism is a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a different question and difficult to answer in the waking time I have left tonight.  I am about to count sheep.
> 
> BTW, the campaign to have evolution declared an atheist religious view is intended to have the teaching of it precluded from government schools.  Since evolution is a science and not an unsubstantiated belief, it does not qualify as promotion of religion to teach it.  Evolution should be taught...and pi should not be rounded off to 3.0!
> 
> The teaching that God does not exist SHOULD be precluded as it is a belief of the religion of Atheism.  Likewise, the teaching that God does exist or that the earth is only 6000 years old should be precluded as they are religious beliefs of other religions.
> 
> I am a Christian that believes in evolution....and does not believe in literal translation of the Bible....but all that's for another thread.
> 
> As for the practicality of Atheism being defined as a religion:
> 
> gives it the same protections that other religions have under the 1st Amendment
> gives it the tax relief available to other religions
> gives it a vehicle to establish more churches and expand its membership (I suspect that there are many Atheists that desire the social interactions and fellowship of like minded homo sapiens.)
> I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.
Click to expand...


I see. So, in reality you're looking out for atheists. Your main concern is to extend to them the special perks and rights religions enjoy.

There's a whiff of something there.... hmmm... can't quite place it....


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then you're using a very narrow definition of atheist that really only encompasses one type of atheistic belief. Atheist is synonymous with non-theist. That's what the 'a' prefix means.
> 
> And you're using a popular misrepresentation of agnosticism. But in point of fact, it's possible for an agnostic to be either a theist, or an atheist.
> 
> If we were just disagreeing on definitions, it would be a pretty boring conversation, but I think both sides recognize there's more to it than that. The subtext here is the fact that our government treats religious beliefs and non-theist beliefs (science and philosophy) differently in matters of education and government sponsorship. So, those with a vested interest have strong incentive to manipulate the definitions used by government in determining which beliefs are considered 'religious' and which aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I am using it the way it is intended to be used. As evidence I present the following definitions.
> 
> Theism: the belief in god or gods.
> 
> Agnostiocism: Oops, not a word because it is not a belief.
> 
> Atheism: the belief that there are no gods.
> 
> If atheism simply meant not believing in god we wouldn't have another word to mean "I don't really know about god one way or another."
> 
> If you want to claim you do not have a belief you have to accept the fact that the word that you should use to describe that lack of belief is agnostic because it is the only word available to you that you cannot attach -ism to. By the way, that actually proves that you cannot be an agnostic theist, because if you are a theist you have a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. We're dealing with different definitions. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with the campaign to have evolution treated as an atheistic religious belief in regard to school curricula?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to answer for QW, but I would say no.  Evolution is scientifically proven fact.  It is not a religious philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what, in your view, are the practical implications of saying atheism is a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a different question and difficult to answer in the waking time I have left tonight.  I am about to count sheep.
> 
> BTW, the campaign to have evolution declared an atheist religious view is intended to have the teaching of it precluded from government schools.  Since evolution is a science and not an unsubstantiated belief, it does not qualify as promotion of religion to teach it.  Evolution should be taught...and pi should not be rounded off to 3.0!
> 
> The teaching that God does not exist SHOULD be precluded as it is a belief of the religion of Atheism.  Likewise, the teaching that God does exist or that the earth is only 6000 years old should be precluded as they are religious beliefs of other religions.
> 
> I am a Christian that believes in evolution....and does not believe in literal translation of the Bible....but all that's for another thread.
> 
> As for the practicality of Atheism being defined as a religion:
> 
> gives it the same protections that other religions have under the 1st Amendment
> gives it the tax relief available to other religions
> gives it a vehicle to establish more churches and expand its membership (I suspect that there are many Atheists that desire the social interactions and fellowship of like minded homo sapiens.)
> I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.
Click to expand...


*UNIVERSAL DEFINITION*

IDENTIFYING A CULT

_CULT_ - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top. The group will claim to be the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their members. This definition covers cults within all majopr world religions, along with those cults which have no OBVIOUS religious base such as commercial, educational and psychological cults. Others may define these a little differently, but this is the simplest to work from. _THE 'ORTHODOX BIBLE-BASED CULT'_

A group is called a cult because of their behaviour - not their doctrines. Doctrine is an issue in the area of Apologetics and Heresy. Most religious cults do teach what the Christian church would declare to be heresy but some do not. Some cults teach the basics of the Christian faith but have behavioural patterns that are abusive, controlling and cultic.

This occurs in both Non-Charismatic and Charismatic churches. These groups teach the central doctrines of the Christian faith and then add the extra authority of leadership or someone's particular writings. They centre around the interpretations of the leadership and submissive and unquestioning acceptance of these is essential to be a member of good standing. This acceptance includes what we consider non-essential doctrines e.i. not salvation issues (such as the Person and Work of Christ.) The key is that they will be using mind control or undue influence on their members.

An excellent book on this subject is "Churches that Abuse" by Dr Ronald Enroth.

Using these guidelines of definition, Bible-based, Psychological, Educational and Commercial aberrations can easily be identified.


----------



## JoeB131

If Atheism is a Religion. 

then. 

"Off" is a TV Channel. 

Not Collecting Stamps is a hobby.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking for something that isn't black and white, as you'd hoped.  Yes, I did say I was a 6, but now I think I'm between a 5 and 6, because this Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far. The Dawkins list is not going to fit every atheist like a glove, because all atheist are different.  No, I do not agree that the definition of atheism is an absence of belief.  I think it's a disbelief or doubt that there is a God/God's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was black and white because you claimed I had made it up.  I didn't.  And you were able to give me yes or no answers.  Not hard at all.
> 
> It doesn't matter to me where you fall on the scale.  Let's say you're a 5.5.  Sealybobo looks to be a 6.9.  I'm probably a 3.8.  All that shows is that Atheism is not a narrow concept as Pogo claims.  For that matter, neither is Theism.  Atheism entails a wide variance of belief from "eh" to "not a chance".  I'm at "yeah, I think there might be but I don't particularly give a damn".  There is nothing wrong with the belief at all.  It is just as valid as any theistic belief.  Nor does that belief make it a religion.
> 
> *What makes something a religion is not the belief but the construct built around the belief.*  If I say that I am certain there is no God, that is a statement of pure belief but that doesn't make it a religion.  However, if I say I am certain there is no God and anyone who thinks there might even be a chance there is a God isn't a true Atheist, then I am turning Atheism into a religion.  I am creating dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's totally incorrect, because religion is the belief and worship of a superhuman power.  What you're saying is that religion is simply a belief, which is ridiculous. You're making up your own definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion is not a belief.... it is an action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a new one.  Is jumping a religion?
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Nor is jumping the same thing as swimming.  So I suppose you think swimming is not an action either.
> 
> You can sit quietly in a room and believe all you like, but that is not religion.  Religion requires people coming together, interacting, identifying themselves with the group and establishing doctrine.  Those are all actions.  Religion is an action.
> 
> You claim to be free of this belief in God.  If God is not a factor, then religion is entirely a human endeavor.  Why do you have such difficulty seeing it that way?
Click to expand...

 

You can also sit in your room, read the Christian Bible, and be entitled to call yourself a Christian.

I disagree with the definition you made up, but even if I did agree, I would not fit your description.  You don't get to define me.[/QUOTE]

Why can't I define you?  You feel free to define others.


----------



## Derideo_Te

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. We're dealing with different definitions. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with the campaign to have evolution treated as an atheistic religious belief in regard to school curricula?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I agree with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Usually theses struggles to control the definition of different words, in the public sphere at least, are related to how they will impact different policies. "What is a right?", "Is it a tax, or a mandate?" etc...  I'm just curious why it's important to you that atheism be thought of as a religion.
> 
> The most immediate practical implication I've seen is related to those who feel like the separation of church and state amounts to foisting atheism on people via government. They seem to be addressing this concern by insisting that atheism is a 'religion' and that efforts to keep religion out of government are, in reality, promoting the religion of atheism.
Click to expand...


That would only be true if government were in the business of promoting genuine religions and then by no longer promoting them it would be fostering this imaginary "religion of atheism" instead.

The Founding Fathers were explicit when it came to separating government and religion from one another. The onus lies on those who make the absurd claims that "evolution" is part of the "atheist religion" to prove in a court room that it fits all of the definitions of a religion. Since they cannot they are left with nothing but blustering outrage. 

Evolution is based upon verifiable scientific facts and religion is based upon unverifiable beliefs in imaginary deities. 

One "impact" of reclassifying atheism as a religion would be to discredit existing religions since they cannot provide a factual basis for their beliefs whereas atheism can provide facts for evolution. Under that scenario atheists would be in a position to have all other religions denied government benefits since they no longer fit this revised definition of a religion that includes "atheism". 

Beware of what you wish for...


----------



## Mr Natural

No required reading.

No goofy rules.

No mandatory meetings.

No magical beings.

If atheism is a religion, it's a pretty damn good one!


----------



## Esmeralda

dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I am using it the way it is intended to be used. As evidence I present the following definitions.
> 
> Theism: the belief in god or gods.
> 
> Agnostiocism: Oops, not a word because it is not a belief.
> 
> Atheism: the belief that there are no gods.
> 
> If atheism simply meant not believing in god we wouldn't have another word to mean "I don't really know about god one way or another."
> 
> If you want to claim you do not have a belief you have to accept the fact that the word that you should use to describe that lack of belief is agnostic because it is the only word available to you that you cannot attach -ism to. By the way, that actually proves that you cannot be an agnostic theist, because if you are a theist you have a belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. We're dealing with different definitions. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with the campaign to have evolution treated as an atheistic religious belief in regard to school curricula?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to answer for QW, but I would say no.  Evolution is scientifically proven fact.  It is not a religious philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what, in your view, are the practical implications of saying atheism is a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a different question and difficult to answer in the waking time I have left tonight.  I am about to count sheep.
> 
> BTW, the campaign to have evolution declared an atheist religious view is intended to have the teaching of it precluded from government schools.  Since evolution is a science and not an unsubstantiated belief, it does not qualify as promotion of religion to teach it.  Evolution should be taught...and pi should not be rounded off to 3.0!
> 
> The teaching that God does not exist SHOULD be precluded as it is a belief of the religion of Atheism.  Likewise, the teaching that God does exist or that the earth is only 6000 years old should be precluded as they are religious beliefs of other religions.
> 
> I am a Christian that believes in evolution....and does not believe in literal translation of the Bible....but all that's for another thread.
> 
> As for the practicality of Atheism being defined as a religion:
> 
> gives it the same protections that other religions have under the 1st Amendment
> gives it the tax relief available to other religions
> gives it a vehicle to establish more churches and expand its membership (I suspect that there are many Atheists that desire the social interactions and fellowship of like minded homo sapiens.)
> I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see. So, in reality you're looking out for atheists. Your main concern is to extend to them the special perks and rights religions enjoy.
> 
> There's a whiff of something there.... hmmm... can't quite place it....
Click to expand...

Is it BS?


----------



## PostmodernProph

emilynghiem said:


> Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions


Bruce is not a valid source......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> If you bind your bibles together with duct tape, they're a more formidable weapon than mere gargantuan text as a way to force your superstitious beliefs on others.


are you still angry about that time I beat you with the jawbone of an ass until you said "I love Jesus"?.......


----------



## PostmodernProph

asaratis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then you're using a very narrow definition of atheist that really only encompasses one type of atheistic belief. Atheist is synonymous with non-theist. That's what the 'a' prefix means.
> 
> And you're using a popular misrepresentation of agnosticism. But in point of fact, it's possible for an agnostic to be either a theist, or an atheist.
> 
> If we were just disagreeing on definitions, it would be a pretty boring conversation, but I think both sides recognize there's more to it than that. The subtext here is the fact that our government treats religious beliefs and non-theist beliefs (science and philosophy) differently in matters of education and government sponsorship. So, those with a vested interest have strong incentive to manipulate the definitions used by government in determining which beliefs are considered 'religious' and which aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I am using it the way it is intended to be used. As evidence I present the following definitions.
> 
> Theism: the belief in god or gods.
> 
> Agnostiocism: Oops, not a word because it is not a belief.
> 
> Atheism: the belief that there are no gods.
> 
> If atheism simply meant not believing in god we wouldn't have another word to mean "I don't really know about god one way or another."
> 
> If you want to claim you do not have a belief you have to accept the fact that the word that you should use to describe that lack of belief is agnostic because it is the only word available to you that you cannot attach -ism to. By the way, that actually proves that you cannot be an agnostic theist, because if you are a theist you have a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. We're dealing with different definitions. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with the campaign to have evolution treated as an atheistic religious belief in regard to school curricula?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to answer for QW, but I would say no.  Evolution is scientifically proven fact.  It is not a religious philosophy.
Click to expand...

some things about evolution have been proven.......others have less support in fact than many philosophies.......


----------



## PostmodernProph

JoeB131 said:


> If Atheism is a Religion.
> 
> then.
> 
> "Off" is a TV Channel.
> 
> Not Collecting Stamps is a hobby.


in your case, not thinking is an argument.....


----------



## asaratis

dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I am using it the way it is intended to be used. As evidence I present the following definitions.
> 
> Theism: the belief in god or gods.
> 
> Agnostiocism: Oops, not a word because it is not a belief.
> 
> Atheism: the belief that there are no gods.
> 
> If atheism simply meant not believing in god we wouldn't have another word to mean "I don't really know about god one way or another."
> 
> If you want to claim you do not have a belief you have to accept the fact that the word that you should use to describe that lack of belief is agnostic because it is the only word available to you that you cannot attach -ism to. By the way, that actually proves that you cannot be an agnostic theist, because if you are a theist you have a belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. We're dealing with different definitions. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with the campaign to have evolution treated as an atheistic religious belief in regard to school curricula?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to answer for QW, but I would say no.  Evolution is scientifically proven fact.  It is not a religious philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what, in your view, are the practical implications of saying atheism is a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a different question and difficult to answer in the waking time I have left tonight.  I am about to count sheep.
> 
> BTW, the campaign to have evolution declared an atheist religious view is intended to have the teaching of it precluded from government schools.  Since evolution is a science and not an unsubstantiated belief, it does not qualify as promotion of religion to teach it.  Evolution should be taught...and pi should not be rounded off to 3.0!
> 
> The teaching that God does not exist SHOULD be precluded as it is a belief of the religion of Atheism.  Likewise, the teaching that God does exist or that the earth is only 6000 years old should be precluded as they are religious beliefs of other religions.
> 
> I am a Christian that believes in evolution....and does not believe in literal translation of the Bible....but all that's for another thread.
> 
> As for the practicality of Atheism being defined as a religion:
> 
> gives it the same protections that other religions have under the 1st Amendment
> gives it the tax relief available to other religions
> gives it a vehicle to establish more churches and expand its membership (I suspect that there are many Atheists that desire the social interactions and fellowship of like minded homo sapiens.)
> I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see. So, in reality you're looking out for atheists. Your main concern is to extend to them the special perks and rights religions enjoy.
> 
> There's a whiff of something there.... hmmm... can't quite place it....
Click to expand...

No.  These benefits have already been extended to Atheism.  Atheism is already a religion.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I am using it the way it is intended to be used. As evidence I present the following definitions.
> 
> Theism: the belief in god or gods.
> 
> Agnostiocism: Oops, not a word because it is not a belief.
> 
> Atheism: the belief that there are no gods.
> 
> If atheism simply meant not believing in god we wouldn't have another word to mean "I don't really know about god one way or another."
> 
> If you want to claim you do not have a belief you have to accept the fact that the word that you should use to describe that lack of belief is agnostic because it is the only word available to you that you cannot attach -ism to. By the way, that actually proves that you cannot be an agnostic theist, because if you are a theist you have a belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. We're dealing with different definitions. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with the campaign to have evolution treated as an atheistic religious belief in regard to school curricula?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to answer for QW, but I would say no.  Evolution is scientifically proven fact.  It is not a religious philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what, in your view, are the practical implications of saying atheism is a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a different question and difficult to answer in the waking time I have left tonight.  I am about to count sheep.
> 
> BTW, the campaign to have evolution declared an atheist religious view is intended to have the teaching of it precluded from government schools.  Since evolution is a science and not an unsubstantiated belief, it does not qualify as promotion of religion to teach it.  Evolution should be taught...and pi should not be rounded off to 3.0!
> 
> The teaching that God does not exist SHOULD be precluded as it is a belief of the religion of Atheism.  Likewise, the teaching that God does exist or that the earth is only 6000 years old should be precluded as they are religious beliefs of other religions.
> 
> I am a Christian that believes in evolution....and does not believe in literal translation of the Bible....but all that's for another thread.
> 
> As for the practicality of Atheism being defined as a religion:
> 
> gives it the same protections that other religions have under the 1st Amendment
> gives it the tax relief available to other religions
> gives it a vehicle to establish more churches and expand its membership (I suspect that there are many Atheists that desire the social interactions and fellowship of like minded homo sapiens.)
> I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *UNIVERSAL DEFINITION*
> 
> IDENTIFYING A CULT
> 
> _CULT_ - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top. The group will claim to be the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their members. This definition covers cults within all majopr world religions, along with those cults which have no OBVIOUS religious base such as commercial, educational and psychological cults. Others may define these a little differently, but this is the simplest to work from. _THE 'ORTHODOX BIBLE-BASED CULT'_
> 
> A group is called a cult because of their behaviour - not their doctrines. Doctrine is an issue in the area of Apologetics and Heresy. Most religious cults do teach what the Christian church would declare to be heresy but some do not. Some cults teach the basics of the Christian faith but have behavioural patterns that are abusive, controlling and cultic.
> 
> This occurs in both Non-Charismatic and Charismatic churches. These groups teach the central doctrines of the Christian faith and then add the extra authority of leadership or someone's particular writings. They centre around the interpretations of the leadership and submissive and unquestioning acceptance of these is essential to be a member of good standing. This acceptance includes what we consider non-essential doctrines e.i. not salvation issues (such as the Person and Work of Christ.) The key is that they will be using mind control or undue influence on their members.
> 
> An excellent book on this subject is "Churches that Abuse" by Dr Ronald Enroth.
> 
> Using these guidelines of definition, Bible-based, Psychological, Educational and Commercial aberrations can easily be identified.
Click to expand...

*cult*
noun [C]  /kʌlt/  us  

› a system of religious belief, esp. one not recognized as an established religion, or the people who worship according to such a system of belief: People considered him a brilliant cult leader and con man.

› A cult is also something that is very popular with some people, or a particular set of beliefs or behavior: a cult movie the cult of celebrity
(Definition of cult from the  Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary  © Cambridge University Press)


----------



## dblack

This campaign to redefine atheism as a religion is, in my view, an Orwellian attack on separation of church and state. Anyone who cares about preventing theocracy should fight it tooth and nail, regardless of your personal religious convictions.


----------



## asaratis

PostmodernProph said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then you're using a very narrow definition of atheist that really only encompasses one type of atheistic belief. Atheist is synonymous with non-theist. That's what the 'a' prefix means.
> 
> And you're using a popular misrepresentation of agnosticism. But in point of fact, it's possible for an agnostic to be either a theist, or an atheist.
> 
> If we were just disagreeing on definitions, it would be a pretty boring conversation, but I think both sides recognize there's more to it than that. The subtext here is the fact that our government treats religious beliefs and non-theist beliefs (science and philosophy) differently in matters of education and government sponsorship. So, those with a vested interest have strong incentive to manipulate the definitions used by government in determining which beliefs are considered 'religious' and which aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I am using it the way it is intended to be used. As evidence I present the following definitions.
> 
> Theism: the belief in god or gods.
> 
> Agnostiocism: Oops, not a word because it is not a belief.
> 
> Atheism: the belief that there are no gods.
> 
> If atheism simply meant not believing in god we wouldn't have another word to mean "I don't really know about god one way or another."
> 
> If you want to claim you do not have a belief you have to accept the fact that the word that you should use to describe that lack of belief is agnostic because it is the only word available to you that you cannot attach -ism to. By the way, that actually proves that you cannot be an agnostic theist, because if you are a theist you have a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. We're dealing with different definitions. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with the campaign to have evolution treated as an atheistic religious belief in regard to school curricula?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to answer for QW, but I would say no.  Evolution is scientifically proven fact.  It is not a religious philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some things about evolution have been proven.......others have less support in fact than many philosophies.......
Click to expand...

Some mathematical theories haven't been proved.  That doesn't preclude the teaching of math.


----------



## asaratis

dblack said:


> This campaign to redefine atheism as a religion is, in my view, an Orwellian attack on separation of church and state. Anyone who cares about preventing theocracy should fight it tooth and nail, regardless of your personal religious convictions.


There is no such campaign.  It has already been done.  Atheists just refuse to accept it.  Atheism is a religion.  Don't worry!  There's no pain involved!


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This campaign to redefine atheism as a religion is, in my view, an Orwellian attack on separation of church and state. Anyone who cares about preventing theocracy should fight it tooth and nail, regardless of your personal religious convictions.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such campaign.  It has already been done.  Atheists just refuse to accept it.  Atheism is a religion.  Don't worry!  There's no pain involved!
Click to expand...


If this effort succeeds, there will be. Theocracy is not good government. We worked hard to get government out of our religious affairs, and vice versa. We need to defend it.


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This campaign to redefine atheism as a religion is, in my view, an Orwellian attack on separation of church and state. Anyone who cares about preventing theocracy should fight it tooth and nail, regardless of your personal religious convictions.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such campaign.  It has already been done.  Atheists just refuse to accept it.  Atheism is a religion.  Don't worry!  There's no pain involved!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this effort succeeds, there will be. Theocracy is not good government. We worked hard to get government out of our religious affairs, and vice versa. We need to defend it.
Click to expand...

 
I'm not clear on how a definition creates a Theocracy.


----------



## asaratis

dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This campaign to redefine atheism as a religion is, in my view, an Orwellian attack on separation of church and state. Anyone who cares about preventing theocracy should fight it tooth and nail, regardless of your personal religious convictions.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such campaign.  It has already been done.  Atheists just refuse to accept it.  Atheism is a religion.  Don't worry!  There's no pain involved!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this effort succeeds, there will be. Theocracy is not good government. We worked hard to get government out of our religious affairs, and vice versa. We need to defend it.
Click to expand...

How does this constitute a theocracy?


----------



## asaratis

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. We're dealing with different definitions. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with the campaign to have evolution treated as an atheistic religious belief in regard to school curricula?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I agree with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Usually theses struggles to control the definition of different words, in the public sphere at least, are related to how they will impact different policies. "What is a right?", "Is it a tax, or a mandate?" etc...  I'm just curious why it's important to you that atheism be thought of as a religion.
> 
> The most immediate practical implication I've seen is related to those who feel like the separation of church and state amounts to foisting atheism on people via government. They seem to be addressing this concern by insisting that atheism is a 'religion' and that efforts to keep religion out of government are, in reality, promoting the religion of atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would only be true if government were in the business of promoting genuine religions and then by no longer promoting them it would be fostering this imaginary "religion of atheism" instead.
> 
> The Founding Fathers were explicit when it came to separating government and religion from one another. The onus lies on those who make the absurd claims that "evolution" is part of the "atheist religion" to prove in a court room that it fits all of the definitions of a religion. Since they cannot they are left with nothing but blustering outrage.
> 
> Evolution is based upon verifiable scientific facts and religion is based upon unverifiable beliefs in imaginary deities.
> 
> One "impact" of reclassifying atheism as a religion would be to discredit existing religions since they cannot provide a factual basis for their beliefs whereas atheism can provide facts for evolution. Under that scenario atheists would be in a position to have all other religions denied government benefits since they no longer fit this revised definition of a religion that includes "atheism".
> 
> Beware of what you wish for...
Click to expand...

_Catholic Church_ 
_Episcopal Church_ 
_Church of England_ _
United Methodist Church_

_The Church of England is considering the possibility of apologizing posthumously to Darwin, for its earlier condemnation of his theory

What Christian denominations acknowledge evolution
_

All of these religions (and likely more) accept evolution.  It is the believers in literal interpretation of the Bible that insist the earth is only 6000 years old and that God made everything in 6 days.


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This campaign to redefine atheism as a religion is, in my view, an Orwellian attack on separation of church and state. Anyone who cares about preventing theocracy should fight it tooth and nail, regardless of your personal religious convictions.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such campaign.  It has already been done.  Atheists just refuse to accept it.  Atheism is a religion.  Don't worry!  There's no pain involved!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this effort succeeds, there will be. Theocracy is not good government. We worked hard to get government out of our religious affairs, and vice versa. We need to defend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does this constitute a theocracy?
Click to expand...


It lays the groundwork for it by undermining separation of church and state. By expanding the accepted definition of religion to include both faith and non-faith (both believing in a god and not believing a god) all matters of judgment can be deemed to be matters of "religion" - either based on faith in a god, or not.


----------



## asaratis

dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This campaign to redefine atheism as a religion is, in my view, an Orwellian attack on separation of church and state. Anyone who cares about preventing theocracy should fight it tooth and nail, regardless of your personal religious convictions.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such campaign.  It has already been done.  Atheists just refuse to accept it.  Atheism is a religion.  Don't worry!  There's no pain involved!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this effort succeeds, there will be. Theocracy is not good government. We worked hard to get government out of our religious affairs, and vice versa. We need to defend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does this constitute a theocracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It lays the groundwork for it by undermining separation of church and state. By expanding the accepted definition of religion to include both faith and non-faith (both believing in a god and not believing a god) all matters of judgment can be deemed to be matters of "religion" - either based on faith in a god, or not.
Click to expand...

Firstly, Atheism is not a non-faith concept.  A belief that God does not exist is held on faith.
Secondly, the definition of Atheism as a religion does not affect separation of church and state.  It does not change the Constitution or amendments thereto.


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This campaign to redefine atheism as a religion is, in my view, an Orwellian attack on separation of church and state. Anyone who cares about preventing theocracy should fight it tooth and nail, regardless of your personal religious convictions.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such campaign.  It has already been done.  Atheists just refuse to accept it.  Atheism is a religion.  Don't worry!  There's no pain involved!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this effort succeeds, there will be. Theocracy is not good government. We worked hard to get government out of our religious affairs, and vice versa. We need to defend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does this constitute a theocracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It lays the groundwork for it by undermining separation of church and state. By expanding the accepted definition of religion to include both faith and non-faith (both believing in a god and not believing a god) all matters of judgment can be deemed to be matters of "religion" - either based on faith in a god, or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firstly, Atheism is not a non-faith concept.  A belief that God does not exist is held on faith.
> Secondly, the definition of Atheism as a religion does not affect separation of church and state.  It does not change the Constitution or amendments thereto.
Click to expand...


It nullifies the meaning of religion to encompass all views. Any moral system not pre-supposing a god will be labeled 'atheistic' and religious advocates will insist their views have equal standing. You can pretend this isn't the point (and maybe for you it isn't. maybe you're just here trolling for attention) but it is a consistent theme from the religious right.


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such campaign.  It has already been done.  Atheists just refuse to accept it.  Atheism is a religion.  Don't worry!  There's no pain involved!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this effort succeeds, there will be. Theocracy is not good government. We worked hard to get government out of our religious affairs, and vice versa. We need to defend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does this constitute a theocracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It lays the groundwork for it by undermining separation of church and state. By expanding the accepted definition of religion to include both faith and non-faith (both believing in a god and not believing a god) all matters of judgment can be deemed to be matters of "religion" - either based on faith in a god, or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firstly, Atheism is not a non-faith concept.  A belief that God does not exist is held on faith.
> Secondly, the definition of Atheism as a religion does not affect separation of church and state.  It does not change the Constitution or amendments thereto.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It nullifies the meaning of religion to encompass all views. Any moral system not pre-supposing a god will be labeled 'atheistic' and religious advocates will insist their views have equal standing. You can pretend this isn't the point (and maybe for you it isn't. maybe you're just here trolling for attention) but it is a consistent theme from the religious right.
Click to expand...

 
Their views do have equal standing.  Are you suggesting views of religious advocates should not have equal standing?


----------



## asaratis

dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such campaign.  It has already been done.  Atheists just refuse to accept it.  Atheism is a religion.  Don't worry!  There's no pain involved!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this effort succeeds, there will be. Theocracy is not good government. We worked hard to get government out of our religious affairs, and vice versa. We need to defend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does this constitute a theocracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It lays the groundwork for it by undermining separation of church and state. By expanding the accepted definition of religion to include both faith and non-faith (both believing in a god and not believing a god) all matters of judgment can be deemed to be matters of "religion" - either based on faith in a god, or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firstly, Atheism is not a non-faith concept.  A belief that God does not exist is held on faith.
> Secondly, the definition of Atheism as a religion does not affect separation of church and state.  It does not change the Constitution or amendments thereto.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It nullifies the meaning of religion to encompass all views. Any moral system not pre-supposing a god will be labeled 'atheistic' and religious advocates will insist their views have equal standing. You can pretend this isn't the point (and maybe for you it isn't. maybe you're just here trolling for attention) but it is a consistent theme from the religious right.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't.  As I see it, all religious should have views have equal standing.  The views of other religions do not harm me. Besides, several if not many Christian Churches believe (quite properly) that evolution is a fact of life.  Even within churches that denounce it, there are members that do not...including me.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> *UNIVERSAL DEFINITION*
> 
> IDENTIFYING A CULT
> 
> _CULT_ - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top. The group will claim to be the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their members. This definition covers cults within all majopr world religions, along with those cults which have no OBVIOUS religious base such as commercial, educational and psychological cults. Others may define these a little differently, but this is the simplest to work from. _THE 'ORTHODOX BIBLE-BASED CULT'_
> 
> A group is called a cult because of their behaviour - not their doctrines. Doctrine is an issue in the area of Apologetics and Heresy. Most religious cults do teach what the Christian church would declare to be heresy but some do not. Some cults teach the basics of the Christian faith but have behavioural patterns that are abusive, controlling and cultic.
> 
> This occurs in both Non-Charismatic and Charismatic churches. These groups teach the central doctrines of the Christian faith and then add the extra authority of leadership or someone's particular writings. They centre around the interpretations of the leadership and submissive and unquestioning acceptance of these is essential to be a member of good standing. This acceptance includes what we consider non-essential doctrines e.i. not salvation issues (such as the Person and Work of Christ.) The key is that they will be using mind control or undue influence on their members.
> 
> An excellent book on this subject is "Churches that Abuse" by Dr Ronald Enroth.
> 
> Using these guidelines of definition, Bible-based, Psychological, Educational and Commercial aberrations can easily be identified.



Hi Hollie: I went round and round with Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses trying to address the issue of why Christians considered JW a cult, but not other denominations.

I had found a link to an in-depth sociological explanation of the difference between being a cult and being cultic.
With JW this was a very hard distinction to make. Most reports on JW will outright call it a cult, so I had to look even deeper.

I decided I agreed with the deeper assessment in detail that defined JW as cultic or cultlike. It had the qualities of  being a cult but did not meet the requirements in full.

Other church denominations will vary.

The main difference is being "required to join THEIR group and only follow THEIR leadership as the ONLY WAY"
while denominations that are not cultish would say as long as you follow the laws
you can be independent or part of any group, with or without a leader.

To be fair to both political, religious and also nonprofit or business corporations that could abuse power,
I decided the best way is to apply the same standards of due process/individual rights as with govt.
So if a collective group acts as judge jury and executioner without due process, right to defense,
checks and balances by separation of powers, and doesn't let people represent themselves to redress grievances,
then it is abusive.  It does not matter if it is political or religious or corporate entity for whatever purpose:
the issue is if people are abusing collective authority to oppress the same Bill of Rights of individuals.

With Jehovah's Witness, they have a set in house process for redressing grievances
where the Elders have more authority than the individuals and the group can pressure members
to be shunned and are pressured to limit their information to just the group's own published sources.

So there is not equal freedom of speech, press, right of association (they are not to attend any other church groups
but can only attend their own meetings and home studies), equal right to petition the Elders, etc.

They are not allowed to study or practice "spiritual healing" which they are taught is demonism,
so there is a limit on free exercise of religion.

If JW is not a full blown cult, but is considered cultlike or cultic, then the other denominations of Christianity which are more open to free association and information, and not limited to which teachers they follow, are certainly not cults.

The same things that cause religious abuse are what our Bill of Rights were written to prevent
that cause political abuse of collective authority.

I find the Democrat Party gets just as cultish, that if you do not vote and follow the party line,
you can find yourself ostracized from the group as Joseph Liebermann was.

Like the JW if policy is going to be reformed, it has to be done from within following the chain
of command and having the agreement of the higher ups who control the party as a collective identity.

So when I compare the dangers of religious or political abuse,
I find the political groups, the corporations giving money to fund campaigns,
the legal system with judges and lawyers with their own conflicting interests,
and the media which receives millions if not billions in campaign spending,
to be the bigger threat because this influences MANDATORY laws that ALL people are required to follow.

The religious groups commit abuses that affect their members, and yes, the reported
sexual abuses of the JW, LDS and Catholic church does violate criminal laws and affect the greater public safety.

But those religions are options to follow.

The political groups that use cultish tactics make MANDATORY decisions in Courts and Congress 
that are NOT optional but come with fines and punishments if people do not obey these rulings.

So that to me is more dangerous.

I find it DISINGENUOUS if people only go after Religious abuses
but don't EQUALLY go after Political abuses of authority that are just as cultish,
but more dangerous since abuses are harder to check and these are mandatory authorities for the public to follow.

I have looked very deeply into this whole issue of whether religions are cults.

No, they are not all cults, as long as you are free to join or not join any group or follow any teaching or teacher.

The JW are the most clear example of how a group can be cultlike and still not be a full-blown cult.
They are very very close, and have a lot of the cult traits.

So if you can understand the difference in why JW are not a complete cult,
then  you can see why other groups are and aren't in comparison with JW.

That was the toughest example I looked into, because to anyone else it looks like a cult!

Very interesting and important issue,
thanks for bringing this up.

If we all looked into what causes and prevents abuse of collective power,
we would all be like Constitutionalists demanding checks and balances.

And no, you don't have to join any one group or follow any one leader
to follow natural laws under the Constitution. I believe you can follow
any belief or none at all by free exercise of religion as free will,
and as long as you respect the same rights, freedoms and protections
of others under these laws, then we can all be equal under law.
So you can be of any affiliation or be independent and we could
redress any grievances so any problems or abuses can be corrected or prevented.

I use those standards to check any other group, whether political religious or corporate,
against abuses that violate individual rights and freedoms, not just religious groups!!!


----------



## dblack

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this effort succeeds, there will be. Theocracy is not good government. We worked hard to get government out of our religious affairs, and vice versa. We need to defend it.
> 
> 
> 
> How does this constitute a theocracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It lays the groundwork for it by undermining separation of church and state. By expanding the accepted definition of religion to include both faith and non-faith (both believing in a god and not believing a god) all matters of judgment can be deemed to be matters of "religion" - either based on faith in a god, or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firstly, Atheism is not a non-faith concept.  A belief that God does not exist is held on faith.
> Secondly, the definition of Atheism as a religion does not affect separation of church and state.  It does not change the Constitution or amendments thereto.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It nullifies the meaning of religion to encompass all views. Any moral system not pre-supposing a god will be labeled 'atheistic' and religious advocates will insist their views have equal standing. You can pretend this isn't the point (and maybe for you it isn't. maybe you're just here trolling for attention) but it is a consistent theme from the religious right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their views do have equal standing.  Are you suggesting views of religious advocates should not have equal standing?
Click to expand...


I'm saying that will be their argument, but I don't think it's valid. It isn't valid because it isn't a question of equal standing, it's a question of what kinds of values government is authorized to promote and prohibit. The irony here, from my perspective, is that I don't think government has any business promoting anyone's moral values. It exists to protect our freedom to express our own moral values. If it were truly limited to that function, the debate of what is a religion and what is not would be moot - at least in the political arena.


----------



## emilynghiem

P.S. Hollie as for Christianity being a cult:
No,  you do not have to join a group, follow a leader, or even read the Bible to practice Christianity.
You can be a secular gentile and follow the natural laws and still arrive at the same universal truths
in the spirit of Christ Jesus as long as you are consistent with universal truth and justice, by not
deliberately teaching false things out of ill will and not doing unjust acts out of retribution which cause harm or suffering to others. Anyone who makes a commitment to living by the Spirit of Restorative Justice becomes neighbors in Christ, regardless of affiliation or none at all. So I have found Muslims, Jews even Atheists who are neighbors in Christ but are not members of any Christian group. I believe this is called Universal Salvation where all tribes are included.

As long as you follow the laws of Justice by heart or by nature/conscience, you can still follow the whole of the law by Restorative Justice which is consistent with the message and meaning of Christ in the Bible.

There ARE cults out there that teach you have to join THEIR group or follow THEIR leadership as the only
authority teaching it correctly. Some Catholics like Mel Gibson believe you have to be a member of THAT church
to be saved. While other Catholics or other Christians do not believe this is through one formal church and certainly
not that one.

Carlton Pearson teaches universal salvation as including all people, not just Christian, that God is not a Christian but universal.

But the majority of Christians do not require you to join one group or another, or follow one authority/leader or another.

The groups that I find which are truly universal accept and understand that all people
may follow a different path, and that is still the right one for that person to arrive at their understanding of truth.

I find that you can be of any affiliation or none at all, even atheist,
and still practice Christianity, Buddhism or Constitutionalism as universal.

The only practice I found that clashes with Christianity are
the occult, voodoo, spiritism, witchcraft spells (not the same as wicca which can be in keeping with natural laws),
sorcery, and anything that depends on manipulating dark energy for power or control
instead of relying on natural positive life energy as the consistent practices of wicca and pagan faiths
that do not conflict with Christianity.  Some of that negative energy does conflict and cannot be contacted.

All the others are compatible as long as any issues are resolved by consensus to preserve peaceful good faith relations.

The only issues that cannot be resolved involve the dark energy and forces of the occult which clash with
the positive life giving energy and healing process in Christianity.
The healing cannot even take place until these dark influences are removed first,
because they cause the energy flow to disrupt and risk damaging relations or even death.
for example if people have a drug addiction and are still exposed to this occult practice,
instead of recovering they can die of their addictions by overdose or suicide which I have
seen families suffer through. The ones who successfully separate from any occult influences
have the stronger success rate and ability to recover, and the ones who hold on to those
influences tend to relapse and have a much harder struggle to overcome the self-destructive addiction.

As long as you do not play with those negative forces, and wish ill or retribution on people,
anything else including atheist beliefs in keeping with natural laws are compatible with
Christianity as the path of the secular gentiles. The Constitutionalists and Buddhists
are also part of the natural laws path that is equally valid as following the sacred laws of the Bible.

So both paths are fulfilled in the spirit of Restorative Justice which is the universal meaning
of Christ Jesus that brings salvation from suffering, peace and healing to all humanity.

So faith in the Christian spirit is independent of which group you join or don't,
which affiliation or leaders or teachings you follow or don't, as long as we
are united under law in that spirit of Justice with Mercy for all people, that is the meaning and message of Christ Jesus.


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does this constitute a theocracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It lays the groundwork for it by undermining separation of church and state. By expanding the accepted definition of religion to include both faith and non-faith (both believing in a god and not believing a god) all matters of judgment can be deemed to be matters of "religion" - either based on faith in a god, or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firstly, Atheism is not a non-faith concept.  A belief that God does not exist is held on faith.
> Secondly, the definition of Atheism as a religion does not affect separation of church and state.  It does not change the Constitution or amendments thereto.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It nullifies the meaning of religion to encompass all views. Any moral system not pre-supposing a god will be labeled 'atheistic' and religious advocates will insist their views have equal standing. You can pretend this isn't the point (and maybe for you it isn't. maybe you're just here trolling for attention) but it is a consistent theme from the religious right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their views do have equal standing.  Are you suggesting views of religious advocates should not have equal standing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that will be their argument, but I don't think it's valid. It isn't valid because it isn't a question of equal standing, it's a question of what kinds of values government is authorized to promote and prohibit. The irony here, from my perspective, is that I don't think government has any business promoting anyone's moral values. It exists to protect our freedom to express our own moral values. If it were truly limited to that function, the debate of what is a religion and what is not would be moot - at least in the political arena.
Click to expand...

 
I'm not considering this issue in a political arena, only in a sociological one.  However, as a side track, I do think your view on government's role is overly narrow.  My own moral value may well be that I can take whatever I like and shoot you in the back of the head if you object.  I think a valid argument can be made to restrict government's influence over our lives, but it does more than protect your freedom to express your values. 

The question of religion in the public arena is overblown, imo.  The essence of freedom of speech and religion is that it not be infringed.  Under those conditions it is inevitable that one is going to be exposed to both speech and religion to which we do not ascribe and may vehemently oppose.  It is inevitable that social standards are going to apply based upon the beliefs of the majority.  You cannot have freedom of religion and freedom from religion at the same time.


----------



## emilynghiem

Esmeralda said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see. So, in reality you're looking out for atheists. Your main concern is to extend to them the special perks and rights religions enjoy.
> 
> There's a whiff of something there.... hmmm... can't quite place it....
> 
> 
> 
> Is it BS?
Click to expand...


No and yes. There are already Atheist churches pushing their own movement and very popular at that.
Any nonprofit group can declare tax exempt and receive the same benefits. There are many other religious
groups that chose to incorporate as nonprofit.

I believe Asaratis is sincere in this belief and outreach,
but that the outcome of this discussion may be for greater benefits than this.

In general, I have been pushing for years to recognize all beliefs equally,
not just incorporated or recognized religions, in order to offer "equal protection"
of religious freedom to all people and protection from discrimination by creed.

If only people who are members of a recognized group get protected, that is not equal under law.

ALL groups and ALL people of ALL beliefs should be protected.

The distinguish factor is to make sure that one's exercise of beliefs do not violate laws or rights of others.

So I find it becomes critical to address religiously held beliefs that cross over into politics and govt
because this is going to infringe on people of equal but opposite beliefs.

To protect the beliefs of all such parties equally requires either
consensus on how laws are written/enforced
or separating those out of govt and not trying to impose laws that exclude the other beliefs.

That is where I believe this conversation and country are heading.
To come to an agreed understanding why consensus is legally necessary
in such cases as gay marriage or health care where people's inherent BELIEFS are at stake.

It is unconstitutional for laws to favor one set of beliefs over the other.
But that is what is happening because we don't recognize political religions
or beliefs, and treat them as laws that people have the right to impose by majority rule,
even if they violate the same beliefs of others.

This is inconsistent, but it is happening as we speak!

So Asaratis seems sincere and even makes corrections, showing no adversity to that.

I don't think atheism is as much the issue, as there are many atheists successfully
operating their own churches, nonprofits and making and winning legal cases.

I think where the inequality is happening is with political beliefs.

Only the major parties are allowed to push their beliefs on the public through govt.
The other groups are too small in numbers to get their leaders or platforms
mandated which is not even proper anyway if you consider them creeds
that cannot be forced on people through govt.

So like the marriage laws that cross the line between church and state,
as long as we agreed and went along with that, this was allowed to go on.

But once the gay marriage came up, suddenly it becomes obvious
that marriage is mixing church with state and there is no longer agreement
to mandate one policy through the state; thus the need to separate it privately.

The same may happen with political parties if we formally recognize
some of the platforms as political beliefs or religions and treat them as such.

That is more pressing and affects more people than
arguing if atheism is a religion or not.

What about Democrat principles about prochoice or beliefs about prolife.
what about beliefs on govt health care or free market health care?

That affects more people so that's where I would like to focus next.
After we are done going in circles about atheism which is not causing 
as much conflict or harm as imposing political beliefs on taxpayers under penalty of law!


----------



## PostmodernProph

asaratis said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then you're using a very narrow definition of atheist that really only encompasses one type of atheistic belief. Atheist is synonymous with non-theist. That's what the 'a' prefix means.
> 
> And you're using a popular misrepresentation of agnosticism. But in point of fact, it's possible for an agnostic to be either a theist, or an atheist.
> 
> If we were just disagreeing on definitions, it would be a pretty boring conversation, but I think both sides recognize there's more to it than that. The subtext here is the fact that our government treats religious beliefs and non-theist beliefs (science and philosophy) differently in matters of education and government sponsorship. So, those with a vested interest have strong incentive to manipulate the definitions used by government in determining which beliefs are considered 'religious' and which aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I am using it the way it is intended to be used. As evidence I present the following definitions.
> 
> Theism: the belief in god or gods.
> 
> Agnostiocism: Oops, not a word because it is not a belief.
> 
> Atheism: the belief that there are no gods.
> 
> If atheism simply meant not believing in god we wouldn't have another word to mean "I don't really know about god one way or another."
> 
> If you want to claim you do not have a belief you have to accept the fact that the word that you should use to describe that lack of belief is agnostic because it is the only word available to you that you cannot attach -ism to. By the way, that actually proves that you cannot be an agnostic theist, because if you are a theist you have a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. We're dealing with different definitions. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with the campaign to have evolution treated as an atheistic religious belief in regard to school curricula?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to answer for QW, but I would say no.  Evolution is scientifically proven fact.  It is not a religious philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some things about evolution have been proven.......others have less support in fact than many philosophies.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some mathematical theories haven't been proved.  That doesn't preclude the teaching of math.
Click to expand...

should math claim that which has not been proven, has been proven?.......


----------



## emilynghiem

PratchettFan said:


> I'm not considering this issue in a political arena, only in a sociological one.  However, as a side track, I do think your view on government's role is overly narrow.  My own moral value may well be that I can take whatever I like and shoot you in the back of the head if you object.  I think a valid argument can be made to restrict government's influence over our lives, but it does more than protect your freedom to express your values.
> 
> The question of religion in the public arena is overblown, imo.  The essence of freedom of speech and religion is that it not be infringed.  Under those conditions it is inevitable that one is going to be exposed to both speech and religion to which we do not ascribe and may vehemently oppose.  It is inevitable that social standards are going to apply based upon the beliefs of the majority.  *You cannot have freedom of religion and freedom from religion at the same time.*



Disagree. The First Amendment states both that neither should government establish (impose) religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.  There is also the Fourteenth Amendment on equal protection from discrimination by creed.

The best way to explain how to have both at the same time is self-government.
That people exercise by free will and do not rely on govt to either impose or ban, or regulate it either way!

We must choose to regulate ourselves.
If we CHOOSE and AGREE to laws through govt, that is not govt imposing on people
but representing contracts we make by agreement before passing into law.

So in order to regulate religion from dangerous practices, such as killing people by belief as you offered as an example, we simply teach or may require that all citizens and incorporated groups follow the same laws of equal protections
and due process that the govt follows, if they want to invoke those same rights.

You cannot break civil or criminal laws, and then use these same laws to claim religious freedom; that cannot be "taken out of context" with the rest of the laws.

So we just need to establish this agreement by consent, and it's not govt imposing on our religion, it's us agreeing that religious freedom is still within the rest of the laws for everyone that we agree to follow as citizens.

So no fair invoking First Amendment rights to free this or that while violating the same of others.
(so if someone does not believe in being killed, then you cannot kill them just because you believe in it)

Religious issues would be settled by consensus so that nobody's consent or beliefs are violated,
but all are equally protected by law. This would allow a self-check without relying on govt to mandate for us.

Also this would clean up the criminal justice system, if people who want defense and due process
cannot obstruct it for others by withholding information. if you want free speech and the right to petition to
mediate your own defense and negotiate a fair settlement, sentence, penalty or restitution, you would
have to work with authorities and respect the right to petition of the victims of your crimes, abuse or debts/damages
caused, so that all people's due process, right to petition to redress grievances, and beliefs on justice are represented.

Not everyone believes in this level of Restorative Justice.
But for those who do, it should be a valid choice since it is a belief, and that should be protected by law.

The only thing missing is people need to pay for their own beliefs
and not expect others to pay who believe in Retributive Justice.

So the people for or against the death penalty or who believe in rehab and restitution to victims
should be arguing, as I have been, to separate the funding and exercise religious freedom
to pay for Restorative Justice alternatives.

That is one example of ways that we can have religious freedom within govt,
by exercising voluntarily and not imposing responsibility or costs on anyone else.

I believe gay marriage should be separated from govt also,
to prevent either side or beliefs from imposing on the other.

If conflicts are removed from state jurisdiction, and left to the people to decide by consensus or separate, you can have
both religious freedom and freedom from religion which is what our laws are supposed to protect anyway.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> RE: Definitions of CULT



Definitions of the term cult Apologetics research resources

Here Hollie^
I could no longer find the two pages on Jehovah's Witnesses that explained the difference between
having cultic qualities and being an actual cult.

But I did find one shorter explanation of the difference between
* theological cults
* sociological cults

The way I have found to reach an agreement on Christianity where it is not a cult, not an outside religion, etc.
is to align with people's preexisting views of Truth and Justice.  so it is fulfilling the principles they already believe in, and not converting anyone or anything to something they don't already follow as natural to them.

This is what I mean that anyone, even atheists like my friend Ray, can be neighbors in Christ
and follow the same universal path of Restorative Justice that leads to agreed Truth to bring Peace.

So I stick to the ways of sharing the principles in Christianity, Buddhism and Constitutionalism
that I find so universal, they can be aligned with anyone's preexisting beliefs without changing or converting anyone to something they are not.  It is mainly "changing our perception" by aligning our terms to include each other's views so we mean the same things when we use words that make sense to both people. (The other terms that don't make equal sense are not necessary, so that's why I'm so big on trying to figure out what people DO call the concepts they believe in and use those terms instead.)[/QUOTE]


----------



## emilynghiem

PostmodernProph said:


> should math claim that which has not been proven, has been proven?.......



* Only if that claim is true. Afterwards the proof is shared with others so it is established as public.

Fermat's theorem was finally proven, and still had to be confirmed with other mathematicians.

For those who don't follow the proof, it remains not proven yet, but taken on faith.

* Spiritual healing has been proven as natural and consistent with science and medicine
but only to those who have conducted and understand the research was sound.

Until this is proven formally on a public basis, it remains faith based in the eyes of the public.

* for evolution and creation, to prove this process really applied to the beginning of life to where we are now
requires faith. We cannot fully reproduce that whole process from beginning to now to show it happened that way.

So we can prove the process in replicated examples, but to apply it to the whole will always require a bit of leap in faith.

Personally, I think we have a better chance of proving spiritual healing, because that is replicable case by case.
It does not require faith that "all humanity can be healed globally this way" to prove that *Individual cases*
report "before and after" success in removing causes of various diseases where the person returns to normal health.


----------



## asaratis

PostmodernProph said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I am using it the way it is intended to be used. As evidence I present the following definitions.
> 
> Theism: the belief in god or gods.
> 
> Agnostiocism: Oops, not a word because it is not a belief.
> 
> Atheism: the belief that there are no gods.
> 
> If atheism simply meant not believing in god we wouldn't have another word to mean "I don't really know about god one way or another."
> 
> If you want to claim you do not have a belief you have to accept the fact that the word that you should use to describe that lack of belief is agnostic because it is the only word available to you that you cannot attach -ism to. By the way, that actually proves that you cannot be an agnostic theist, because if you are a theist you have a belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. We're dealing with different definitions. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with the campaign to have evolution treated as an atheistic religious belief in regard to school curricula?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to answer for QW, but I would say no.  Evolution is scientifically proven fact.  It is not a religious philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some things about evolution have been proven.......others have less support in fact than many philosophies.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some mathematical theories haven't been proved.  That doesn't preclude the teaching of math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *should math claim that which has not been proven, has been proven?.*......
Click to expand...

(Aside: That should be ..._has been proved..._just sayin'.....a thing that has been proved is a proven thing.)

No. If there is no evidence that it should be considered inaccurate, it should be presented as an unproven theory if it is to be taught in math class.  Applying this same metric to creationism precludes its being taught in government schools because there is ample evidence showing that it is false.


----------



## sealybobo

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. We're dealing with different definitions. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with the campaign to have evolution treated as an atheistic religious belief in regard to school curricula?
> 
> 
> 
> Not to answer for QW, but I would say no.  Evolution is scientifically proven fact.  It is not a religious philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what, in your view, are the practical implications of saying atheism is a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a different question and difficult to answer in the waking time I have left tonight.  I am about to count sheep.
> 
> BTW, the campaign to have evolution declared an atheist religious view is intended to have the teaching of it precluded from government schools.  Since evolution is a science and not an unsubstantiated belief, it does not qualify as promotion of religion to teach it.  Evolution should be taught...and pi should not be rounded off to 3.0!
> 
> The teaching that God does not exist SHOULD be precluded as it is a belief of the religion of Atheism.  Likewise, the teaching that God does exist or that the earth is only 6000 years old should be precluded as they are religious beliefs of other religions.
> 
> I am a Christian that believes in evolution....and does not believe in literal translation of the Bible....but all that's for another thread.
> 
> As for the practicality of Atheism being defined as a religion:
> 
> gives it the same protections that other religions have under the 1st Amendment
> gives it the tax relief available to other religions
> gives it a vehicle to establish more churches and expand its membership (I suspect that there are many Atheists that desire the social interactions and fellowship of like minded homo sapiens.)
> I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *UNIVERSAL DEFINITION*
> 
> IDENTIFYING A CULT
> 
> _CULT_ - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top. The group will claim to be the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their members. This definition covers cults within all majopr world religions, along with those cults which have no OBVIOUS religious base such as commercial, educational and psychological cults. Others may define these a little differently, but this is the simplest to work from. _THE 'ORTHODOX BIBLE-BASED CULT'_
> 
> A group is called a cult because of their behaviour - not their doctrines. Doctrine is an issue in the area of Apologetics and Heresy. Most religious cults do teach what the Christian church would declare to be heresy but some do not. Some cults teach the basics of the Christian faith but have behavioural patterns that are abusive, controlling and cultic.
> 
> This occurs in both Non-Charismatic and Charismatic churches. These groups teach the central doctrines of the Christian faith and then add the extra authority of leadership or someone's particular writings. They centre around the interpretations of the leadership and submissive and unquestioning acceptance of these is essential to be a member of good standing. This acceptance includes what we consider non-essential doctrines e.i. not salvation issues (such as the Person and Work of Christ.) The key is that they will be using mind control or undue influence on their members.
> 
> An excellent book on this subject is "Churches that Abuse" by Dr Ronald Enroth.
> 
> Using these guidelines of definition, Bible-based, Psychological, Educational and Commercial aberrations can easily be identified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *cult*
> noun [C]  /kʌlt/  us
> 
> › a system of religious belief, esp. one not recognized as an established religion, or the people who worship according to such a system of belief: People considered him a brilliant cult leader and con man.
> 
> › A cult is also something that is very popular with some people, or a particular set of beliefs or behavior: a cult movie the cult of celebrity
> (Definition of cult from the  Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary  © Cambridge University Press)
Click to expand...


The only difference between a cult and religion is membership size.

P.S.  I belong to the same religion your dog belongs to.  Like it doesn't matter to a rat, bird, fish or maggot if there is a god, I feel like I am just another animal.  Just because we happen to be the smartest animal doesn't change the fact that we are still just animals.  So like a cow doesn't think of god, neither do we.  What religion does your cow belong to?  That's my religion.


----------



## PratchettFan

asaratis said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. We're dealing with different definitions. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with the campaign to have evolution treated as an atheistic religious belief in regard to school curricula?
> 
> 
> 
> Not to answer for QW, but I would say no.  Evolution is scientifically proven fact.  It is not a religious philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some things about evolution have been proven.......others have less support in fact than many philosophies.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some mathematical theories haven't been proved.  That doesn't preclude the teaching of math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *should math claim that which has not been proven, has been proven?.*......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (Aside: That should be ..._has been proved..._just sayin'.....a thing that has been proved is a proven thing.)
> 
> No. If there is no evidence that it should be considered inaccurate, it should be presented as an unproven theory if it is to be taught in math class.  Applying this same metric to creationism precludes its being taught in government schools because there is ample evidence showing that it is false.
Click to expand...

 
I disagree there is ample evidence showing it to be false.  There is no evidence showing it to be false.  At the same time, there is no evidence showing it to be true.  The problem with creationism is that it never gets further than a hypothesis.


----------



## Marianne

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]


I have issue with your definition. Superhuman is a poor choice of words as may cultures believe that their gods are not human at all. I go with Supreme being as being closer to the truth.

Religion is in general a belief system that one worships. If we look at atheists they have a belief in nothing AKA a belief system. If you think about it atheists say gods don't exist therefore religious people according to atheists have a belief in nothing just like them. 

*atheist*
[ey-thee-ist] Spell Syllables

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin
noun
1.
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Atheist Define Atheist at Dictionary.com


----------



## emilynghiem

asaratis said:


> No. If there is no evidence that it should be considered inaccurate, it should be presented as an unproven theory if it is to be taught in math class.  Applying this same metric to creationism precludes its being taught in government schools because there is ample evidence showing that it is false.



I don't see how either God or Creationism can be proven true or false.
These both exceed the limits of what humans can contain in our finite realms much less replicate.

Because they cannot be proven, that is enough to understand they are faith based.

If these are to be taught in school, the community paying for the school should agree
and there is no issue.

If people disagree, then maybe all schools should be locally paid for and managed
so people have Religious Freedom to teach as they agree amongst themselves.

To ban it outright, but REQUIRE taxpayers to pay for it, is just as religiously discriminatory.
So let each community pay for and manage its own school policies.

And keep totalitarian govt out of telling people what they can or cannot teach in schools
by giving them a choice of funding and managing the schools directly to avoid these conflicts!


----------



## asaratis

sealybobo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to answer for QW, but I would say no.  Evolution is scientifically proven fact.  It is not a religious philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what, in your view, are the practical implications of saying atheism is a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a different question and difficult to answer in the waking time I have left tonight.  I am about to count sheep.
> 
> BTW, the campaign to have evolution declared an atheist religious view is intended to have the teaching of it precluded from government schools.  Since evolution is a science and not an unsubstantiated belief, it does not qualify as promotion of religion to teach it.  Evolution should be taught...and pi should not be rounded off to 3.0!
> 
> The teaching that God does not exist SHOULD be precluded as it is a belief of the religion of Atheism.  Likewise, the teaching that God does exist or that the earth is only 6000 years old should be precluded as they are religious beliefs of other religions.
> 
> I am a Christian that believes in evolution....and does not believe in literal translation of the Bible....but all that's for another thread.
> 
> As for the practicality of Atheism being defined as a religion:
> 
> gives it the same protections that other religions have under the 1st Amendment
> gives it the tax relief available to other religions
> gives it a vehicle to establish more churches and expand its membership (I suspect that there are many Atheists that desire the social interactions and fellowship of like minded homo sapiens.)
> I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *UNIVERSAL DEFINITION*
> 
> IDENTIFYING A CULT
> 
> _CULT_ - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top. The group will claim to be the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their members. This definition covers cults within all majopr world religions, along with those cults which have no OBVIOUS religious base such as commercial, educational and psychological cults. Others may define these a little differently, but this is the simplest to work from. _THE 'ORTHODOX BIBLE-BASED CULT'_
> 
> A group is called a cult because of their behaviour - not their doctrines. Doctrine is an issue in the area of Apologetics and Heresy. Most religious cults do teach what the Christian church would declare to be heresy but some do not. Some cults teach the basics of the Christian faith but have behavioural patterns that are abusive, controlling and cultic.
> 
> This occurs in both Non-Charismatic and Charismatic churches. These groups teach the central doctrines of the Christian faith and then add the extra authority of leadership or someone's particular writings. They centre around the interpretations of the leadership and submissive and unquestioning acceptance of these is essential to be a member of good standing. This acceptance includes what we consider non-essential doctrines e.i. not salvation issues (such as the Person and Work of Christ.) The key is that they will be using mind control or undue influence on their members.
> 
> An excellent book on this subject is "Churches that Abuse" by Dr Ronald Enroth.
> 
> Using these guidelines of definition, Bible-based, Psychological, Educational and Commercial aberrations can easily be identified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *cult*
> noun [C]  /kʌlt/  us
> 
> › a system of religious belief, esp. one not recognized as an established religion, or the people who worship according to such a system of belief: People considered him a brilliant cult leader and con man.
> 
> › A cult is also something that is very popular with some people, or a particular set of beliefs or behavior: a cult movie the cult of celebrity
> (Definition of cult from the  Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary  © Cambridge University Press)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only difference between a cult and religion is membership size.
> 
> P.S.  I belong to the same religion your dog belongs to.  Like it doesn't matter to a rat, bird, fish or maggot if there is a god, I feel like I am just another animal.  Just because we happen to be the smartest animal doesn't change the fact that we are still just animals.  So like a cow doesn't think of god, neither do we.  What religion does your cow belong to?  That's my religion.
Click to expand...

You missed the part where it said: (bold letters)

cult
noun [C] /kʌlt/ us 

› a system of religious belief,* esp. one not recognized as an established religion,*


----------



## asaratis

PratchettFan said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to answer for QW, but I would say no.  Evolution is scientifically proven fact.  It is not a religious philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> some things about evolution have been proven.......others have less support in fact than many philosophies.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some mathematical theories haven't been proved.  That doesn't preclude the teaching of math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *should math claim that which has not been proven, has been proven?.*......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (Aside: That should be ..._has been proved..._just sayin'.....a thing that has been proved is a proven thing.)
> 
> No. If there is no evidence that it should be considered inaccurate, it should be presented as an unproven theory if it is to be taught in math class.  Applying this same metric to creationism precludes its being taught in government schools because there is ample evidence showing that it is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree there is ample evidence showing it to be false.  There is no evidence showing it to be false.  At the same time, there is no evidence showing it to be true.  The problem with creationism is that it never gets further than a hypothesis.
Click to expand...

What is known about evolution proves that is the universe was not created in 6 days and that the earth is far more than 6000 years old.


----------



## asaratis

emilynghiem said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. If there is no evidence that it should be considered inaccurate, it should be presented as an unproven theory if it is to be taught in math class.  Applying this same metric to creationism precludes its being taught in government schools because there is ample evidence showing that it is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how either God or Creationism can be proven true or false.
> These both exceed the limits of what humans can contain in our finite realms much less replicate.
> 
> Because they cannot be proven, that is enough to understand they are faith based.
> 
> If these are to be taught in school, the community paying for the school should agree
> and there is no issue.
> 
> If people disagree, then maybe all schools should be locally paid for and managed
> so people have Religious Freedom to teach as they agree amongst themselves.
> 
> To ban it outright, but REQUIRE taxpayers to pay for it, is just as religiously discriminatory.
> So let each community pay for and manage its own school policies.
> 
> And keep totalitarian govt out of telling people what they can or cannot teach in schools
> by giving them a choice of funding and managing the schools directly to avoid these conflicts!
Click to expand...

Communities are free to establish private schools and teach whatever they will...short of overthrowing the government.


----------



## PratchettFan

asaratis said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> some things about evolution have been proven.......others have less support in fact than many philosophies.......
> 
> 
> 
> Some mathematical theories haven't been proved.  That doesn't preclude the teaching of math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *should math claim that which has not been proven, has been proven?.*......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (Aside: That should be ..._has been proved..._just sayin'.....a thing that has been proved is a proven thing.)
> 
> No. If there is no evidence that it should be considered inaccurate, it should be presented as an unproven theory if it is to be taught in math class.  Applying this same metric to creationism precludes its being taught in government schools because there is ample evidence showing that it is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree there is ample evidence showing it to be false.  There is no evidence showing it to be false.  At the same time, there is no evidence showing it to be true.  The problem with creationism is that it never gets further than a hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is known about evolution proves that is the universe was not created in 6 days and that the earth is far more than 6000 years old.
Click to expand...

 
Creationism only means that the universe is an artifact.  One can probably prove that a given pair of shoes was not made by friendly elves in the night, but that doesn't mean they weren't made.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> The only difference between a cult and religion is membership size.
> 
> P.S.  I belong to the same religion your dog belongs to.  Like it doesn't matter to a rat, bird, fish or maggot if there is a god, I feel like I am just another animal.  Just because we happen to be the smartest animal doesn't change the fact that we are still just animals.  So like a cow doesn't think of god, neither do we.  What religion does your cow belong to?  That's my religion.



Hi sealybobo:
Size DOES make a difference in the impact or significance that such a group has to others.

Definitions of the term cult Apologetics research resources

if we look at the difference between "sociological cults" and "theological cults" above,
maybe we need to make a similar distinction here between what
is serving "sociologically" as a religion and what is technically involving a "theological" belief or not.

I think PF is only looking at religion in terms of "sociological" action or practice outward.
But Asaratis is focused on the INTERNAL "belief" that a religion is built around.

(As for cows, some religions believe that all living things are spiritual beings
connected by the same laws of the universe. And just because they are not
as sentient or able to express or act on their wills to the extent humans do,
doesn't mean they aren't following the same laws of nature. I have one
friend who believes animals are held accountable for their karma equally
as humans, but I disagree. Too much of what animals experience is
decided by human karma. So most of that is on humans.  Animals
are on a different realm of life and connection to the spiritual whole,
but do not make decisions like humans so cannot be held to the same
degree of accountability. My friend who believes otherwise believes
animals also learn and have to follow rules of order, but I don't think it's their choice.)


----------



## asaratis

PratchettFan said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some mathematical theories haven't been proved.  That doesn't preclude the teaching of math.
> 
> 
> 
> *should math claim that which has not been proven, has been proven?.*......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (Aside: That should be ..._has been proved..._just sayin'.....a thing that has been proved is a proven thing.)
> 
> No. If there is no evidence that it should be considered inaccurate, it should be presented as an unproven theory if it is to be taught in math class.  Applying this same metric to creationism precludes its being taught in government schools because there is ample evidence showing that it is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree there is ample evidence showing it to be false.  There is no evidence showing it to be false.  At the same time, there is no evidence showing it to be true.  The problem with creationism is that it never gets further than a hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is known about evolution proves that is the universe was not created in 6 days and that the earth is far more than 6000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationism only means that the universe is an artifact.  One can probably prove that a given pair of shoes was not made by friendly elves in the night, but that doesn't mean they weren't made.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should show your definition of _artifact_. I've thought for decades that an artifact was something made by man.


----------



## emilynghiem

asaratis said:


> Communities are free to establish private schools and teach whatever they will...short of overthrowing the government.



In practice and in theory are two different things.

In Houston, because the City is not held to Constitutional checks and balances but acts as a private entity (using public resources and power to make public policies under mandatory taxation and requirement to follow)
the City has been closing and even tearing down schools that the communities wanted to save.

So it is getting to the point I have personally called for organizing to secede into separate self-governing districts.
And make that part of the educational process so people can learn what it takes to be equal under law.

So it may take separating from govt, but in a civil manner, like a civil divorce.
No violence or revolution necessary. Just changing business contracts
where people have the right to buy out the businesses, schools, propoerty, houses and land
in their district to work toward  incorporating as their own township.

My argument is that the laws call for equal protection and representation.
And that this is not possible in a situation where the city has more power without equal check by the people.
So either change the city charter where it has all the same features as the Bill of Rights and
requirement of govt to follow these laws (instead of bypassing them until "sued in court,"
as the City of Houston has been sued recently two or three times over different policies
passed that violated Constitutional or state laws).

I believe we may have to push for what the 13 colonies did to become independent states
under a central govt, but without the war and bloodshed. Just the citizens and legal help
to establish some kind of Constitutional system that checks against further abuse of power to override the
taxpaying citizens.

The current set up is not enough to stop the abuses, because the City is acting as its own private
authority without Constitutional check, yet its policies are mandatory to follow and to pay taxes into.


----------



## sealybobo

Marianne said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have issue with your definition. Superhuman is a poor choice of words as may cultures believe that their gods are not human at all. I go with Supreme being as being closer to the truth.
> 
> Religion is in general a belief system that one worships. If we look at atheists they have a belief in nothing AKA a belief system. If you think about it atheists say gods don't exist therefore religious people according to atheists have a belief in nothing just like them.
> 
> *atheist*
> [ey-thee-ist] Spell Syllables
> 
> Synonyms
> Examples
> Word Origin
> noun
> 1.
> a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
> 
> Atheist Define Atheist at Dictionary.com
Click to expand...



"To be an Atheist one would have to be omniscient, knowing all things, having a perfect knowledge of the universe, to say they absolutely know God does not exist. For one to do this they would have to have personally inspected all places in the present known universe and in all time, having explored everywhere seen and unseen."

The definition of "Atheist" in the argument above is an overly broad straw man: an atheist is one who either lacks positive belief in a god or who believes that no gods exist, not one who claims to know absolutely that no gods exist.

While a person would need perfect knowledge of the universe to be absolutely certain that no gods exist, such knowledge is not required for _disbelief_. And, in fact, individual theists disbelieve all kinds of claims (that various mythical beings exist, or that Earth is being regularly visited by aliens from space) without having complete knowledge even of the relevant subject areas.

The use of the word "faith" is often an attempt to mislead based on the equivocation fallacy. As the article on faith discusses, the two primary meanings of the word are: (1) _confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing_; and (2) _belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence._ One may reasonably claim that certain forms of atheism are based on "faith" using the first definition. However, the way this claim is often made implies that the second definition is being used, which is usually incorrect.

OMG there is so much more here explaining to theists why they are wrong: Atheism is based on faith - Iron Chariots Wiki


----------



## Carla_Danger

Marianne said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have issue with your definition. Superhuman is a poor choice of words as may cultures believe that their gods are not human at all. I go with Supreme being as being closer to the truth.
> 
> Religion is in general a belief system that one worships. If we look at atheists they have a belief in nothing AKA a belief system. If you think about it atheists say gods don't exist therefore religious people according to atheists have a belief in nothing just like them.
> 
> *atheist*
> [ey-thee-ist] Spell Syllables
> 
> Synonyms
> Examples
> Word Origin
> noun
> 1.
> a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
> 
> Atheist Define Atheist at Dictionary.com
Click to expand...



I can go along with adding Supreme being to the definition of religion, but you are incorrect thinking that atheists believe, religious people believe in nothing. That's simply not true. It sounds to me, like you're having a hard time separating the two.


----------



## emilynghiem

asaratis said:


> What is known about evolution proves that is the universe was not created in 6 days and that the earth is far more than 6000 years old.



The prehuman remains dating millions of years ago can be cited without arguing for or against evolution.

Neither of these contradicts the interpretation of the 6,000 year timeline
in the Bible as referring to the Hebrew or Mosaic/Adamic lineage.

In the Jewish Caballah and even loose references in the Bible
there were giants or tribes of other beings already on the earth before Adam and Eve.
so this can be interpreted to mean the humanoid tribes that weren't fully
self-aware humans of the Mosaic or Adamic lineage.

I interpret the 'daughters of the earth' which the sons of 'Adam and Eve' coupled with
to mean the matriarchal or goddess tribes that preceded the patriarchal lineages.

So I do believe there is valid symbolism in Lilith that preceded Eve,
where there were earth-based/matriarchal cultures before the
patriarchal laws and lineages where women were subjugate to the
men as the heads of households, where the children were considered property
of the estate. The point in marriage laws was to ensure the men could control
their heirs within patriarchal cultures, where this was not necessary in matriarchal
cultures that were more egalitarian. Thus all the focus on marriage and against
adultery, etc.

You can believe in Creation as a Christian
and still include all this history without contradiction.


----------



## PratchettFan

asaratis said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> *should math claim that which has not been proven, has been proven?.*......
> 
> 
> 
> (Aside: That should be ..._has been proved..._just sayin'.....a thing that has been proved is a proven thing.)
> 
> No. If there is no evidence that it should be considered inaccurate, it should be presented as an unproven theory if it is to be taught in math class.  Applying this same metric to creationism precludes its being taught in government schools because there is ample evidence showing that it is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree there is ample evidence showing it to be false.  There is no evidence showing it to be false.  At the same time, there is no evidence showing it to be true.  The problem with creationism is that it never gets further than a hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is known about evolution proves that is the universe was not created in 6 days and that the earth is far more than 6000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationism only means that the universe is an artifact.  One can probably prove that a given pair of shoes was not made by friendly elves in the night, but that doesn't mean they weren't made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you should show your definition of _artifact_. I've thought for decades that an artifact was something made by man.
Click to expand...

 
In this context, I simply mean something that is made.  I suppose we could narrow that down a bit so that it is made by intent.  I don't know what word we would use for something which was made by a non-human.  For example, if we stumble upon a derelict space ship from some alien race under the sands of Mars, what would you call it?


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> (Aside: That should be ..._has been proved..._just sayin'.....a thing that has been proved is a proven thing.)
> 
> No. If there is no evidence that it should be considered inaccurate, it should be presented as an unproven theory if it is to be taught in math class.  Applying this same metric to creationism precludes its being taught in government schools because there is ample evidence showing that it is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree there is ample evidence showing it to be false.  There is no evidence showing it to be false.  At the same time, there is no evidence showing it to be true.  The problem with creationism is that it never gets further than a hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is known about evolution proves that is the universe was not created in 6 days and that the earth is far more than 6000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationism only means that the universe is an artifact.  One can probably prove that a given pair of shoes was not made by friendly elves in the night, but that doesn't mean they weren't made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you should show your definition of _artifact_. I've thought for decades that an artifact was something made by man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this context, I simply mean something that is made.  I suppose we could narrow that down a bit so that it is made by intent.  I don't know what word we would use for something which was made by a non-human.  For example, if we stumble upon a derelict space ship from some alien race under the sands of Mars, what would you call it?
Click to expand...


I often imagine a huge god living on the other side of one of our black holes, who put his privates in the black hole because to one of them it feels great, and when he blew his spunk that was the big bang.  And those frozen comets that have all those amino acids that orbit our sun that one day flew out of control and landed on earth and every other planet and are how life started on earth because we are not too far or close to the sun, that if this is our creator, then he cares about us as much as I care about the sperm I shot into a tissue and flushed last night.  Now maybe one day god looked into the peep hole and saw what he created.  Maybe he can't stop cancer or aids.  Maybe he will get old and die too one day.  Everything does.  Maybe our creator died a long time ago.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree there is ample evidence showing it to be false.  There is no evidence showing it to be false.  At the same time, there is no evidence showing it to be true.  The problem with creationism is that it never gets further than a hypothesis.
> 
> 
> 
> What is known about evolution proves that is the universe was not created in 6 days and that the earth is far more than 6000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationism only means that the universe is an artifact.  One can probably prove that a given pair of shoes was not made by friendly elves in the night, but that doesn't mean they weren't made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you should show your definition of _artifact_. I've thought for decades that an artifact was something made by man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this context, I simply mean something that is made.  I suppose we could narrow that down a bit so that it is made by intent.  I don't know what word we would use for something which was made by a non-human.  For example, if we stumble upon a derelict space ship from some alien race under the sands of Mars, what would you call it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I often imagine a huge god living on the other side of one of our black holes, who put his privates in the black hole because to one of them it feels great, and when he blew his spunk that was the big bang.  And those frozen comets that have all those amino acids that orbit our sun that one day flew out of control and landed on earth and every other planet and are how life started on earth because we are not too far or close to the sun, that if this is our creator, then he cares about us as much as I care about the sperm I shot into a tissue and flushed last night.  Now maybe one day god looked into the peep hole and saw what he created.  Maybe he can't stop cancer or aids.  Maybe he will get old and die too one day.  Everything does.  Maybe our creator died a long time ago.
Click to expand...

 
You certainly have an imagination.  I think we have enough objective evidence on hand to show that comets are not made of semen.  See?  You can prove a negative.  But was there a creator?  I don't know.  What was the nature of the creator?  I don't know.  Is the creator alive or dead?  I don't know.


----------



## emilynghiem

Carla_Danger said:


> I can go along with adding Supreme being to the definition of religion, but you are incorrect thinking that atheists believe, religious people believe in nothing. That's simply not true. It sounds to me, like you're having a hard time separating the two.



I read Marianne's statement as conditional IF:
IF you are going to count atheists as "not believing in something"
then apply the same to theists: that if what they believe is unreal anyway,
that's not believing in anything either!

Not a perfect argument, but I get the idea:
Be consistent.

Otherwise I kind of see what the implication is:
the only difference it would make to 
treat theist's beliefs DIFFERENTLY from atheists
is if you ARE saying that that theists believe in something real or having effect
while the atheists do not.

If what the theists believe in doesn't even exist,
what difference do their beliefs make?
The only way this could matter is if there is some substance or significance
to what they believe in. 

So if you are saying there isn't anything there anyway,
then what theists believe should not be treated any differently
as when you say atheists don't believe in anything like that to begin with.

What difference should it make if it isn't real?


----------



## emilynghiem

asaratis said:


> No. If there is no evidence that it should be considered inaccurate, it should be presented as an unproven theory if it is to be taught in math class.  Applying this same metric to creationism precludes its being taught in government schools because there is ample evidence showing that it is false.



1. No, you cannot prove creationism true or false because none of thus was there.
Proving it is faith-based is enough to preclude it being taught in schools without public consent.
However, if the public comes to an agreement on how to teach these things, there need not be any imposition
of religion by govt on people. People can choose to incorporate religious things but just can't force it on others by govt;
if people consent that is not forcing it.

2. Another alternative to creationism that is still consistent with religions is the idea that
the universe/God has no beginning and no end, but always existed.

This cannot be proven or disproven either, because none of us was there to witness this.

All the same laws of the universe can be taught consistently
even if we never agree if there was a finite beginning to the world,
or if all things were always in existence (or this is all subjective perception,
none of it may be real, or it may change).

We can still agree what laws apply universally, and agree to resolve conflicts as these arise
so we maintain a consensus, similar to what science attempts to do.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is known about evolution proves that is the universe was not created in 6 days and that the earth is far more than 6000 years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism only means that the universe is an artifact.  One can probably prove that a given pair of shoes was not made by friendly elves in the night, but that doesn't mean they weren't made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you should show your definition of _artifact_. I've thought for decades that an artifact was something made by man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this context, I simply mean something that is made.  I suppose we could narrow that down a bit so that it is made by intent.  I don't know what word we would use for something which was made by a non-human.  For example, if we stumble upon a derelict space ship from some alien race under the sands of Mars, what would you call it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I often imagine a huge god living on the other side of one of our black holes, who put his privates in the black hole because to one of them it feels great, and when he blew his spunk that was the big bang.  And those frozen comets that have all those amino acids that orbit our sun that one day flew out of control and landed on earth and every other planet and are how life started on earth because we are not too far or close to the sun, that if this is our creator, then he cares about us as much as I care about the sperm I shot into a tissue and flushed last night.  Now maybe one day god looked into the peep hole and saw what he created.  Maybe he can't stop cancer or aids.  Maybe he will get old and die too one day.  Everything does.  Maybe our creator died a long time ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You certainly have an imagination.  I think we have enough objective evidence on hand to show that comets are not made of semen.  See?  You can prove a negative.  But was there a creator?  I don't know.  What was the nature of the creator?  I don't know.  Is the creator alive or dead?  I don't know.
Click to expand...



Frequently, atheism is equated to religion by using *non-differentiating definitions*, meaning, aspects of a concept that do not distinguish the concept from others, are used for comparison. For example:
Religion is a group of people.
Atheists are a group of people.
Therefore, atheism is a religion.

Now that religion is based on groups of people, everything from baseball teams to people sitting in a waiting room, are now religions.


Getting together in groups / socializing
Having a set of beliefs
Having tax-exempt status
Having *a* belief about gods
Voicing our concerns/opinions ("proselytizing" or "evangelizing")

"If I'm not buying what you're selling, it doesn't mean I'm selling something else."

According to dictionary.com, the primary definition of _religion_ is:

_a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs._

There's a lot of wiggle room in those "especially"s and "usually"s. Does atheism (strong or not) consider the universe as a creation of superhuman agency? Of course not; just the opposite (in that atheists do not believe in such a superhuman agent in the first place). Must atheism in all cases involve devotional and ritual observance? No. Must atheism in all cases prescribe a moral code? No. 

More to the point, is atheism a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe? No. Atheism is a _lack_ of *one specific belief*, not a set of beliefs. Even strong atheism is simply a position on one particular issue: there is no god. Thus, even assuming strong belief in this point, that doesn't say anything at all about the actual cause, nature or purpose of the universe, except in the negative ("it's not God").


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> I often imagine a huge god living on the other side of one of our black holes, who put his privates in the black hole because to one of them it feels great, and when he blew his spunk that was the big bang.  And those frozen comets that have all those amino acids that orbit our sun that one day flew out of control and landed on earth and every other planet and are how life started on earth because we are not too far or close to the sun, that if this is our creator, then he cares about us as much as I care about the sperm I shot into a tissue and flushed last night.  Now maybe one day god looked into the peep hole and saw what he created.  Maybe he can't stop cancer or aids.  Maybe he will get old and die too one day.  Everything does.  Maybe our creator died a long time ago.



Oh boy. And I can't wait to see what new world is created when Jesus comes!


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I often imagine a huge god living on the other side of one of our black holes, who put his privates in the black hole because to one of them it feels great, and when he blew his spunk that was the big bang.  And those frozen comets that have all those amino acids that orbit our sun that one day flew out of control and landed on earth and every other planet and are how life started on earth because we are not too far or close to the sun, that if this is our creator, then he cares about us as much as I care about the sperm I shot into a tissue and flushed last night.  Now maybe one day god looked into the peep hole and saw what he created.  Maybe he can't stop cancer or aids.  Maybe he will get old and die too one day.  Everything does.  Maybe our creator died a long time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy. And I can't wait to see what new world is created when Jesus comes!
Click to expand...



If atheism is a religion, then...
...not collecting stamps is a hobby.
...not playing golf is a sport.
...not believing 13 is unlucky is a superstition.
...bald is a hair color.
...nudity is an outfit.
...off is a TV station.
...being healthy is a disease.
...abstinence is a sex position.


----------



## sealybobo

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]





Tu quoque! This argument exists to defend religion by claiming that atheists fall into the same category. This serves to derail the argument and prevents focusing on the lack of evidence for the religion. Beyond shifting the burden of proof, the argument serves as a non-sequitur.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> If atheism is a religion, then...
> ...not collecting stamps is a hobby.
> ...not playing golf is a sport.
> ...not believing 13 is unlucky is a superstition.
> ...bald is a hair color.
> ...nudity is an outfit.
> ...off is a TV station.
> ...being healthy is a disease.
> ...abstinence is a sex position.



To compare theism and atheism as both religious systems built on beliefs
is like saying
* "believing in collecting stamps as having spiritual significance" can be part of someone's belief or religion
* "believing one should not collect stamps as having significance" can be part of someone's beliefs or religion
but "not believing either way" is not having a belief or religion.

As long as one is proactively asserting a belief in either the positive or negative, that belief can be part of a religion.
If someone has no belief, of course, that is not part of a religion.

NOBODY is saying that collecting stamps, or believing in collecting stamps is a religion.
So of course, nobody is saying that NOT collecting stamps is a religion.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If atheism is a religion, then...
> ...not collecting stamps is a hobby.
> ...not playing golf is a sport.
> ...not believing 13 is unlucky is a superstition.
> ...bald is a hair color.
> ...nudity is an outfit.
> ...off is a TV station.
> ...being healthy is a disease.
> ...abstinence is a sex position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To compare theism and atheism as both religious systems built on beliefs
> is like saying
> * "believing in collecting stamps as having spiritual significance" can be part of someone's belief or religion
> * "believing one should not collect stamps as having significance" can be part of someone's beliefs or religion
> but "not believing either way" is not having a belief or religion.
> 
> As long as one is proactively asserting a belief in either the positive or negative, that belief can be part of a religion.
> If someone has no belief, of course, that is not part of a religion.
> 
> NOBODY is saying that collecting stamps, or believing in collecting stamps is a religion.
> So of course, nobody is saying that NOT collecting stamps is a religion.
Click to expand...


No, but by saying atheism is a religion, it's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.  Is it?  Is that your hobby?  Not collecting stamps?  

If your hobby is bird watching, is my hobby not watching birds?


----------



## sealybobo

If I'm going to have faith or believe in anything it is science.  Is science my religion?  Not to be confused with scientology of course.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tu quoque! This argument exists to defend religion by claiming that atheists fall into the same category. This serves to derail the argument and prevents focusing on the lack of evidence for the religion. Beyond shifting the burden of proof, the argument serves as a non-sequitur.
Click to expand...


Dear Carla and Sealybobo:
There are already people who have set up atheist churches and are gaining popularity and requests for more access.

I think it is very simple:

SOME people can get religious about their atheist beliefs
SOME people can connect with a larger identity and consider that their religion
SOME people don't hold a belief at all, and are merely nontheistic in their thinking and language
SOME people may hold a belief, but don't get religious, and aren't connected to any larger identity by such affiliation

SO WHAT????

What I don't understand is why people here have to make
one way the ONLY WAY and the others "nonexistent" or "not a choice" "not possible."

Ironically, it seems people ARE GETTING RELIGIOUS about defending their views.

And that illustrates the point again: from one person's perspective that is just STATING what is,
and is NOT their "belief" and certainly not a "religion."

From other people's view, that is a separate belief and it is being pushed religiously.

So this tells me, even more, that all these cases are going on at the same time.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> If I'm going to have faith or believe in anything it is science.  Is science my religion?  Not to be confused with scientology of course.



Sealybobo: I have found people who do get religious about their science.

There are fundamental science types who reject things religiously, such as research into healing prayer.
There are scientists who religiously belief that evolution has been proven period,
or global warming, and that becomes their whole creed.

I'm telling you, it is the function and connection within the person that
determines if they go off on a religious tangent, and it defines their whole worldview.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm going to have faith or believe in anything it is science.  Is science my religion?  Not to be confused with scientology of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sealybobo: I have found people who do get religious about their science.
> 
> There are fundamental science types who reject things religiously, such as research into healing prayer.
> There are scientists who religiously belief that evolution has been proven period,
> or global warming, and that becomes their whole creed.
> 
> I'm telling you, it is the function and connection within the person that
> determines if they go off on a religious tangent, and it defines their whole worldview.
Click to expand...


A person calling oneself 'agnostic' is stating that they have no opinion on the existence of God, as there is no definitive evidence for or against. Agnosticism has, however, more recently been subdivided into several categories. Variations include:

Agnostic atheism
The view of those who do not _believe_ in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to _know_ if a deity does or does not exist.
Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to _know_ of the existence of any deity, but still _believe_ in such an existence.
Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest
I am 1 and 3.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> No, but by saying atheism is a religion, it's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.  Is it?  Is that your hobby?  Not collecting stamps?
> 
> If your hobby is bird watching, is my hobby not watching birds?



No because religions and hobbies are not similar enough constructs.

Something both theism and nontheism have are the "preferences for language" people use
to describe the LAWS in life or the world: either using secular terms and natural laws (science, psychology) or using sacred terms, symbols and laws. 

So a key difference is one uses theistic language while the other uses nontheistic language.

What is the equivalent in hobbies of
collecting stamps or not collecting stamps?
What do these have in common that manifests differently?
In Theism and Atheism, the people still have ways of seeing and saying things going on in the world
and just use distinct language for that principles and concepts (like Theists will use
God to stand for Collective Truth/Universal Laws of Nature or Jesus to stand for Justice, while nontheists
won't personify collective concepts in terms of deified figures)

The most I can see that you COULD draw a parallel
between religions and hobbies is this:
* just because I do use photography doesn't make it my hobby
* But if a bunch of people organize around photography as a shared hobby they can create
a community around it that has a social identity

* just because I do have a theistic belief, or an atheistic approach that I follow
does NOT make it a religion
* But if a bunch of people organize around theist or atheist principles they share in common
yes, they can create a religious community around it

So that is how I would use hobbies to explain the difference.
It is POSSIBLE to create a shared  hobby out of something,
but there are plenty of people who practice that thing and it is NOT their hobby.

Same with making a religion of something, it is possible but not a required consequence of believing or not believing something. Some people do not believe in government, and make a political religion out of that. Anything can be
taken and made a religion out of, it depends on the person if it becomes like a religion to them.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but by saying atheism is a religion, it's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.  Is it?  Is that your hobby?  Not collecting stamps?
> 
> If your hobby is bird watching, is my hobby not watching birds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No because religions and hobbies are not similar enough constructs.
> 
> Something both theism and nontheism have are the "preferences for language" people use
> to describe the LAWS in life or the world: either using secular terms and natural laws (science, psychology) or using sacred terms, symbols and laws.
> 
> So a key difference is one uses theistic language while the other uses nontheistic language.
> 
> What is the equivalent in hobbies of
> collecting stamps or not collecting stamps?
> What do these have in common that manifests differently?
> In Theism and Atheism, the people still have ways of seeing and saying things going on in the world
> and just use distinct language for that principles and concepts (like Theists will use
> God to stand for Collective Truth/Universal Laws of Nature or Jesus to stand for Justice, while nontheists
> won't personify collective concepts in terms of deified figures)
> 
> The most I can see that you COULD draw a parallel
> between religions and hobbies is this:
> * just because I do use photography doesn't make it my hobby
> * But if a bunch of people organize around photography as a shared hobby they can create
> a community around it that has a social identity
> 
> * just because I do have a theistic belief, or an atheistic approach that I follow
> does NOT make it a religion
> * But if a bunch of people organize around theist or atheist principles they share in common
> yes, they can create a religious community around it
> 
> So that is how I would use hobbies to explain the difference.
> It is POSSIBLE to create a shared  hobby out of something,
> but there are plenty of people who practice that thing and it is NOT their hobby.
> 
> Same with making a religion of something, it is possible but not a required consequence of believing or not believing something. Some people do not believe in government, and make a political religion out of that. Anything can be
> taken and made a religion out of, it depends on the person if it becomes like a religion to them.
Click to expand...


All good points but don't forget:

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is simply the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism when someone tells us about god.  Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim that comes without scientific proof, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm going to have faith or believe in anything it is science.  Is science my religion?  Not to be confused with scientology of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sealybobo: I have found people who do get religious about their science.
> 
> There are fundamental science types who reject things religiously, such as research into healing prayer.
> There are scientists who religiously belief that evolution has been proven period,
> or global warming, and that becomes their whole creed.
> 
> I'm telling you, it is the function and connection within the person that
> determines if they go off on a religious tangent, and it defines their whole worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person calling oneself 'agnostic' is stating that they have no opinion on the existence of God, as there is no definitive evidence for or against. Agnosticism has, however, more recently been subdivided into several categories. Variations include:
> 
> Agnostic atheism
> The view of those who do not _believe_ in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to _know_ if a deity does or does not exist.
> Agnostic theism
> The view of those who do not claim to _know_ of the existence of any deity, but still _believe_ in such an existence.
> Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism
> The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest
> I am 1 and 3.
Click to expand...


Thanks Sealybobo this is very helpful. My boyfriend believes in some God but does not believe there is this active interaction or relationship; he believes people operate by free will and does not understand what I mean by spiritual healing invoking anything more than natural energy. Christians will see this as an active relationship with God to ask for and receive forgiveness and healing as a divine destined process.  My bf believes it is solely up to humans to determine their actions.

I think #3 does involve a BELIEF that if such an intelligence exists it is neutral and not personally connected to humans.

If you were truly neutral, you would leave it open either way.

To take one side and believe in that thing, is an active belief.
Not necessarily a religion, unless you build your whole worldview or life philosophy around that assumption
the way Christians build around the concept of having a spiritual relationship with God through Conscience or Christ.

I believe there is a connection spiritually.
So my faith in Restorative Justice is no different from how Christians believe in Christ Jesus and the process of Salvation.

The difference is that I express this in nontheistic terms, I am inherently more suited
to understand things in secular terms of justice, conflict resolution and spiritual healing that can be proven medically.

I have learned to use the same terms in Christianity to explain this process of "salvation" or establishing
"universal justice and peace worldwide for all humanity".

So that is where I am used to making a distinction between the belief or faith someone has internally
and the external language or practices used to express this faith.

I don't necessarily do all the social practices that Christians do that tend to define that as a religion.

I tend to focus on Constitutional outreach to resolve conflicts and help rebuild relations and community
so people can work together on solutions.  

So my expression of my beliefs in Restorative Justice are also going to be different from traditional Christians
whose outreach is through their churches.  I focus outreach on Constitutional education to empower
people to govern themselves by whatever principles or solutions they believe in.  

The belief is one level, the language is another, and the way this affects actions is another level.

I think people here are focusing on different levels, some on the belief level alone,
others on the action or outward/sociological practices, and I am focused on the language
so the other levels can still work themselves out, even where we differ or conflict.

Thanks for your help, Sealybobo!
I may never be able to figure out a label for what I am
but at least you gave me terms that describe my boyfriend.

He is technically theist, but does not make a religion out of it.
So if theists can believe or not believe in things and not make a religion out of it,
so can atheists believe or not believe and not make a religion out of it.

By the First Amendment, our beliefs should be equally protected for ourselves,
regardless if they are or are not religious in any way.  Beliefs or creeds should all be treated with equal respect.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but by saying atheism is a religion, it's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.  Is it?  Is that your hobby?  Not collecting stamps?
> 
> If your hobby is bird watching, is my hobby not watching birds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No because religions and hobbies are not similar enough constructs.
> 
> Something both theism and nontheism have are the "preferences for language" people use
> to describe the LAWS in life or the world: either using secular terms and natural laws (science, psychology) or using sacred terms, symbols and laws.
> 
> So a key difference is one uses theistic language while the other uses nontheistic language.
> 
> What is the equivalent in hobbies of
> collecting stamps or not collecting stamps?
> What do these have in common that manifests differently?
> In Theism and Atheism, the people still have ways of seeing and saying things going on in the world
> and just use distinct language for that principles and concepts (like Theists will use
> God to stand for Collective Truth/Universal Laws of Nature or Jesus to stand for Justice, while nontheists
> won't personify collective concepts in terms of deified figures)
> 
> The most I can see that you COULD draw a parallel
> between religions and hobbies is this:
> * just because I do use photography doesn't make it my hobby
> * But if a bunch of people organize around photography as a shared hobby they can create
> a community around it that has a social identity
> 
> * just because I do have a theistic belief, or an atheistic approach that I follow
> does NOT make it a religion
> * But if a bunch of people organize around theist or atheist principles they share in common
> yes, they can create a religious community around it
> 
> So that is how I would use hobbies to explain the difference.
> It is POSSIBLE to create a shared  hobby out of something,
> but there are plenty of people who practice that thing and it is NOT their hobby.
> 
> Same with making a religion of something, it is possible but not a required consequence of believing or not believing something. Some people do not believe in government, and make a political religion out of that. Anything can be
> taken and made a religion out of, it depends on the person if it becomes like a religion to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All good points but don't forget:
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is simply the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism when someone tells us about god.  Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim that comes without scientific proof, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion.
Click to expand...


Hi Sealybobo: Maybe for you who is nontheistic and more agnostic and neutral.

For those atheists who do get religious about it, and I have met some who do form an alliance
and have a goals and purpose of debunking theists, 
there are those who ACTIVELY believe there is not a god, and it is not being neutral and
just an absence of belief, but a SOLID PROACTIVE belief there is not and that any assertion there
is should be actively proselytized to in order to correct that fault and establish the truth there is no such god.

So these people do follow a religious belief there is not a god, and that this truth should be actively
defended and taught to others.

That is NOT the same as an absence of belief.

I agree that many nontheists on here are more like you and DT and are not so religiously pushing
that this serves as their religion.

The closest I have seen is when Hollie gets pushy about being anti-theist,
that comes across equally as when theists push their beliefs and won't hear anything else.

Hollie kept defining God to be a SPECIFIC description or thing.
so if that is her BELIEF of what God means, and she will not accept any other possibility,
she is making a religion out of believing God is something false.

I call that anti-theist. it is certainly not neutral atheism
because I have tried to correct what this definition of God is
and she religiously clings to it and preaches it, equally as the people she claims are teaching this God this way!

So that becomes like a religion to her.

You can argue technically it is not a religion, just a strongly asserted statement if you don't think it counts as a belief.

Trying to change what we mean by atheism is like
trying to tell people a cucumber is actually a fruit.

For all practical reasons, it is treated as a vegetable, sold and served as one.
But technically, yes, it has seeds and is literally a fruit.

Technically atheism is not a religion as other traditional ones,
but the way some people push their atheist or anti-theist views
they act just like people pushing their theist views so it serves as a religion.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but by saying atheism is a religion, it's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.  Is it?  Is that your hobby?  Not collecting stamps?
> 
> If your hobby is bird watching, is my hobby not watching birds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No because religions and hobbies are not similar enough constructs.
> 
> Something both theism and nontheism have are the "preferences for language" people use
> to describe the LAWS in life or the world: either using secular terms and natural laws (science, psychology) or using sacred terms, symbols and laws.
> 
> So a key difference is one uses theistic language while the other uses nontheistic language.
> 
> What is the equivalent in hobbies of
> collecting stamps or not collecting stamps?
> What do these have in common that manifests differently?
> In Theism and Atheism, the people still have ways of seeing and saying things going on in the world
> and just use distinct language for that principles and concepts (like Theists will use
> God to stand for Collective Truth/Universal Laws of Nature or Jesus to stand for Justice, while nontheists
> won't personify collective concepts in terms of deified figures)
> 
> The most I can see that you COULD draw a parallel
> between religions and hobbies is this:
> * just because I do use photography doesn't make it my hobby
> * But if a bunch of people organize around photography as a shared hobby they can create
> a community around it that has a social identity
> 
> * just because I do have a theistic belief, or an atheistic approach that I follow
> does NOT make it a religion
> * But if a bunch of people organize around theist or atheist principles they share in common
> yes, they can create a religious community around it
> 
> So that is how I would use hobbies to explain the difference.
> It is POSSIBLE to create a shared  hobby out of something,
> but there are plenty of people who practice that thing and it is NOT their hobby.
> 
> Same with making a religion of something, it is possible but not a required consequence of believing or not believing something. Some people do not believe in government, and make a political religion out of that. Anything can be
> taken and made a religion out of, it depends on the person if it becomes like a religion to them.
Click to expand...



Apologists frequently assert that *atheism is a religion*. Whether this is true or not depends greatly on what definitions of _atheism_ and _religion_ are being used. The argument is most effectively made against strong atheism, in which positive assertions are made that no gods exist, but even in that case there are real problems with applying the label of religion to something that is explicitly denying a central belief of almost all religions.

A "weak" atheist is one who doesn't claim to _know_ that there is no god, but instead simply _lacks belief_ in a god. This form of atheism is the most common, and is sometimes called "agnostic atheism" 

Weak atheists often argue that theirs is the only rational position, as both theism and strong atheism make positivist claims. Weak atheism is also called non-positivist atheism. 

Many people are confused about the meaning and usage of the terms *atheist vs. agnostic*. A frequent claim made by theists is that being an *atheist* implies certainty about the non-existence of God. At the other extreme, many people apply the term *agnostic* as if it simply means waffling on the issue of whether or not God exists. The following explanation is presented as an attempt to clarify these terms.

_Theism_ addresses the issue of belief. For any claim asserting the existence of a god, a _theist_ is an individual who accepts (or positively believes) that the claim is true and an _atheist_ (literally, "one without theism") is someone who does not.

Note that this doesn't mean that theists must accept _any_ existence claim about any god. One can be a theist with respect to some claims and an atheist with respect to others. In particular, followers of one religion are typically atheists with respect to the gods of all other religions.

So you have to realize that even a strong atheist isn't claiming to know for certain that there isn't a god.  Only theists do this.  They actually claim to have talked to him.  Us not believing those stories doesn't constitute a religion.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> So you have to realize that even a strong atheist isn't claiming to know for certain that there isn't a god.  Only theists do this.  They actually claim to have talked to him.  Us not believing those stories doesn't constitute a religion.



YIKES! So what DO you call such people who become so fundamentalist and absolutely
BELIEVE there isn't a god? 

Because it can never be proven or disproven either way, that person can believe that absolutely
and never be proven wrong because it is impossible.

The most I can do is offer:
* to prove spiritual healing works effectively, naturally and consistent with science and medicine as a natural process
* to prove people can AGREE to form a consensus on what God means even if we can never prove or disprove either way

But I do know at least one atheist who is absolutely deadset in that belief there is no God period,
and knows it cannot be proven otherwise, so uses that point to harp on it knowing it is uncontestable.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> Usually theses struggles to control the definition of different words, in the public sphere at least, are related to how they will impact different policies. "What is a right?", "Is it a tax, or a mandate?" etc...  I'm just curious why it's important to you that atheism be thought of as a religion.
> 
> The most immediate practical implication I've seen is related to those who feel like the separation of church and state amounts to foisting atheism on people via government. They seem to be addressing this concern by insisting that atheism is a 'religion' and that efforts to keep religion out of government are, in reality, promoting the religion of atheism.



I never said that atheism, in and of itself, is a religion, I just like to rub the fact that it is a religion to some people in the face of the people that are annoyed by the concept.

That said, even if atheism was a religion that insisted that evolution is a fundamental tenet of their faith, that would not make it illegal to teach it, anymore than it is illegal to teach the Bible in public schools. The key part would be if the teachers tried to use either of those as a springboard to talking about their beliefs. That upsets people on both sides of the issue, but that is the way the law works.

Personally, as long as parents can opt out of religious education, I would have no problem with schools actually teaching about religion. I think it is better for kids if they are presented with as much information as possible, and they can then make their own decisions, but I recognize the right of parents to want to raise their children by their values. The problem with schools now is that, in attempting to not violate the very confusing legal morass about separation of church and state, they essentially create a culture where religious expression is not tolerated. That, in my opinion, is the worst possible way to approach the issue.

It also explains why some Christians, and even Muslims, are trying to force the schools to treat atheism, and secular humanism, with the same standards they use for religion. Doesn't make them right, but they see a major problem, and are trying to fix it in the only way the legal system will allow.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JoeB131 said:


> If Atheism is a Religion.
> 
> then.
> 
> "Off" is a TV Channel.
> 
> Not Collecting Stamps is a hobby.



Gee, if only someone had said this earlier, the thread would have been over.

Wait, they did, and were bitch slapped for it.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have to realize that even a strong atheist isn't claiming to know for certain that there isn't a god.  Only theists do this.  They actually claim to have talked to him.  Us not believing those stories doesn't constitute a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YIKES! So what DO you call such people who become so fundamentalist and absolutely
> BELIEVE there isn't a god?
> 
> Because it can never be proven or disproven either way, that person can believe that absolutely
> and never be proven wrong because it is impossible.
> 
> The most I can do is offer:
> * to prove spiritual healing works effectively, naturally and consistent with science and medicine as a natural process
> * to prove people can AGREE to form a consensus on what God means even if we can never prove or disprove either way
> 
> But I do know at least one atheist who is absolutely deadset in that belief there is no God period,
> and knows it cannot be proven otherwise, so uses that point to harp on it knowing it is uncontestable.
Click to expand...


Your atheist friend doesn't claim to know 100% for certain there is no god.  There is no way for him to know that 100%.  He can not state it as a undeniable fact.  What proof does he have?  

The only ones who claim 100% that they know are organized religions who claim they have spoken to the lord and that it is all written in their sacred texts.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually theses struggles to control the definition of different words, in the public sphere at least, are related to how they will impact different policies. "What is a right?", "Is it a tax, or a mandate?" etc...  I'm just curious why it's important to you that atheism be thought of as a religion.
> 
> The most immediate practical implication I've seen is related to those who feel like the separation of church and state amounts to foisting atheism on people via government. They seem to be addressing this concern by insisting that atheism is a 'religion' and that efforts to keep religion out of government are, in reality, promoting the religion of atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that atheism, in and of itself, is a religion, I just like to rub the fact that it is a religion to some people in the face of the people that are annoyed by the concept.
> 
> That said, even if atheism was a religion that insisted that evolution is a fundamental tenet of their faith, that would not make it illegal to teach it, anymore than it is illegal to teach the Bible in public schools. The key part would be if the teachers tried to use either of those as a springboard to talking about their beliefs. That upsets people on both sides of the issue, but that is the way the law works.
> 
> Personally, as long as parents can opt out of religious education, I would have no problem with schools actually teaching about religion. I think it is better for kids if they are presented with as much information as possible, and they can then make their own decisions, but I recognize the right of parents to want to raise their children by their values. The problem with schools now is that, in attempting to not break the very confusing legal morass about separation of church and state, they nave essentially create a culture where religious expression is not tolerated. That, in my opinion, is the worst possible way to approach the issue.
> 
> It also explains why some Christians, and even Muslims, are trying to force the schools to treat atheism, and secular humanism, with the same standards they use for religion. Doesn't make them right, but they see a major problem, and are trying to fix it in the only way the legal system will allow.
Click to expand...


I would not have a problem with a school teaching the history of religion.  

And I went into a public elementary school the other day and along the wall were words put up:  respect, kindness, friendship, be helpful, courteous, inclusive, etc.  In my opinion, god is not necessary to teach people to be good.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> It nullifies the meaning of religion to encompass all views. Any moral system not pre-supposing a god will be labeled 'atheistic' and religious advocates will insist their views have equal standing. You can pretend this isn't the point (and maybe for you it isn't. maybe you're just here trolling for attention) but it is a consistent theme from the religious right.



As I have been trying to point out to you for months, the law has already accepted that any belief is protected by the 1st Amendment, even if no one else on the planet holds it. I haven't seen that result in a theocracy yet, and don't expect it to happen in the future. The only way we can get a theocracy is if the government gets to define what is, and is not, a religion. If we "nullify" the meaning of religion it cannot do that.

If, on the other hand, we suddenly decide that religions have to meet your definition, we actually give the government that power, and are taking the first steps on the road to a theocracy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> The only difference between a cult and religion is membership size.
> 
> P.S.  I belong to the same religion your dog belongs to.  Like it doesn't matter to a rat, bird, fish or maggot if there is a god, I feel like I am just another animal.  Just because we happen to be the smartest animal doesn't change the fact that we are still just animals.  So like a cow doesn't think of god, neither do we.  What religion does your cow belong to?  That's my religion.



My dog thinks I am god, when can I expect you to show up and lavish your worship on me?


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only difference between a cult and religion is membership size.
> 
> P.S.  I belong to the same religion your dog belongs to.  Like it doesn't matter to a rat, bird, fish or maggot if there is a god, I feel like I am just another animal.  Just because we happen to be the smartest animal doesn't change the fact that we are still just animals.  So like a cow doesn't think of god, neither do we.  What religion does your cow belong to?  That's my religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dog thinks I am god, when can I expect you to show up and lavish your worship on me?
Click to expand...


If that is true, that is a great argument that we just made up the concept of god.  Because that's what we did when we first made up the concept of god.  We thought the sun was a god.  We prayed for it to come back every night.  

And your dog might look at us and without any intelligence think we are god(s).  

But I doubt that because a pit bull will bite your face off.  Chances are the dog doesn't have the intelligence to invent god in their mind but the funny thing is we are just smart enough to come up with the idea but not smart enough to think it through rationally and reject the idea as silly.  Well, some of us don't.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> So you have to realize that even a strong atheist isn't claiming to know for certain that there isn't a god.  Only theists do this.  They actually claim to have talked to him.  Us not believing those stories doesn't constitute a religion.



All I have to realize is that you are wrong. After that, everything become clear. 



> This atheist actually believed he knew for a fact that there was no God.  I found that position to be interesting and, quite honestly, not possible.
> 
> Also, he and I discussed faith a bit towards the end.
> 
> Atheist: As to religious arguments I haven't found one that can stand up to the logic of atheism.
> Matt: Are you a strong atheist or a weak one?
> Atheist: Never heard of a weak atheist.
> Matt: I’ll explain. A strong atheist states that there is no God. He *knows* there is no God. A weak atheist, basically, 'lacks belief' in a god of any sort.
> Atheist: Then I am a strong atheist.
> Matt: Then you *know* there is no God?
> Atheist: As much as knowledge can tell us yes . . . Maybe it's you who have to catch up on your atheism . . . Agnostic fits the description pretty well of a weak atheist . . .
> Matt: That is what I said . . . which are you?
> Atheist: I am a strong. Characteristic human thought, coupled with hope is what religion boils down to, the unexplained tried to be explained . . .
> Matt: So, you know there is no god?
> Atheist: Yes.



An Atheist Says He Knows There Is No God Atheist States There Is No Proof of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> If that is true, that is a great argument that we just made up the concept of god.  Because that's what we did when we first made up the concept of god.  We thought the sun was a god.  We prayed for it to come back every night.
> 
> And your dog might look at us and without any intelligence think we are god(s).
> 
> But I doubt that because a pit bull will bite your face off.  Chances are the dog doesn't have the intelligence to invent god in their mind but the funny thing is we are just smart enough to come up with the idea but not smart enough to think it through rationally and reject the idea as silly.  Well, some of us don't.



It is also a great argument for the fact that gods used to interact with men.

By the way, I have been around pit bulls, and not one of them ever bit my face off. I guess that makes you wrong, just like when you claimed that no one on Earth says they are 100% certain that god does not exist.


----------



## Marianne

Carla_Danger said:


> Marianne said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have issue with your definition. Superhuman is a poor choice of words as may cultures believe that their gods are not human at all. I go with Supreme being as being closer to the truth.
> 
> Religion is in general a belief system that one worships. If we look at atheists they have a belief in nothing AKA a belief system. If you think about it atheists say gods don't exist therefore religious people according to atheists have a belief in nothing just like them.
> 
> *atheist*
> [ey-thee-ist] Spell Syllables
> 
> Synonyms
> Examples
> Word Origin
> noun
> 1.
> a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
> 
> Atheist Define Atheist at Dictionary.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can go along with adding Supreme being to the definition of religion, but you are incorrect thinking that atheists believe, religious people believe in nothing. That's simply not true. It sounds to me, like you're having a hard time separating the two.
Click to expand...

 
Enlighten me on what atheists believe what religious peoples gods are. I was always under the impression that they think other peoples gods are myths or imaginary and simply don't exist. If something doesn't exist than it basically is the belief in nothing.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> Your atheist friend doesn't claim to know 100% for certain there is no god.  There is no way for him to know that 100%.  He can not state it as a undeniable fact.  What proof does he have?
> 
> The only ones who claim 100% that they know are organized religions who claim they have spoken to the lord and that it is all written in their sacred texts.



It is completely faith based! Same as the faith of those who claim to know when this cannot be proven either.

The most I could argue with him is he wasn't perfectly objective and neutral.
If he were perfectly without any beliefs, then he would be open either way.

He was okay if people believed the world was preexisting and had no beginning and thus needed no creator.
He just absolutely rejects the idea of a creator because it makes no sense. if there is a finite creator
then where did that thing come from? Thus he was more comfortable with the idea of an infinite thing
that is faith based. But not a finite creator that does all these things people say.

I caught him being biased and not neutral on proof of spiritual healing.
He assumed it was as fraudulent as false faith healing, but I explained it was different
and he doesn't believe either are real.  he doesn't believe witchcraft or occult/voodoo/sorcery is real.
And I tried to explain it is, but it is different and clashes with the spiritual healing and can't be mixed together.

We agreed this all depended on scientific, peer-reviewed proof by research conducted formally
and published in accredited journals. And I said yes it would be, but hasn't gotten to that yet.

Because it has not been formally researched and proven, he questions how can this spiritual healing be real.
I said because people are too busy, divided and separated, segregating the known process in ministerial
healing practices from the academic science and medicine that is secular, the knowledge is not getting out
and studied but is censored and rejected as religious. So the social segregation is blocking the process.

But I explained that process can be demonstrated and proven to be consistent and replicable.
We don't have to prove or disprove God to resolve the real issue.

If we prove the significance of forgiveness on healing the mind and body of various mental and medical conditions,
that is enough to prove what the religions such as Christianity are trying to teach.   And that is enough to
bring peace as symbolized in the Bible.

So I argued instead of debating God or creation, atheism or evolution, etc.
why not focus on proving the process of spiritual healing and how it works, in conjunction with science and medicine,
and why it fails in the case of false faith healing that fraudulently rejects science and medicine.

That part can be proven and satisfy both the theists and atheist who want proof if people are going to make claims. Why not start with something tangible and replicable that can be proven so people can agree that's what the process means
of being healed or freed by receiving forgiveness.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> I wrote "prove positively", and no they cannot provide such evidence.



I was pointing out that evidence actually exists, and that we can evaluate it if we look at it. That, believe it or not, means we can actually "prove positively" that god does, or does not, exist. What we cannot do is prove it conclusively, which is why the debate rages on.

By the way, did you know that there is still no conclusive proof for the Big Bang? That does not mean there is no evidence, or that is not generally accepted as having been positively proven, it just means we still have work to do.

Funny thing, even if God set up a throne in DC and started answering petitions sent to him through a website, some people would still deny his existence.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> If that is true, that is a great argument that we just made up the concept of god.  Because that's what we did when we first made up the concept of god.  We thought the sun was a god.  We prayed for it to come back every night.
> 
> And your dog might look at us and without any intelligence think we are god(s).
> 
> But I doubt that because a pit bull will bite your face off.  Chances are the dog doesn't have the intelligence to invent god in their mind but the funny thing is we are just smart enough to come up with the idea but not smart enough to think it through rationally and reject the idea as silly.  Well, some of us don't.



1. yes and no, sealybobo
If God means Life or Nature,
then yes we made up the terms and figures REPRESENTING God as the source behind the forces/laws of Life and Nature
The LANGUAGE is manmade

but the CONCEPTS that God represents (Love, Life, Nature, Universal Laws)
are not made or made up by man

We are assigning manmade terms, symbolism or language
to these preexisting laws, principles or concepts to
understand our RELATIONSHIP with the world

so the RELIGION is based on how we define or manage that RELATIONSHIP

2. as for dogs and gods
you can substitute what is GOOD

So if the dog sees the master as GOOD because that means F-O-O-D or getting to go for a walk,
that person is associated with getting something GOOD

Now, do we make up in our minds what is good?

yes and no. As Shakespeare said in Hamlet, that nothing is either good or bad but our thinking makes it so,
YES we can change our perceptions and see the good or the bad in anything, there is some of that which is manmade

However, some of this is given and not in our control:

* I cannot help that I respond more to my boyfriend and being with him
than with other people. I did not choose that. I accepted that I respond to him that way as a given.

* I cannot help that I am GOOD at some things and horrible at other things.

So you can take what is Good and define the collective of all good will, or greater good for all people,
and that is the equivalent of what is meant by the ideal or God's will.

Whatever is meant to be that is the maximum Good which people normally seek by free will.

We can CHOOSE to be at peace and make the best decisions within what we are given in life.
And have "faith" that whatever is the ideal will is what is in charge anyway.

So that is what it means to have faith that God's will is greater than anything that appears negative.
Greater good will come from things anyway; having faith that there is a reason and purpose for everything
to happen exactly as it does.

If you define what is "from God" to mean what is the "greatest good" in each thing in life,
that is consistent in spirit and meaning. What purpose does it serve and how is that ideal or perfect.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have to realize that even a strong atheist isn't claiming to know for certain that there isn't a god.  Only theists do this.  They actually claim to have talked to him.  Us not believing those stories doesn't constitute a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I have to realize is that you are wrong. After that, everything become clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This atheist actually believed he knew for a fact that there was no God.  I found that position to be interesting and, quite honestly, not possible.
> 
> Also, he and I discussed faith a bit towards the end.
> 
> Atheist: As to religious arguments I haven't found one that can stand up to the logic of atheism.
> Matt: Are you a strong atheist or a weak one?
> Atheist: Never heard of a weak atheist.
> Matt: I’ll explain. A strong atheist states that there is no God. He *knows* there is no God. A weak atheist, basically, 'lacks belief' in a god of any sort.
> Atheist: Then I am a strong atheist.
> Matt: Then you *know* there is no God?
> Atheist: As much as knowledge can tell us yes . . . Maybe it's you who have to catch up on your atheism . . . Agnostic fits the description pretty well of a weak atheist . . .
> Matt: That is what I said . . . which are you?
> Atheist: I am a strong. Characteristic human thought, coupled with hope is what religion boils down to, the unexplained tried to be explained . . .
> Matt: So, you know there is no god?
> Atheist: Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An Atheist Says He Knows There Is No God Atheist States There Is No Proof of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
Click to expand...


In your own article the atheist said "As much as knowledge can tell us yes".  That's not saying 100% he knows.  That's saying "as far as he knows".

Then he said:  It's a reasonable assumption.If you want a definitive answer. Does any Christian bother to look in the dictionary to what truth actually means? There is no 100% anything. Only close to it.

I'm almost certain there is no god because there is no evidence.  Science suggests god(s) were made up.  

And I'm even more certain that the Jesus and Mohammad and Greek God stories are all made up.  Can you say 100% Zeus doesn't exist?  No.  Can you?  So are you agnostic about Zeus?  Are you a weak or strong atheist when it comes to Zeus?


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that is true, that is a great argument that we just made up the concept of god.  Because that's what we did when we first made up the concept of god.  We thought the sun was a god.  We prayed for it to come back every night.
> 
> And your dog might look at us and without any intelligence think we are god(s).
> 
> But I doubt that because a pit bull will bite your face off.  Chances are the dog doesn't have the intelligence to invent god in their mind but the funny thing is we are just smart enough to come up with the idea but not smart enough to think it through rationally and reject the idea as silly.  Well, some of us don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but the CONCEPTS that God represents (Love, Life, Nature, Universal Laws)
> are not made or made up by man
> 
> We are assigning manmade terms, symbolism or language
> to these preexisting laws, principles or concepts to
> understand our RELATIONSHIP with the world
> 
> so the RELIGION is based on how we define or manage that RELATIONSHIP
> 
> 2. as for dogs and gods
> you can substitute what is GOOD
> 
> So if the dog sees the master as GOOD because that means F-O-O-D or getting to go for a walk,
> that person is associated with getting something GOOD
> 
> Now, do we make up in our minds what is good?
> 
> yes and no. As Shakespeare said in Hamlet, that nothing is either good or bad but our thinking makes it so,
> YES we can change our perceptions and see the good or the bad in anything, there is some of that which is manmade
> 
> However, some of this is given and not in our control:
> 
> * I cannot help that I respond more to my boyfriend and being with him
> than with other people. I did not choose that. I accepted that I respond to him that way as a given.
> 
> * I cannot help that I am GOOD at some things and horrible at other things.
> 
> So you can take what is Good and define the collective of all good will, or greater good for all people,
> and that is the equivalent of what is meant by the ideal or God's will.
> 
> Whatever is meant to be that is the maximum Good which people normally seek by free will.
> 
> We can CHOOSE to be at peace and make the best decisions within what we are given in life.
> And have "faith" that whatever is the ideal will is what is in charge anyway.
> 
> So that is what it means to have faith that God's will is greater than anything that appears negative.
> Greater good will come from things anyway; having faith that there is a reason and purpose for everything
> to happen exactly as it does.
> 
> If you define what is "from God" to mean what is the "greatest good" in each thing in life,
> that is consistent in spirit and meaning. What purpose does it serve and how is that ideal or perfect.
Click to expand...


*God is the universe/love/laws of physics.*
We already have names for these things. Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.

God created the world in 7 days.  Love did not create the world in 7 days.  The universe is not god either.  You are trying to redefine god.  Sorry epic fail.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm going to have faith or believe in anything it is science.  Is science my religion?  Not to be confused with scientology of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sealybobo: I have found people who do get religious about their science.
> 
> There are fundamental science types who reject things religiously, such as research into healing prayer.
> There are scientists who religiously belief that evolution has been proven period,
> or global warming, and that becomes their whole creed.
> 
> I'm telling you, it is the function and connection within the person that
> determines if they go off on a religious tangent, and it defines their whole worldview.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person calling oneself 'agnostic' is stating that they have no opinion on the existence of God, as there is no definitive evidence for or against. Agnosticism has, however, more recently been subdivided into several categories. Variations include:
> 
> Agnostic atheism
> The view of those who do not _believe_ in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to _know_ if a deity does or does not exist.
> Agnostic theism
> The view of those who do not claim to _know_ of the existence of any deity, but still _believe_ in such an existence.
> Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism
> The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest
> I am 1 and 3.
Click to expand...


Agnosticism is a philosophy which deals with the nature of belief, not of gods.


----------



## emilynghiem

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote "prove positively", and no they cannot provide such evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was pointing out that evidence actually exists, and that we can evaluate it if we look at it. That, believe it or not, means we can actually "prove positively" that god does, or does not, exist. What we cannot do is prove it conclusively, which is why the debate rages on.
> 
> By the way, did you know that there is still no conclusive proof for the Big Bang? That does not mean there is no evidence, or that is not generally accepted as having been positively proven, it just means we still have work to do.
> 
> Funny thing, even if God set up a throne in DC and started answering petitions sent to him through a website, some people would still deny his existence.
Click to expand...


Hi QW what evidence are you talking about that can be evaluated to "prove positively that god exists?"
God being infinite cannot be represented by any such subproof or demonstration on a finite level
without still requiring some faith to connect the two.

Even if all people AGREE to connect the tangible proof with the higher concept of an infinite God,
that is still faith-based. What you are doing is reaching a consensus, but it is still faith-based and not 100% proven.

I propose to use spiritual healing to prove that what Christians are teaching is true,
natural and consistent with science and medicine.
And in the process, the action of replicating the healing builds the same kind of consensus
as "proving" it but again this is all faith-based. Even if all or most diseases can be proven
cured or prevented by healing the spirit which then affects the mind and body,
saying this comes from "God" is still faith based because we would be inferring that.

We cannot contain all what God means in finite form, perception or expression
so there is no 100% way to prove it. The most we can do is reach an agreement or consensus
and say it is proven to be consistent.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote "prove positively", and no they cannot provide such evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was pointing out that evidence actually exists, and that we can evaluate it if we look at it. That, believe it or not, means we can actually "prove positively" that god does, or does not, exist. What we cannot do is prove it conclusively, which is why the debate rages on.
> 
> By the way, did you know that there is still no conclusive proof for the Big Bang? That does not mean there is no evidence, or that is not generally accepted as having been positively proven, it just means we still have work to do.
> 
> Funny thing, even if God set up a throne in DC and started answering petitions sent to him through a website, some people would still deny his existence.
Click to expand...


What proof do you have?  Let's have it.

And you are wrong that we would deny god if he showed himself.  That is exactly what proof an atheist will accept.  God actually showing himself.  

Please don't say the Jesus myths are your proof.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> but the CONCEPTS that God represents (Love, Life, Nature, Universal Laws)
> are not made or made up by man
> 
> We are assigning manmade terms, symbolism or language
> to these preexisting laws, principles or concepts to
> understand our RELATIONSHIP with the world
> 
> so the RELIGION is based on how we define or manage that RELATIONSHIP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *God is the universe/love/laws of physics.*
> We already have names for these things. Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.
> 
> God created the world in 7 days.  Love did not create the world in 7 days.  The universe is not god either.  You are trying to redefine god.  Sorry epic fail.
Click to expand...


Hi sealybobo: That's my point!
We take concepts we already have names for and align them.
This is not converting anything. Exactly!

Some people may agree that all these things come from the same source.
Some may not.

The point is we don't have to agree on that!

As long as we agree how to use the universal laws themselves,
we can still work out conflicts into solutions, regardless what we believe is behind these laws.
[One person may use Christian law against killing, another Buddhist law 
or state or federal law, as long as we agree to respect the consent of others.
we do not necessarily need to convert anyone to another system, but just use the ones they already agree to follow.]

We can still reach a consensus, and not believe the same things about where the world came from which cannot be 100% proven.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Marianne said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marianne said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have issue with your definition. Superhuman is a poor choice of words as may cultures believe that their gods are not human at all. I go with Supreme being as being closer to the truth.
> 
> Religion is in general a belief system that one worships. If we look at atheists they have a belief in nothing AKA a belief system. If you think about it atheists say gods don't exist therefore religious people according to atheists have a belief in nothing just like them.
> 
> *atheist*
> [ey-thee-ist] Spell Syllables
> 
> Synonyms
> Examples
> Word Origin
> noun
> 1.
> a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
> 
> Atheist Define Atheist at Dictionary.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can go along with adding Supreme being to the definition of religion, but you are incorrect thinking that atheists believe, religious people believe in nothing. That's simply not true. It sounds to me, like you're having a hard time separating the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enlighten me on what atheists believe what religious peoples gods are. I was always under the impression that they think other peoples gods are myths or imaginary and simply don't exist. If something doesn't exist than it basically is the belief in nothing.
Click to expand...




Just because I don't believe in God, doesn't mean I don't understand what a supreme being means to a Christian.  And I say "Christian" because that is the doctrine I'm most familiar with. But yes, when you pray to the Lord, I feel as though you are just praying to an imaginary friend.

*"If we look at atheists they have a belief in nothing AKA a belief system."
*
Actually, atheist have many different beliefs, just not one you can consider a religion.


----------



## the_human_being

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]



You will put me on your list and send me tons of postpaid tithing envelopes?


----------



## Carla_Danger

the_human_being said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will put me on your list and send me tons of postpaid tithing envelopes?
Click to expand...



No, but I'll give you a link for where I think you should send you tithing.

https://services.myngp.com/ngponlin...=O38xUCC6cZGMCzykoyZBBDEu3ipe1B7SZQNYC+ODF5o=


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will put me on your list and send me tons of postpaid tithing envelopes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, but I'll give you a link for where I think you should send you tithing.
> 
> https://services.myngp.com/ngponlineservices/contribution.aspx?X=O38xUCC6cZGMCzykoyZBBDEu3ipe1B7SZQNYC+ODF5o=
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

PratchettFan said:


> DF5o=


[/QUOTE]

Uh oh. Now we have some emoticons bowing in worship on this Atheist thread. Next?


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote "prove positively", and no they cannot provide such evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was pointing out that evidence actually exists, and that we can evaluate it if we look at it. That, believe it or not, means we can actually "prove positively" that god does, or does not, exist. What we cannot do is prove it conclusively, which is why the debate rages on.
> 
> By the way, did you know that there is still no conclusive proof for the Big Bang? That does not mean there is no evidence, or that is not generally accepted as having been positively proven, it just means we still have work to do.
> 
> Funny thing, even if God set up a throne in DC and started answering petitions sent to him through a website, some people would still deny his existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What proof do you have?  Let's have it.
> 
> And you are wrong that we would deny god if he showed himself.  That is exactly what proof an atheist will accept.  God actually showing himself.
> 
> Please don't say the Jesus myths are your proof.
Click to expand...


Dear Quantum Windbag and sealybobo:
I second SB motion and want to see or work with QW to develop this proof of evidence.
Even if it isn't perfect, and still relies on faith, that will help with some of the consensus process.
Some people like QW will consider it as sufficient proof and that's good enough to reach agreement with those who do.

Sealybobo pls see my previous msg that alignment and agreement is the key,
NOT necessarily converting or changing definitions. Just starting with
what people already have, and show these are compatible with central meanings and purpose.

See also my msg to QW:
Sealybobo, even if we cannot prove Jesus one way or another
we can reach agreement that Jesus represents Justice and the process of realizing that spirit for all humanity
united as one. We don't have to believe that will happen to agree that interpretation is consistent with the Bible.

the proof that it is consistent, or the proof that this process is happening,
still relies on faith.

But the agreement depends on resolving any unforgiven issues of conflict.

what we CAN prove is a correlation:
* people who CANNOT reconcile the theist with nontheist views of Jesus as Justice
show a higher rate in proportion to unforgiven conflicts with each other
* people who CAN reconcile their theist and nontheist views
will show a higher rate of forgiveness of each other so they can reach agreement

So we can potentially prove it is neither the fault of the theist or nontheist systems
if agreement on God or Jesus can be reached or not.

The determining factor can be proven statistically to be the degree
of forgiveness and unforgiveness that correlates with reconciliation or failure to do so.

That process is what I believe we can prove.
And the interpretation is still faith based, but the AGREEMENT
on interpretation will correlate with the participants report of forgiveness as the critical factor.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> In your own article the atheist said "As much as knowledge can tell us yes".  That's not saying 100% he knows.  That's saying "as far as he knows".
> 
> Then he said:  It's a reasonable assumption.If you want a definitive answer. Does any Christian bother to look in the dictionary to what truth actually means? There is no 100% anything. Only close to it.
> 
> I'm almost certain there is no god because there is no evidence.  Science suggests god(s) were made up.
> 
> And I'm even more certain that the Jesus and Mohammad and Greek God stories are all made up.  Can you say 100% Zeus doesn't exist?  No.  Can you?  So are you agnostic about Zeus?  Are you a weak or strong atheist when it comes to Zeus?



You just cannot admit you are wrong even when presented with irrefutable facts, can you? Your claim was that no one ever says they know 100% that there is no God, and I provided you with proof that there are people that say that. The fact that he also admits he could be wrong makes him intelligent and honest, which is probably why you are confused, it doesn't change the fact that he believes, with 100% certainty, that there is no god. You can blather all day long to save your ego, but you will still be wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

emilynghiem said:


> Hi QW what evidence are you talking about that can be evaluated to "prove positively that god exists?"
> God being infinite cannot be represented by any such subproof or demonstration on a finite level
> without still requiring some faith to connect the two.
> 
> Even if all people AGREE to connect the tangible proof with the higher concept of an infinite God,
> that is still faith-based. What you are doing is reaching a consensus, but it is still faith-based and not 100% proven.
> 
> I propose to use spiritual healing to prove that what Christians are teaching is true,
> natural and consistent with science and medicine.
> And in the process, the action of replicating the healing builds the same kind of consensus
> as "proving" it but again this is all faith-based. Even if all or most diseases can be proven
> cured or prevented by healing the spirit which then affects the mind and body,
> saying this comes from "God" is still faith based because we would be inferring that.
> 
> We cannot contain all what God means in finite form, perception or expression
> so there is no 100% way to prove it. The most we can do is reach an agreement or consensus
> and say it is proven to be consistent.



I have no evidence to prove your god exists, you have to find that on your own.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> What proof do you have?  Let's have it.
> 
> And you are wrong that we would deny god if he showed himself.  That is exactly what proof an atheist will accept.  God actually showing himself.
> 
> Please don't say the Jesus myths are your proof.



It is not my job to prove god exists to you, especially when you refuse to admit you are wrong about human beings.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> but the CONCEPTS that God represents (Love, Life, Nature, Universal Laws)
> are not made or made up by man
> 
> We are assigning manmade terms, symbolism or language
> to these preexisting laws, principles or concepts to
> understand our RELATIONSHIP with the world
> 
> so the RELIGION is based on how we define or manage that RELATIONSHIP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *God is the universe/love/laws of physics.*
> We already have names for these things. Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.
> 
> God created the world in 7 days.  Love did not create the world in 7 days.  The universe is not god either.  You are trying to redefine god.  Sorry epic fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi sealybobo: That's my point!
> We take concepts we already have names for and align them.
> This is not converting anything. Exactly!
> 
> Some people may agree that all these things come from the same source.
> Some may not.
> 
> The point is we don't have to agree on that!
> 
> As long as we agree how to use the universal laws themselves,
> we can still work out conflicts into solutions, regardless what we believe is behind these laws.
> [One person may use Christian law against killing, another Buddhist law
> or state or federal law, as long as we agree to respect the consent of others.
> we do not necessarily need to convert anyone to another system, but just use the ones they already agree to follow.]
> 
> We can still reach a consensus, and not believe the same things about where the world came from which cannot be 100% proven.
Click to expand...


Give me 5 concepts you would take fro


Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your own article the atheist said "As much as knowledge can tell us yes".  That's not saying 100% he knows.  That's saying "as far as he knows".
> 
> Then he said:  It's a reasonable assumption.If you want a definitive answer. Does any Christian bother to look in the dictionary to what truth actually means? There is no 100% anything. Only close to it.
> 
> I'm almost certain there is no god because there is no evidence.  Science suggests god(s) were made up.
> 
> And I'm even more certain that the Jesus and Mohammad and Greek God stories are all made up.  Can you say 100% Zeus doesn't exist?  No.  Can you?  So are you agnostic about Zeus?  Are you a weak or strong atheist when it comes to Zeus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just cannot admit you are wrong even when presented with irrefutable facts, can you? Your claim was that no one ever says they know 100% that there is no God, and I provided you with proof that there are people that say that. The fact that he also admits he could be wrong makes him intelligent and honest, which is probably why you are confused, it doesn't change the fact that he believes, with 100% certainty, that there is no god. You can blather all day long to save your ego, but you will still be wrong.
Click to expand...


Then I do too.  But I/he can't be.  That's impossible.  That would mean he has traveled inside black holes, seen what's hiding on the other side of the moon, and he himself is all knowing.  Is he?  Then shut the fuck up.  Emily wants us to work together.

It is only you weirdo's who say 100% you believe.  You believe that Jesus was the son of god, or god talked to Mohammad, or Joseph Smith, or Abraham, or whatever your weirdo belief is.  We just say you are ALL full of shit.  That is what I know 100%.  You are insane!  Now, if you and I could hold hands and agree with emily whatever it is the fuck she is saying.  LOL.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What proof do you have?  Let's have it.
> 
> And you are wrong that we would deny god if he showed himself.  That is exactly what proof an atheist will accept.  God actually showing himself.
> 
> Please don't say the Jesus myths are your proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not my job to prove god exists to you, especially when you refuse to admit you are wrong about human beings.
Click to expand...


What?  Human's are horrible.  What did god judge us for?  We disobeyed and ate the fucking apple.  Then we were so bad he killed all of us except Noah's family.  Everyone else was bad.  Then most of us non christians, you say are bad enough we're going to hell and you say the end of times are coming and your holy book has already prophecized it.  It is written, right?  We suck.  

And if I saw a guy do a fucking miracle, I would not crucify him.  I might think he's David Blane or that guy who just won America's got Talent.  

But if I saw someone do a real miracle, a ghost, angel, demon I would believe.  I've seen nothing.  Why are we the unlucky ones in the dice roll of time?  Thousands of years ago in the most illiterate parts of the world, just where aliens and sasquaches usually show up, god apparently interviened in our affairs all the time but now that we have youtube he's vanashed?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Then I do too.  But I/he can't be.  That's impossible.  That would mean he has traveled inside black holes, seen what's hiding on the other side of the moon, and he himself is all knowing.  Is he?  Then shut the fuck up.  Emily wants us to work together.
> 
> It is only you weirdo's who say 100% you believe.  You believe that Jesus was the son of god, or god talked to Mohammad, or Joseph Smith, or Abraham, or whatever your weirdo belief is.  We just say you are ALL full of shit.  That is what I know 100%.  You are insane!  Now, if you and I could hold hands and agree with emily whatever it is the fuck she is saying.  LOL.



That was the funniest thing I read all day.

Let me explain something to you, oh he who thinks he knows everything. nothing he said would require him to do anything you said. The simple fact is that all it takes to believe something is a simple choice to do so. You made that choice years ago, and know are upset that other people are pointing out that your beliefs are wrong. Get over it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> What?  Human's are horrible.  What did god judge us for?  We disobeyed and ate the fucking apple.  Then we were so bad he killed all of us except Noah's family.  Everyone else was bad.  Then most of us non christians, you say are bad enough we're going to hell and you say the end of times are coming and your holy book has already prophecized it.  It is written, right?  We suck.



Are you trying to use stories you don't believe in against me? It won't work for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that no one ate an apple.



sealybobo said:


> And if I saw a guy do a fucking miracle, I would not crucify him.  I might think he's David Blane or that guy who just won America's got Talent.



I am pretty sure Jesus wasn't crucified because he did miracles.

Then again, you actually think Adam and Eve ate an apple.



sealybobo said:


> But if I saw someone do a real miracle, a ghost, angel, demon I would believe.  I've seen nothing.  Why are we the unlucky ones in the dice roll of time?  Thousands of years ago in the most illiterate parts of the world, just where aliens and sasquaches usually show up, god apparently interviened in our affairs all the time but now that we have youtube he's vanashed?



Would you?


----------



## MaxGrit

Atheism is the religion of nonreligion.


----------



## PostmodernProph

asaratis said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> some things about evolution have been proven.......others have less support in fact than many philosophies.......
> 
> 
> 
> Some mathematical theories haven't been proved.  That doesn't preclude the teaching of math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *should math claim that which has not been proven, has been proven?.*......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (Aside: That should be ..._has been proved..._just sayin'.....a thing that has been proved is a proven thing.)
> 
> No. If there is no evidence that it should be considered inaccurate, it should be presented as an unproven theory if it is to be taught in math class.  Applying this same metric to creationism precludes its being taught in government schools because there is ample evidence showing that it is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree there is ample evidence showing it to be false.  There is no evidence showing it to be false.  At the same time, there is no evidence showing it to be true.  The problem with creationism is that it never gets further than a hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is known about evolution proves that is the universe was not created in 6 days and that the earth is far more than 6000 years old.
Click to expand...

do you believe that if it took longer than six days or happened longer ago, that the universe was therefore not created?......


----------



## Carla_Danger

MaxGrit said:


> Atheism is the religion of nonreligion.





And abstinence is the sexual position of a non sexual position.

Wait...that doesn't make any sense.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is the religion of nonreligion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And abstinence is the sexual position of a non sexual position.
> 
> Wait...that doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

 
Then you're not doing it right.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is the religion of nonreligion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And abstinence is the sexual position of a non sexual position.
> 
> Wait...that doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're not doing it right.
Click to expand...



I'm certainly not doing it by choice.  LOL!


----------



## MaxGrit

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is the religion of nonreligion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And abstinence is the sexual position of a non sexual position.
> 
> Wait...that doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're not doing it right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm certainly not doing it by choice.  LOL!
Click to expand...


Atheism is a choice to believe in nonsense.


----------



## asaratis

PostmodernProph said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some mathematical theories haven't been proved.  That doesn't preclude the teaching of math.
> 
> 
> 
> *should math claim that which has not been proven, has been proven?.*......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (Aside: That should be ..._has been proved..._just sayin'.....a thing that has been proved is a proven thing.)
> 
> No. If there is no evidence that it should be considered inaccurate, it should be presented as an unproven theory if it is to be taught in math class.  Applying this same metric to creationism precludes its being taught in government schools because there is ample evidence showing that it is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree there is ample evidence showing it to be false.  There is no evidence showing it to be false.  At the same time, there is no evidence showing it to be true.  The problem with creationism is that it never gets further than a hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is known about evolution proves that is the universe was not created in 6 days and that the earth is far more than 6000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you believe that if it took longer than six days or happened longer ago, that the universe was therefore not created?......
Click to expand...

Your conclusion is flawed, but yes I believe the creation of the universe started with the big bang...13.77 BILLION years ago.  I believe that an outside supernatural being cranked off the big bang, thus becoming the creator of all that is within the universe.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> Give me 5 concepts you would take fro



I am guessing you are asking which 5 concepts from nontheistic approaches I would align with God and/or Jesus?

It depends on the people, but most people respond to one or more of these angles, maybe others:
1. correcting problems by focusing on truth and reaching agreement on truth
so "Truth" is one angle
2. solving problems with crime and abuse so there is Justice and restitution/correction and prevention
so "Restorative Justice" is the main angle I propose for what Christ Jesus means in fulfilling the purpose of law
3. resolving conflicts between religious or political groups to stop abuses by religious or political authority
So again a combination of focusing on "Truth and Justice" but on a collective scale and/or applied to politics
4. addressing poverty and social ills with sustainable solutions such as microlending and business training
so Charity and how to make it sustainable and solve problems, not enable them to continue
as the spirit of Christianity in practical universal terms, of truly liberating and healing people, not just enabling more poverty
5. training in conflict resolution, legal mediation and/or other methods of reducing violence, waste or abuse of resources on govt problems or political conflicts, especially applied to restitution owed to victims or taxpayers from crime or corruption
specifically for Restorative Justice, focusing on financial restitution for crime and corruption
investing resources, labor or credit into solutions that all parties agree would solve the problem and pay back justice

I just started posting a rundown of sustainable solutions to poverty by investing restitution for trafficking abuses
into rebuilding campus communities to stabilize affected areas. See other thread by jwoodie or I'll post the link here.



			
				sealybobo said:
			
		

> Then I do too.  But I/he can't be.  That's impossible.  That would mean he has traveled inside black holes, seen what's hiding on the other side of the moon, and he himself is all knowing.  Is he?  Then shut the fuck up.  Emily wants us to work together.
> 
> It is only you weirdo's who say 100% you believe.  You believe that Jesus was the son of god, or god talked to Mohammad, or Joseph Smith, or Abraham, or whatever your weirdo belief is.  We just say you are ALL full of shit.  That is what I know 100%.  You are insane!  Now, if you and I could hold hands and agree with emily whatever it is the fuck she is saying.  LOL.



If we don't agree on the blackhole theories, or if any deified god talked to anyone, including our Founding Fathers who prayed to this deified God for wisdom to lead our nation in the direction we are meant to go by divine providence,
can we agree that
Retributive approaches to justice, in trying to judge and punish or reject each other causes equal division and unrest
and ill will between us.
Restorative approaches to justice that focus on corrections have a better chance of producing a constructive idea or outcome that we can use to solve problems.

If we can agree on that, this is what I mean about what Christianity uses Christ Jesus to symbolize.
it represents that process of turning around all that negative past we carry
so we can switch gears and focus on positive problem solving. In order to
make that shift, that is where letting go and forgiving comes in.

We cannot shift gears while going full steam ahead in anger or disgust at each other.

We have to agree to neutralize first, then shift to take a different direction.

Sealybobo, can you list 5 goals that you would like to focus on, similar to the vague list I posted above.
Then I can show you what I mean by focusing on love of Truth Justice and Peace as helping to achieve
these goals in unison with others. So that is one way of interpreting what is meant by God Christ and HolySpirit.

You can also say it represents the collective whole of humanity rejoined in harmony between
Body, Mind, and  Spirit. So when we are all full focus and peace on all levels, we can achieve these goals.
with our thoughts, words and actions in unison:
individual efforts and collective efforts joined in relationship or partnership on common goals in agreement,
or if you want to use Constitutional terms for these three levels
the judicial level of interpreting what is truth and justice,
the legislative level of agreement by conscience on contracts or policies or plans to enforce,
and the executive level of carrying out our plans or agreements by consent, by meeting of the minds.

So this is what i mean by the same levels represented in the Bible and Trinity
can be expressed in other ways that still relate to how we believe about human
relations and how we should treat each other locally in order to do the most good globally.

these levels are joined by "conscience," where this central connection that makes us
relate from our own experiences in life to humanity collectively is the meaning of being joined in spirit in Christ.

If we can align in spirit, by conscience, then the words and language we use to express ourselves can follow from there.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me 5 concepts you would take fro
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am guessing you are asking which 5 concepts from nontheistic approaches I would align with God and/or Jesus?
> 
> It depends on the people, but most people respond to one or more of these angles, maybe others:
> 1. correcting problems by focusing on truth and reaching agreement on truth
> so "Truth" is one angle
> 2. solving problems with crime and abuse so there is Justice and restitution/correction and prevention
> so "Restorative Justice" is the main angle I propose for what Christ Jesus means in fulfilling the purpose of law
> 3. resolving conflicts between religious or political groups to stop abuses by religious or political authority
> So again a combination of focusing on "Truth and Justice" but on a collective scale and/or applied to politics
> 4. addressing poverty and social ills with sustainable solutions such as microlending and business training
> so Charity and how to make it sustainable and solve problems, not enable them to continue
> as the spirit of Christianity in practical universal terms, of truly liberating and healing people, not just enabling more poverty
> 5. training in conflict resolution, legal mediation and/or other methods of reducing violence, waste or abuse of resources on govt problems or political conflicts, especially applied to restitution owed to victims or taxpayers from crime or corruption
> specifically for Restorative Justice, focusing on financial restitution for crime and corruption
> investing resources, labor or credit into solutions that all parties agree would solve the problem and pay back justice
> 
> I just started posting a rundown of sustainable solutions to poverty by investing restitution for trafficking abuses
> into rebuilding campus communities to stabilize affected areas. See other thread by jwoodie or I'll post the link here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I do too.  But I/he can't be.  That's impossible.  That would mean he has traveled inside black holes, seen what's hiding on the other side of the moon, and he himself is all knowing.  Is he?  Then shut the fuck up.  Emily wants us to work together.
> 
> It is only you weirdo's who say 100% you believe.  You believe that Jesus was the son of god, or god talked to Mohammad, or Joseph Smith, or Abraham, or whatever your weirdo belief is.  We just say you are ALL full of shit.  That is what I know 100%.  You are insane!  Now, if you and I could hold hands and agree with emily whatever it is the fuck she is saying.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we don't agree on the blackhole theories, or if any deified god talked to anyone, including our Founding Fathers who prayed to this deified God for wisdom to lead our nation in the direction we are meant to go by divine providence,
> can we agree that
> Retributive approaches to justice, in trying to judge and punish or reject each other causes equal division and unrest
> and ill will between us.
> Restorative approaches to justice that focus on corrections have a better chance of producing a constructive idea or outcome that we can use to solve problems.
> 
> If we can agree on that, this is what I mean about what Christianity uses Christ Jesus to symbolize.
> it represents that process of turning around all that negative past we carry
> so we can switch gears and focus on positive problem solving. In order to
> make that shift, that is where letting go and forgiving comes in.
> 
> We cannot shift gears while going full steam ahead in anger or disgust at each other.
> 
> We have to agree to neutralize first, then shift to take a different direction.
> 
> Sealybobo, can you list 5 goals that you would like to focus on, similar to the vague list I posted above.
> Then I can show you what I mean by focusing on love of Truth Justice and Peace as helping to achieve
> these goals in unison with others. So that is one way of interpreting what is meant by God Christ and HolySpirit.
> 
> You can also say it represents the collective whole of humanity rejoined in harmony between
> Body, Mind, and  Spirit. So when we are all full focus and peace on all levels, we can achieve these goals.
> with our thoughts, words and actions in unison:
> individual efforts and collective efforts joined in relationship or partnership on common goals in agreement,
> or if you want to use Constitutional terms for these three levels
> the judicial level of interpreting what is truth and justice,
> the legislative level of agreement by conscience on contracts or policies or plans to enforce,
> and the executive level of carrying out our plans or agreements by consent, by meeting of the minds.
> 
> So this is what i mean by the same levels represented in the Bible and Trinity
> can be expressed in other ways that still relate to how we believe about human
> relations and how we should treat each other locally in order to do the most good globally.
> 
> these levels are joined by "conscience," where this central connection that makes us
> relate from our own experiences in life to humanity collectively is the meaning of being joined in spirit in Christ.
> 
> If we can align in spirit, by conscience, then the words and language we use to express ourselves can follow from there.
Click to expand...


Here is one problem I'd like to solve.  The prison system.  We all know it doesn't work.  It is not designed for rehab.  It is designed for punishment.  As a "chistian" nation, I think we can and should do better than that.  What say you?


----------



## sealybobo

MaxGrit said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is the religion of nonreligion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And abstinence is the sexual position of a non sexual position.
> 
> Wait...that doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're not doing it right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm certainly not doing it by choice.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is a choice to believe in nonsense.
Click to expand...


You gotta be kidding me.  How delusional you are.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> And abstinence is the sexual position of a non sexual position.
> 
> Wait...that doesn't make any sense.



That is because you have a limited imagination.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Here is one problem I'd like to solve.  The prison system.  We all know it doesn't work.  It is not designed for rehab.  It is designed for punishment.  As a "chistian" nation, I think we can and should do better than that.  What say you?



I say you wouldn't be willing to make the fundamental changes that are really necessary.


----------



## dblack

MaxGrit said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is the religion of nonreligion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And abstinence is the sexual position of a non sexual position.
> 
> Wait...that doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're not doing it right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm certainly not doing it by choice.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is a choice to believe in nonsense.
Click to expand...


Only if you define it as a belief in nonsense. Otherwise, it's just any non-theistic worldview. The idea that the general concept of atheism is equivalent to an anti-religion 'belief system' is a strawman to justify the defensive delusions of fundamentalist theists. Fuck them. They're douchebags. Depending, of course, on how you define 'douchebag'.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is one problem I'd like to solve.  The prison system.  We all know it doesn't work.  It is not designed for rehab.  It is designed for punishment.  As a "chistian" nation, I think we can and should do better than that.  What say you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say you wouldn't be willing to make the fundamental changes that are really necessary.
Click to expand...


Try me.  Lets hear what they are.  Then I'll tell you my idea.


----------



## sealybobo

dblack said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is the religion of nonreligion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And abstinence is the sexual position of a non sexual position.
> 
> Wait...that doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're not doing it right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm certainly not doing it by choice.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is a choice to believe in nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you define it as a belief in nonsense. Otherwise, it's just any non-theistic worldview. The idea that the general concept of atheism is equivalent to an anti-religion 'belief system' is a strawman to justify the defensive delusions of fundamentalist theists. Fuck them. They're douchebags. Depending, of course, on how you define 'douchebag'.
Click to expand...


There really are 3 kinds of people. People who believe there is a god and that's it.  People who don't believe in god or that it matters if you believe.  Then there are the people who claim they know and the rest of us are going to hell for not believing.


----------



## Carla_Danger

sealybobo said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is the religion of nonreligion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And abstinence is the sexual position of a non sexual position.
> 
> Wait...that doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're not doing it right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm certainly not doing it by choice.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is a choice to believe in nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You gotta be kidding me.  How delusional you are.
Click to expand...



I wasn't even talking about atheism, I was talking about abstinence.  LOL!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Try me.  Lets hear what they are.  Then I'll tell you my idea.



Get rid of all laws and regulations that do not involve a direct infringement on the rights of another person, and empty the prisons of everyone in them for any of those offenses. After that, we should reduce the size of the government by 75%.

That would be a start.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try me.  Lets hear what they are.  Then I'll tell you my idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get rid of all laws and regulations that do not involve a direct infringement on the rights of another person, and empty the prisons of everyone in them for any of those offenses. After that, we should reduce the size of the government by 75%.
> 
> That would be a start.
Click to expand...


I saw this show on how we have to stop putting the people we are mad at in with the people we are afraid of.  I have to agree with you on this one.  If a guy gets caught with drugs, fine the shit out of him and put him on probation that way he pays us, we don't have to pay $30K a year to house the loser.  

My friend is going through Drunk Driving probation.  Says it cost him at least $20K.  He has to go blow into this thing every day and pay for it!  LOL.  That'll teach him.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try me.  Lets hear what they are.  Then I'll tell you my idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get rid of all laws and regulations that do not involve a direct infringement on the rights of another person, and empty the prisons of everyone in them for any of those offenses. After that, we should reduce the size of the government by 75%.
> 
> That would be a start.
Click to expand...


You a libertarian I'm assuming?  Doesn't surprise me one bit.


----------



## Carla_Danger

sealybobo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try me.  Lets hear what they are.  Then I'll tell you my idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get rid of all laws and regulations that do not involve a direct infringement on the rights of another person, and empty the prisons of everyone in them for any of those offenses. After that, we should reduce the size of the government by 75%.
> 
> That would be a start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You a libertarian I'm assuming?  Doesn't surprise me one bit.
Click to expand...



He's no libertarian, he's a NeoClown.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I saw this show on how we have to stop putting the people we are mad at in with the people we are afraid of.  I have to agree with you on this one.  If a guy gets caught with drugs, fine the shit out of him and put him on probation that way he pays us, we don't have to pay $30K a year to house the loser.
> 
> My friend is going through Drunk Driving probation.  Says it cost him at least $20K.  He has to go blow into this thing every day and pay for it!  LOL.  That'll teach him.



That isn't what I said, i said get rid of all the laws, which would mean that there would be no fines because drugs would not be illegal.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw this show on how we have to stop putting the people we are mad at in with the people we are afraid of.  I have to agree with you on this one.  If a guy gets caught with drugs, fine the shit out of him and put him on probation that way he pays us, we don't have to pay $30K a year to house the loser.
> 
> My friend is going through Drunk Driving probation.  Says it cost him at least $20K.  He has to go blow into this thing every day and pay for it!  LOL.  That'll teach him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said, i said get rid of all the laws, which would mean that there would be no fines because drugs would not be illegal.
Click to expand...


Sorry.  When we see that crack or meth is destroying our communities, we have to make them illegal.

But I agree pot should be legal.  

Do you think corporations should be allowed to drug test?  Of course you do.  You probably think the corporations should be able to do whatever they want, unregulated.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Sorry.  When we see that crack or meth is destroying our communities, we have to make them illegal.
> 
> But I agree pot should be legal.
> 
> Do you think corporations should be allowed to drug test?  Of course you do.  You probably think the corporations should be able to do whatever they want, unregulated.



Told you you wouldn't agree with me. 

I see no reason corporations should be able to pry into the private lives of their employees at all, unlike you. Unless, that is, you suddenly changed your views that the NFL should punish union members who are accused of domestic violence.


----------



## teapartysamurai

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith,* belief*, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]


 
It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.

But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!  You BELIEVE there is no God.  Guess what!  You just defeated your own argument with your definition.

You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.

You lose, pal!


----------



## Carla_Danger

teapartysamurai said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith,* belief*, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.
> 
> But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!  You BELIEVE there is no God.  Guess what!  You just defeated your own argument with your definition.
> 
> You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.
> 
> You lose, pal!
Click to expand...




Simply having beliefs, is not religion.  Everyone has beliefs, but not everyone has religion.


----------



## sealybobo

teapartysamurai said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith,* belief*, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.
> 
> But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!  You BELIEVE there is no God.  Guess what!  You just defeated your own argument with your definition.
> 
> You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.
> 
> You lose, pal!
Click to expand...


We don't believe.  It isn't a belief system it's a non belief system.  Much different.  Do you believe in Leprechauns?  Then that is your belief system?


----------



## sealybobo

teapartysamurai said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith,* belief*, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.
> 
> But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!  You BELIEVE there is no God.  Guess what!  You just defeated your own argument with your definition.
> 
> You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.
> 
> You lose, pal!
Click to expand...


If anything science would be our belief system but even it is not a religion.  

*Science takes faith / Science is a religion. *
Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because _none are made_. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of _justified belief_ grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an _unjustified belief_ based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality.

Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> We don't believe.  It isn't a belief system it's a non belief system.  Much different.  Do you believe in Leprechauns?  Then that is your belief system?



Atheism is, by definition a belief. Agnosticism is not a word, therefore, by lack of definition, is not a belief.


----------



## asaratis

sealybobo said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith,* belief*, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.
> 
> But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!  You BELIEVE there is no God.  Guess what!  You just defeated your own argument with your definition.
> 
> You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.
> 
> You lose, pal!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't believe.  It isn't a belief system it's a non belief system.  Much different.  Do you believe in Leprechauns?  Then that is your belief system?
Click to expand...

Religions concern beliefs regarding deities.  Believing that my car will start everyday forever is having faith in the battery, the starter, the spark plugs, the fuel and the motor.  That's not religion.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith,* belief*, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.
> 
> But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!  You BELIEVE there is no God.  Guess what!  You just defeated your own argument with your definition.
> 
> You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.
> 
> You lose, pal!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply having beliefs, is not religion.  Everyone has beliefs, but not everyone has religion.
Click to expand...

Not everyone is religious.  That doesn't mean their religion doesn't exist.  Yours is Atheism if you believe deities do not exist.

If you simply have a non-belief in deities, you are agnostic....not Atheist.


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith,* belief*, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.
> 
> But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!  You BELIEVE there is no God.  Guess what!  You just defeated your own argument with your definition.
> 
> You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.
> 
> You lose, pal!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply having beliefs, is not religion.  Everyone has beliefs, but not everyone has religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is religious.  That doesn't mean their religion doesn't exist.  Yours is Atheism if you believe deities do not exist.
> 
> If you simply have a non-belief in deities, you are agnostic....not Atheist.
Click to expand...


I guess your goal is to get more people using your custom definitions. Good luck with that.


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith,* belief*, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.
> 
> But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!  You BELIEVE there is no God.  Guess what!  You just defeated your own argument with your definition.
> 
> You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.
> 
> You lose, pal!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't believe.  It isn't a belief system it's a non belief system.  Much different.  Do you believe in Leprechauns?  Then that is your belief system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religions concern beliefs regarding deities.  Believing that my car will start everyday forever is having faith in the battery, the starter, the spark plugs, the fuel and the motor.  That's not religion.
Click to expand...


I'll stick with the dictionary for my definition of religion. Religion is more than a single belief regarding deities. But you keep repeating your silliness. Maybe it'll catch on.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't believe.  It isn't a belief system it's a non belief system.  Much different.  Do you believe in Leprechauns?  Then that is your belief system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is, by definition a belief. Agnosticism is not a word, therefore, by lack of definition, is not a belief.
Click to expand...


Wrong again as usual.

*Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, *atheism* is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, *atheism* is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

So maybe in the narrow sense.  

The other two sentences clearly say the rejection of belief and absence of belief.  Dummy.


----------



## MaxGrit

Carla_Danger said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> And abstinence is the sexual position of a non sexual position.
> 
> Wait...that doesn't make any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're not doing it right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm certainly not doing it by choice.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is a choice to believe in nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You gotta be kidding me.  How delusional you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't even talking about atheism, I was talking about abstinence.  LOL!
Click to expand...

I know that. I wrote it correctly.


----------



## MaxGrit

sealybobo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't believe.  It isn't a belief system it's a non belief system.  Much different.  Do you believe in Leprechauns?  Then that is your belief system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is, by definition a belief. Agnosticism is not a word, therefore, by lack of definition, is not a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again as usual.
> 
> *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, *atheism* is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, *atheism* is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
> 
> So maybe in the narrow sense.
> 
> The other two sentences clearly say the rejection of belief and absence of belief.  Dummy.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's fine too. 

I will be calling atheism a religion. it seems like it is catching on all over.


----------



## dblack

MaxGrit said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't believe.  It isn't a belief system it's a non belief system.  Much different.  Do you believe in Leprechauns?  Then that is your belief system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is, by definition a belief. Agnosticism is not a word, therefore, by lack of definition, is not a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again as usual.
> 
> *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, *atheism* is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, *atheism* is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
> 
> So maybe in the narrow sense.
> 
> The other two sentences clearly say the rejection of belief and absence of belief.  Dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's fine too.
> 
> I will be calling atheism a religion. it seems like it is catching on all over.
Click to expand...


Sure. It just depends on who you're talking to. And how you want to be perceived.


----------



## Hollie

MaxGrit said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't believe.  It isn't a belief system it's a non belief system.  Much different.  Do you believe in Leprechauns?  Then that is your belief system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is, by definition a belief. Agnosticism is not a word, therefore, by lack of definition, is not a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again as usual.
> 
> *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, *atheism* is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, *atheism* is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
> 
> So maybe in the narrow sense.
> 
> The other two sentences clearly say the rejection of belief and absence of belief.  Dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's fine too.
> 
> I will be calling atheism a religion. it seems like it is catching on all over.
Click to expand...

It's actually not.

It actually makes you religious extremists appear even more desperate and, well, pathetic.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith,* belief*, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.
> 
> But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!  You BELIEVE there is no God.  Guess what!  You just defeated your own argument with your definition.
> 
> You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.
> 
> You lose, pal!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply having beliefs, is not religion.  Everyone has beliefs, but not everyone has religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is religious.  That doesn't mean their religion doesn't exist.  Yours is Atheism if you believe deities do not exist.
> 
> If you simply have a non-belief in deities, you are agnostic....not Atheist.
Click to expand...


There's no belief required to conclude your gods are of myth and legend.

It's your anger directed at those who conclude your gods don't exist that causes you such angst. While you may harbor deep seated hatreds for those who reject your gods, the majority of the planet are _a-theistic _regarding your version of gods. Learn to let go of the hate that causes you to behave in such a childish and petulant manner.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith,* belief*, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.
> 
> But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!  You BELIEVE there is no God.  Guess what!  You just defeated your own argument with your definition.
> 
> You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.
> 
> You lose, pal!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't believe.  It isn't a belief system it's a non belief system.  Much different.  Do you believe in Leprechauns?  Then that is your belief system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religions concern beliefs regarding deities.  Believing that my car will start everyday forever is having faith in the battery, the starter, the spark plugs, the fuel and the motor.  That's not religion.
Click to expand...

Religion, (depending on the brand),  is often the belief in supernaturalism and mysticism as the engine that drives existence. There is no religion associated with rejecting supernaturalism and mysticism. It is only you supernaturalists who have a difficult time with separating your beliefs in magic with rational and reasoned conclusions rejecting your appeals to magic, fear and superstition.


----------



## dblack

Hollie said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't believe.  It isn't a belief system it's a non belief system.  Much different.  Do you believe in Leprechauns?  Then that is your belief system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is, by definition a belief. Agnosticism is not a word, therefore, by lack of definition, is not a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again as usual.
> 
> *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, *atheism* is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, *atheism* is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
> 
> So maybe in the narrow sense.
> 
> The other two sentences clearly say the rejection of belief and absence of belief.  Dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's fine too.
> 
> I will be calling atheism a religion. it seems like it is catching on all over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's actually not.
> 
> It actually makes you religious extremists appear even more desperate and, well, pathetic.
Click to expand...


Well, that's what I was referring to regarding how you want to be perceived.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith,* belief*, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.
> 
> But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!  You BELIEVE there is no God.  Guess what!  You just defeated your own argument with your definition.
> 
> You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.
> 
> You lose, pal!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply having beliefs, is not religion.  Everyone has beliefs, but not everyone has religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is religious.  That doesn't mean their religion doesn't exist.  Yours is Atheism if you believe deities do not exist.
> 
> If you simply have a non-belief in deities, you are agnostic....not Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no belief required to conclude your gods are of myth and legend.
> 
> It's your anger directed at those who conclude your gods don't exist that causes you such angst. While you may harbor deep seated hatreds for those who reject your gods, the majority of the planet are _a-theistic _regarding your version of gods. Learn to let go of the hate that causes you to behave in such a childish and petulant manner.
Click to expand...

You are quite mistaken to think that you Atheists drive anyone to hatred.  You overrate yourself.  If it doesn't take belief to conclude that God doesn't exist, then you must have some proof somewhere.  Where is it?  Contrary to what you wish, your assertion that God does not exist takes faith on your part...just as it takes faith on my part to claim you are wrong.  There is no iron clad proof either way that I am aware of.  If you come up with any, please let me know.  You faith in the belief that God does not exist is no different from my faith that He does.  Your belief is a religious one just as is mine.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith,* belief*, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.
> 
> But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!  You BELIEVE there is no God.  Guess what!  You just defeated your own argument with your definition.
> 
> You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.
> 
> You lose, pal!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply having beliefs, is not religion.  Everyone has beliefs, but not everyone has religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is religious.  That doesn't mean their religion doesn't exist.  Yours is Atheism if you believe deities do not exist.
> 
> If you simply have a non-belief in deities, you are agnostic....not Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no belief required to conclude your gods are of myth and legend.
> 
> It's your anger directed at those who conclude your gods don't exist that causes you such angst. While you may harbor deep seated hatreds for those who reject your gods, the majority of the planet are _a-theistic _regarding your version of gods. Learn to let go of the hate that causes you to behave in such a childish and petulant manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are quite mistaken to think that you Atheists drive anyone to hatred.  You overrate yourself.  If it doesn't take belief to conclude that God doesn't exist, then you must have some proof somewhere.  Where is it?  Contrary to what you wish, your assertion that God does not exist takes faith on your part...just as it takes faith on my part to claim you are wrong.  There is no iron clad proof either way that I am aware of.  If you come up with any, please let me know.  You faith in the belief that God does not exist is no different from my faith that He does.  Your belief is a religious one just as is mine.
Click to expand...



You wish.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"f it doesn't take belief to conclude that God doesn't exist, then you must have some proof somewhere. Where is it?"


This fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.


Lack of evidence that something doesn't exist doesn't 'prove' that it does, nor is it a 'belief' to acknowledge that lack of evidence.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith,* belief*, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.
> 
> But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!  You BELIEVE there is no God.  Guess what!  You just defeated your own argument with your definition.
> 
> You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.
> 
> You lose, pal!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply having beliefs, is not religion.  Everyone has beliefs, but not everyone has religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is religious.  That doesn't mean their religion doesn't exist.  Yours is Atheism if you believe deities do not exist.
> 
> If you simply have a non-belief in deities, you are agnostic....not Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no belief required to conclude your gods are of myth and legend.
> 
> It's your anger directed at those who conclude your gods don't exist that causes you such angst. While you may harbor deep seated hatreds for those who reject your gods, the majority of the planet are _a-theistic _regarding your version of gods. Learn to let go of the hate that causes you to behave in such a childish and petulant manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are quite mistaken to think that you Atheists drive anyone to hatred.  You overrate yourself.  If it doesn't take belief to conclude that God doesn't exist, then you must have some proof somewhere.  Where is it?  Contrary to what you wish, your assertion that God does not exist takes faith on your part...just as it takes faith on my part to claim you are wrong.  There is no iron clad proof either way that I am aware of.  If you come up with any, please let me know.  You faith in the belief that God does not exist is no different from my faith that He does.  Your belief is a religious one just as is mine.
Click to expand...

As your comments have been refuted as erroneous and falsely derived, one can only conclude that your fundamentalist beliefs have caused you to blur objective reality with your fears and superstitions. 

That's a syndrome not uncommon to religions / cults whose adherents are taught that all those outside the religion / cult are a danger to the cult's existence.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith,* belief*, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.
> 
> But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!  You BELIEVE there is no God.  Guess what!  You just defeated your own argument with your definition.
> 
> You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.
> 
> You lose, pal!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply having beliefs, is not religion.  Everyone has beliefs, but not everyone has religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is religious.  That doesn't mean their religion doesn't exist.  Yours is Atheism if you believe deities do not exist.
> 
> If you simply have a non-belief in deities, you are agnostic....not Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no belief required to conclude your gods are of myth and legend.
> 
> It's your anger directed at those who conclude your gods don't exist that causes you such angst. While you may harbor deep seated hatreds for those who reject your gods, the majority of the planet are _a-theistic _regarding your version of gods. Learn to let go of the hate that causes you to behave in such a childish and petulant manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are quite mistaken to think that you Atheists drive anyone to hatred.  You overrate yourself.  If it doesn't take belief to conclude that God doesn't exist, then you must have some proof somewhere.  Where is it?  Contrary to what you wish, your assertion that God does not exist takes faith on your part...just as it takes faith on my part to claim you are wrong.  There is no iron clad proof either way that I am aware of.  If you come up with any, please let me know.  You faith in the belief that God does not exist is no different from my faith that He does.  Your belief is a religious one just as is mine.
Click to expand...

Yours is a failed argument that is typical for angry fundamentalists. You're unable to argue affirmatively for your belief in magic and superstition. Because you cannot make a rational argument for ancient myths, you're left to make goofy utterances that others must "disprove" your nonsensical  musings.


----------



## asaratis

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "f it doesn't take belief to conclude that God doesn't exist, then you must have some proof somewhere. Where is it?"
> 
> 
> This fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
> 
> 
> Lack of evidence that something doesn't exist doesn't 'prove' that it does, nor is it a 'belief' to acknowledge that lack of evidence.


Acknowledging a lack of evidence for a posit is not equivalent to acknowledging the posit either way (that it is true or not true).  Having a posit (either way) without evidence of its being true constitutes a belief.

No wonder you are confused.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.
> 
> But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!  You BELIEVE there is no God.  Guess what!  You just defeated your own argument with your definition.
> 
> You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.
> 
> You lose, pal!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply having beliefs, is not religion.  Everyone has beliefs, but not everyone has religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is religious.  That doesn't mean their religion doesn't exist.  Yours is Atheism if you believe deities do not exist.
> 
> If you simply have a non-belief in deities, you are agnostic....not Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no belief required to conclude your gods are of myth and legend.
> 
> It's your anger directed at those who conclude your gods don't exist that causes you such angst. While you may harbor deep seated hatreds for those who reject your gods, the majority of the planet are _a-theistic _regarding your version of gods. Learn to let go of the hate that causes you to behave in such a childish and petulant manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are quite mistaken to think that you Atheists drive anyone to hatred.  You overrate yourself.  If it doesn't take belief to conclude that God doesn't exist, then you must have some proof somewhere.  Where is it?  Contrary to what you wish, your assertion that God does not exist takes faith on your part...just as it takes faith on my part to claim you are wrong.  There is no iron clad proof either way that I am aware of.  If you come up with any, please let me know.  You faith in the belief that God does not exist is no different from my faith that He does.  Your belief is a religious one just as is mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As your comments have been refuted as erroneous and falsely derived, one can only conclude that your fundamentalist beliefs have caused you to blur objective reality with your fears and superstitions.
> 
> That's a syndrome not uncommon to religions / cults whose adherents are taught that all those outside the religion / cult are a danger to the cult's existence.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you don't read much else other than what you write yourself.  I am far from being a fundie....and I have few fears, no superstitions.

If that is your only conclusion, you have overlooked reality.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.
> 
> But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!  You BELIEVE there is no God.  Guess what!  You just defeated your own argument with your definition.
> 
> You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.
> 
> You lose, pal!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply having beliefs, is not religion.  Everyone has beliefs, but not everyone has religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is religious.  That doesn't mean their religion doesn't exist.  Yours is Atheism if you believe deities do not exist.
> 
> If you simply have a non-belief in deities, you are agnostic....not Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no belief required to conclude your gods are of myth and legend.
> 
> It's your anger directed at those who conclude your gods don't exist that causes you such angst. While you may harbor deep seated hatreds for those who reject your gods, the majority of the planet are _a-theistic _regarding your version of gods. Learn to let go of the hate that causes you to behave in such a childish and petulant manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are quite mistaken to think that you Atheists drive anyone to hatred.  You overrate yourself.  If it doesn't take belief to conclude that God doesn't exist, then you must have some proof somewhere.  Where is it?  Contrary to what you wish, your assertion that God does not exist takes faith on your part...just as it takes faith on my part to claim you are wrong.  There is no iron clad proof either way that I am aware of.  If you come up with any, please let me know.  You faith in the belief that God does not exist is no different from my faith that He does.  Your belief is a religious one just as is mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours is a failed argument that is typical for angry fundamentalists. You're unable to argue affirmatively for your belief in magic and superstition. Because you cannot make a rational argument for ancient myths, you're left to make goofy utterances that others must "disprove" your nonsensical  musings.
Click to expand...

Mistaken again you are.  I didn't ask you to disprove.  I merely pointed out that proof or disproof does not exist on either side....so claiming either side is done on faith alone.  You have faith one way, I have faith the other.  We each have faith that our belief is correct.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply having beliefs, is not religion.  Everyone has beliefs, but not everyone has religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone is religious.  That doesn't mean their religion doesn't exist.  Yours is Atheism if you believe deities do not exist.
> 
> If you simply have a non-belief in deities, you are agnostic....not Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no belief required to conclude your gods are of myth and legend.
> 
> It's your anger directed at those who conclude your gods don't exist that causes you such angst. While you may harbor deep seated hatreds for those who reject your gods, the majority of the planet are _a-theistic _regarding your version of gods. Learn to let go of the hate that causes you to behave in such a childish and petulant manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are quite mistaken to think that you Atheists drive anyone to hatred.  You overrate yourself.  If it doesn't take belief to conclude that God doesn't exist, then you must have some proof somewhere.  Where is it?  Contrary to what you wish, your assertion that God does not exist takes faith on your part...just as it takes faith on my part to claim you are wrong.  There is no iron clad proof either way that I am aware of.  If you come up with any, please let me know.  You faith in the belief that God does not exist is no different from my faith that He does.  Your belief is a religious one just as is mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As your comments have been refuted as erroneous and falsely derived, one can only conclude that your fundamentalist beliefs have caused you to blur objective reality with your fears and superstitions.
> 
> That's a syndrome not uncommon to religions / cults whose adherents are taught that all those outside the religion / cult are a danger to the cult's existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, you don't read much else other than what you write yourself.  I am far from being a fundie....and I have few fears, no superstitions.
> 
> If that is your only conclusion, you have overlooked reality.
Click to expand...

As your world is haunted by angry gods, it's actually you who is reality challenged.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply having beliefs, is not religion.  Everyone has beliefs, but not everyone has religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone is religious.  That doesn't mean their religion doesn't exist.  Yours is Atheism if you believe deities do not exist.
> 
> If you simply have a non-belief in deities, you are agnostic....not Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no belief required to conclude your gods are of myth and legend.
> 
> It's your anger directed at those who conclude your gods don't exist that causes you such angst. While you may harbor deep seated hatreds for those who reject your gods, the majority of the planet are _a-theistic _regarding your version of gods. Learn to let go of the hate that causes you to behave in such a childish and petulant manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are quite mistaken to think that you Atheists drive anyone to hatred.  You overrate yourself.  If it doesn't take belief to conclude that God doesn't exist, then you must have some proof somewhere.  Where is it?  Contrary to what you wish, your assertion that God does not exist takes faith on your part...just as it takes faith on my part to claim you are wrong.  There is no iron clad proof either way that I am aware of.  If you come up with any, please let me know.  You faith in the belief that God does not exist is no different from my faith that He does.  Your belief is a religious one just as is mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours is a failed argument that is typical for angry fundamentalists. You're unable to argue affirmatively for your belief in magic and superstition. Because you cannot make a rational argument for ancient myths, you're left to make goofy utterances that others must "disprove" your nonsensical  musings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mistaken again you are.  I didn't ask you to disprove.  I merely pointed out that proof or disproof does not exist on either side....so claiming either side is done on faith alone.  You have faith one way, I have faith the other.  We each have faith that our belief is correct.
Click to expand...

I don't expect honesty from fundamentalists, but you might want to review what you previously wrote.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone is religious.  That doesn't mean their religion doesn't exist.  Yours is Atheism if you believe deities do not exist.
> 
> If you simply have a non-belief in deities, you are agnostic....not Atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no belief required to conclude your gods are of myth and legend.
> 
> It's your anger directed at those who conclude your gods don't exist that causes you such angst. While you may harbor deep seated hatreds for those who reject your gods, the majority of the planet are _a-theistic _regarding your version of gods. Learn to let go of the hate that causes you to behave in such a childish and petulant manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are quite mistaken to think that you Atheists drive anyone to hatred.  You overrate yourself.  If it doesn't take belief to conclude that God doesn't exist, then you must have some proof somewhere.  Where is it?  Contrary to what you wish, your assertion that God does not exist takes faith on your part...just as it takes faith on my part to claim you are wrong.  There is no iron clad proof either way that I am aware of.  If you come up with any, please let me know.  You faith in the belief that God does not exist is no different from my faith that He does.  Your belief is a religious one just as is mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours is a failed argument that is typical for angry fundamentalists. You're unable to argue affirmatively for your belief in magic and superstition. Because you cannot make a rational argument for ancient myths, you're left to make goofy utterances that others must "disprove" your nonsensical  musings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mistaken again you are.  I didn't ask you to disprove.  I merely pointed out that proof or disproof does not exist on either side....so claiming either side is done on faith alone.  You have faith one way, I have faith the other.  We each have faith that our belief is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't expect honesty from fundamentalists, but you might want to review what you previously wrote.
Click to expand...

I have no need to do that.  You do...if you want to switch over to being honest.  Pigs will fly first.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no belief required to conclude your gods are of myth and legend.
> 
> It's your anger directed at those who conclude your gods don't exist that causes you such angst. While you may harbor deep seated hatreds for those who reject your gods, the majority of the planet are _a-theistic _regarding your version of gods. Learn to let go of the hate that causes you to behave in such a childish and petulant manner.
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite mistaken to think that you Atheists drive anyone to hatred.  You overrate yourself.  If it doesn't take belief to conclude that God doesn't exist, then you must have some proof somewhere.  Where is it?  Contrary to what you wish, your assertion that God does not exist takes faith on your part...just as it takes faith on my part to claim you are wrong.  There is no iron clad proof either way that I am aware of.  If you come up with any, please let me know.  You faith in the belief that God does not exist is no different from my faith that He does.  Your belief is a religious one just as is mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours is a failed argument that is typical for angry fundamentalists. You're unable to argue affirmatively for your belief in magic and superstition. Because you cannot make a rational argument for ancient myths, you're left to make goofy utterances that others must "disprove" your nonsensical  musings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mistaken again you are.  I didn't ask you to disprove.  I merely pointed out that proof or disproof does not exist on either side....so claiming either side is done on faith alone.  You have faith one way, I have faith the other.  We each have faith that our belief is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't expect honesty from fundamentalists, but you might want to review what you previously wrote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no need to do that.  You do...if you want to switch over to being honest.  Pigs will fly first.
Click to expand...

I understand you're angry. That's a typical reaction from fundamentalists when they're tasked with supporting their claims to supernaturalism.  Similarly, when fundamentalists are confronted with their pointless claims that others need to disprove their appeals to magic and supernaturalism,  the fundamentalists typically react as you do.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite mistaken to think that you Atheists drive anyone to hatred.  You overrate yourself.  If it doesn't take belief to conclude that God doesn't exist, then you must have some proof somewhere.  Where is it?  Contrary to what you wish, your assertion that God does not exist takes faith on your part...just as it takes faith on my part to claim you are wrong.  There is no iron clad proof either way that I am aware of.  If you come up with any, please let me know.  You faith in the belief that God does not exist is no different from my faith that He does.  Your belief is a religious one just as is mine.
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is a failed argument that is typical for angry fundamentalists. You're unable to argue affirmatively for your belief in magic and superstition. Because you cannot make a rational argument for ancient myths, you're left to make goofy utterances that others must "disprove" your nonsensical  musings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mistaken again you are.  I didn't ask you to disprove.  I merely pointed out that proof or disproof does not exist on either side....so claiming either side is done on faith alone.  You have faith one way, I have faith the other.  We each have faith that our belief is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't expect honesty from fundamentalists, but you might want to review what you previously wrote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no need to do that.  You do...if you want to switch over to being honest.  Pigs will fly first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand you're angry. That's a typical reaction from fundamentalists when they're tasked with supporting their claims to supernaturalism.  Similarly, when fundamentalists are confronted with their pointless claims that others need to disprove their appeals to magic and supernaturalism,  the fundamentalists typically react as you do.
Click to expand...

Your inference that I am angry is born of your narcissism.  I couldn't care less about what you believe.  It's the incessant crowing and attacks on others that makes yours an angry, militant religion, geared toward the ridicule of scorn of all others.  What you infer from my postings is nothing more than your mistaken opinion.  It takes a lot more than what you say to bring me to anger.  You overrate yourself.

If it really makes you happy, I am proud to have provided you with some comfort and joy.  I bring you tidings of comfort and joy.  That's cool with me!  God Rest Ye Merry People All!


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith,* belief*, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.
> 
> But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!  You BELIEVE there is no God.  Guess what!  You just defeated your own argument with your definition.
> 
> You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.
> 
> You lose, pal!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply having beliefs, is not religion.  Everyone has beliefs, but not everyone has religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is religious.  That doesn't mean their religion doesn't exist.  Yours is Atheism if you believe deities do not exist.
> 
> If you simply have a non-belief in deities, you are agnostic....not Atheist.
Click to expand...



I like how you make shit up as you go along.  I simply do not believe in deities. I'm an atheist. I have no religion. Outside of this forum, I rarely think about it, or even talk about it.Outside of posting on this forum, I don't even personally know any other atheists. I have one family member who's agnostic, and the rest of my family are Christian. I have a total of two family members that know I'm an atheist. 

I even celebrate Christmas!


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is a failed argument that is typical for angry fundamentalists. You're unable to argue affirmatively for your belief in magic and superstition. Because you cannot make a rational argument for ancient myths, you're left to make goofy utterances that others must "disprove" your nonsensical  musings.
> 
> 
> 
> Mistaken again you are.  I didn't ask you to disprove.  I merely pointed out that proof or disproof does not exist on either side....so claiming either side is done on faith alone.  You have faith one way, I have faith the other.  We each have faith that our belief is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't expect honesty from fundamentalists, but you might want to review what you previously wrote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no need to do that.  You do...if you want to switch over to being honest.  Pigs will fly first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand you're angry. That's a typical reaction from fundamentalists when they're tasked with supporting their claims to supernaturalism.  Similarly, when fundamentalists are confronted with their pointless claims that others need to disprove their appeals to magic and supernaturalism,  the fundamentalists typically react as you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inference that I am angry is born of your narcissism.  I couldn't care less about what you believe.  It's the incessant crowing and attacks on others that makes yours an angry, militant religion, geared toward the ridicule of scorn of all others.  What you infer from my postings is nothing more than your mistaken opinion.  It takes a lot more than what you say to bring me to anger.  You overrate yourself.
> 
> If it really makes you happy, I am proud to have provided you with some comfort and joy.  I bring you tidings of comfort and joy.  That's cool with me!  God Rest Ye Merry People All!
Click to expand...




You'd get a lot less ridicule if you'd quit trying to define us.  Just saying...


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith,* belief*, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.
> 
> But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!  You BELIEVE there is no God.  Guess what!  You just defeated your own argument with your definition.
> 
> You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.
> 
> You lose, pal!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply having beliefs, is not religion.  Everyone has beliefs, but not everyone has religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is religious.  That doesn't mean their religion doesn't exist.  Yours is Atheism if you believe deities do not exist.
> 
> If you simply have a non-belief in deities, you are agnostic....not Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you make shit up as you go along.  I simply do not believe in deities. I'm an atheist. I have no religion. Outside of this forum, I rarely think about it, or even talk about it.Outside of posting on this forum, I don't even personally know any other atheists. I have one family member who's agnostic, and the rest of my family are Christian. I have a total of two family members that know I'm an atheist.
> 
> I even celebrate Christmas!
Click to expand...

Likely, you go along with Christmas just to get the gifts!  Whatever.

I haven't been making shit up.  In many cases I posted links to my claims.  You people (all you Atheist militants) have yet to refute any one of them, except with some pithy little sayings promoted by that pseudo intelligent dickweed, Bill Maher and some of your more famous preachers of Atheism.

Not to worry though.  Just because you belong to a group known to be a religion doesn't mean you have to be religious.  I'm a not-very-religious Baptist myself.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mistaken again you are.  I didn't ask you to disprove.  I merely pointed out that proof or disproof does not exist on either side....so claiming either side is done on faith alone.  You have faith one way, I have faith the other.  We each have faith that our belief is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't expect honesty from fundamentalists, but you might want to review what you previously wrote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no need to do that.  You do...if you want to switch over to being honest.  Pigs will fly first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand you're angry. That's a typical reaction from fundamentalists when they're tasked with supporting their claims to supernaturalism.  Similarly, when fundamentalists are confronted with their pointless claims that others need to disprove their appeals to magic and supernaturalism,  the fundamentalists typically react as you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inference that I am angry is born of your narcissism.  I couldn't care less about what you believe.  It's the incessant crowing and attacks on others that makes yours an angry, militant religion, geared toward the ridicule of scorn of all others.  What you infer from my postings is nothing more than your mistaken opinion.  It takes a lot more than what you say to bring me to anger.  You overrate yourself.
> 
> If it really makes you happy, I am proud to have provided you with some comfort and joy.  I bring you tidings of comfort and joy.  That's cool with me!  God Rest Ye Merry People All!
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd get a lot less ridicule if you'd quit trying to define us.  Just saying...
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to define you.  That's already be done.  You define yourselves by holding to the faith.

Cheers!


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't expect honesty from fundamentalists, but you might want to review what you previously wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need to do that.  You do...if you want to switch over to being honest.  Pigs will fly first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand you're angry. That's a typical reaction from fundamentalists when they're tasked with supporting their claims to supernaturalism.  Similarly, when fundamentalists are confronted with their pointless claims that others need to disprove their appeals to magic and supernaturalism,  the fundamentalists typically react as you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inference that I am angry is born of your narcissism.  I couldn't care less about what you believe.  It's the incessant crowing and attacks on others that makes yours an angry, militant religion, geared toward the ridicule of scorn of all others.  What you infer from my postings is nothing more than your mistaken opinion.  It takes a lot more than what you say to bring me to anger.  You overrate yourself.
> 
> If it really makes you happy, I am proud to have provided you with some comfort and joy.  I bring you tidings of comfort and joy.  That's cool with me!  God Rest Ye Merry People All!
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd get a lot less ridicule if you'd quit trying to define us.  Just saying...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not trying to define you.  That's already be done.  You define yourselves by holding to the faith.
> 
> Cheers!
Click to expand...


True indeed. We define ourselves. Asaratis is just building strawmen.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith,* belief*, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.
> 
> But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!  You BELIEVE there is no God.  Guess what!  You just defeated your own argument with your definition.
> 
> You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.
> 
> You lose, pal!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply having beliefs, is not religion.  Everyone has beliefs, but not everyone has religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is religious.  That doesn't mean their religion doesn't exist.  Yours is Atheism if you believe deities do not exist.
> 
> If you simply have a non-belief in deities, you are agnostic....not Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you make shit up as you go along.  I simply do not believe in deities. I'm an atheist. I have no religion. Outside of this forum, I rarely think about it, or even talk about it.Outside of posting on this forum, I don't even personally know any other atheists. I have one family member who's agnostic, and the rest of my family are Christian. I have a total of two family members that know I'm an atheist.
> 
> I even celebrate Christmas!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Likely, you go along with Christmas just to get the gifts!  Whatever.
> 
> I haven't been making shit up.  In many cases I posted links to my claims.  You people (all you Atheist militants) have yet to refute any one of them, except with some pithy little sayings promoted by that pseudo intelligent dickweed, Bill Maher and some of your more famous preachers of Atheism.
> 
> Not to worry though.  Just because you belong to a group known to be a religion doesn't mean you have to be religious.  I'm a not-very-religious Baptist myself.
Click to expand...




Wowza, you might want to read your own writing and take a look at who's militant.

And are you upset that my family buys me gifts?  I hate Christmas, come to think of it. It's a holiday that many go in debt over. I celebrate it because I have two grown children I like to buy for. I pull out my 24 inch pre-decorated tree, put presents around it, and have fun with my kids. Other than that, it really has no meaning.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.
> 
> But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!  You BELIEVE there is no God.  Guess what!  You just defeated your own argument with your definition.
> 
> You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.
> 
> You lose, pal!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply having beliefs, is not religion.  Everyone has beliefs, but not everyone has religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is religious.  That doesn't mean their religion doesn't exist.  Yours is Atheism if you believe deities do not exist.
> 
> If you simply have a non-belief in deities, you are agnostic....not Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you make shit up as you go along.  I simply do not believe in deities. I'm an atheist. I have no religion. Outside of this forum, I rarely think about it, or even talk about it.Outside of posting on this forum, I don't even personally know any other atheists. I have one family member who's agnostic, and the rest of my family are Christian. I have a total of two family members that know I'm an atheist.
> 
> I even celebrate Christmas!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Likely, you go along with Christmas just to get the gifts!  Whatever.
> 
> I haven't been making shit up.  In many cases I posted links to my claims.  You people (all you Atheist militants) have yet to refute any one of them, except with some pithy little sayings promoted by that pseudo intelligent dickweed, Bill Maher and some of your more famous preachers of Atheism.
> 
> Not to worry though.  Just because you belong to a group known to be a religion doesn't mean you have to be religious.  I'm a not-very-religious Baptist myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wowza, you might want to read your own writing and take a look at who's militant.
> 
> And are you upset that my family buys me gifts?  I hate Christmas, come to think of it. It's a holiday that many go in debt over. I celebrate it because I have two grown children I like to buy for. I pull out my 24 inch pre-decorated tree, put presents around it, and have fun with my kids. Other than that, it really has no meaning.
Click to expand...

That's strange behavior for an adamant Atheist.  I would think you would teach your children to ignore such folly and criticize those that observe such silly, seasonal  traditions.

I give gifts to my grown children all through the year, not just at Christmas time.  There's no need to wait 'til Christmas.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply having beliefs, is not religion.  Everyone has beliefs, but not everyone has religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone is religious.  That doesn't mean their religion doesn't exist.  Yours is Atheism if you believe deities do not exist.
> 
> If you simply have a non-belief in deities, you are agnostic....not Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you make shit up as you go along.  I simply do not believe in deities. I'm an atheist. I have no religion. Outside of this forum, I rarely think about it, or even talk about it.Outside of posting on this forum, I don't even personally know any other atheists. I have one family member who's agnostic, and the rest of my family are Christian. I have a total of two family members that know I'm an atheist.
> 
> I even celebrate Christmas!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Likely, you go along with Christmas just to get the gifts!  Whatever.
> 
> I haven't been making shit up.  In many cases I posted links to my claims.  You people (all you Atheist militants) have yet to refute any one of them, except with some pithy little sayings promoted by that pseudo intelligent dickweed, Bill Maher and some of your more famous preachers of Atheism.
> 
> Not to worry though.  Just because you belong to a group known to be a religion doesn't mean you have to be religious.  I'm a not-very-religious Baptist myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wowza, you might want to read your own writing and take a look at who's militant.
> 
> And are you upset that my family buys me gifts?  I hate Christmas, come to think of it. It's a holiday that many go in debt over. I celebrate it because I have two grown children I like to buy for. I pull out my 24 inch pre-decorated tree, put presents around it, and have fun with my kids. Other than that, it really has no meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's strange behavior for an adamant Atheist.  I would think you would teach your children to ignore such folly and criticize those that observe such silly, seasonal  traditions.
> 
> I give gifts to my grown children all through the year, not just at Christmas time.  There's no need to wait 'til Christmas.
Click to expand...



So, you're trying to out-gift me, when you really have no idea what I do for my children?  How strange.

I do more. I'm so great, I'm superior. 

I can't quite put my finger on this type of attitude.  It's sort of a mixture of American exceptional-ism and Christian superiority. The two things I notice in people at Christmas time....and part of the reason I'm always so ready for the season to be over. Christmas in America really has little to do with Jesus's birthday.

I don't know why this would seem like strange behavior for an atheist.  I've repeatedly told you that all atheists are different. We don't all share the same brain.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone is religious.  That doesn't mean their religion doesn't exist.  Yours is Atheism if you believe deities do not exist.
> 
> If you simply have a non-belief in deities, you are agnostic....not Atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you make shit up as you go along.  I simply do not believe in deities. I'm an atheist. I have no religion. Outside of this forum, I rarely think about it, or even talk about it.Outside of posting on this forum, I don't even personally know any other atheists. I have one family member who's agnostic, and the rest of my family are Christian. I have a total of two family members that know I'm an atheist.
> 
> I even celebrate Christmas!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Likely, you go along with Christmas just to get the gifts!  Whatever.
> 
> I haven't been making shit up.  In many cases I posted links to my claims.  You people (all you Atheist militants) have yet to refute any one of them, except with some pithy little sayings promoted by that pseudo intelligent dickweed, Bill Maher and some of your more famous preachers of Atheism.
> 
> Not to worry though.  Just because you belong to a group known to be a religion doesn't mean you have to be religious.  I'm a not-very-religious Baptist myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wowza, you might want to read your own writing and take a look at who's militant.
> 
> And are you upset that my family buys me gifts?  I hate Christmas, come to think of it. It's a holiday that many go in debt over. I celebrate it because I have two grown children I like to buy for. I pull out my 24 inch pre-decorated tree, put presents around it, and have fun with my kids. Other than that, it really has no meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's strange behavior for an adamant Atheist.  I would think you would teach your children to ignore such folly and criticize those that observe such silly, seasonal  traditions.
> 
> I give gifts to my grown children all through the year, not just at Christmas time.  There's no need to wait 'til Christmas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're trying to out-gift me, when you really have no idea what I do for my children?  How strange.
> 
> I do more. I'm so great, I'm superior.
> 
> I can't quite put my finger on this type of attitude.  It's sort of a mixture of American exceptional-ism and Christian superiority. The two things I notice in people at Christmas time....and part of the reason I'm always so ready for the season to be over. Christmas in America really has little to do with Jesus's birthday.
> 
> I don't know why this would seem like strange behavior for an atheist.  I've repeatedly told you that all atheists are different. We don't all share the same brain.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, narcissist.  My year round gifting to my grown children has nothing to do with your reported Christmas time gifting.  I don't compare myself to you in any way.  I don't really care what you do as long as it does not affect me negatively.  It really doesn't bother me that Atheists continually scorn and verbally abuse Christians.  It's just a sign of deep seeded hatred and insecurity with your own religious beliefs.  None of this actually hurts me one iota.  It does give me pause the laugh and wonder what your purpose is....other than self gratification and aggrandizement.

You silly people need to learn how to live and let live.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't expect honesty from fundamentalists, but you might want to review what you previously wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need to do that.  You do...if you want to switch over to being honest.  Pigs will fly first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand you're angry. That's a typical reaction from fundamentalists when they're tasked with supporting their claims to supernaturalism.  Similarly, when fundamentalists are confronted with their pointless claims that others need to disprove their appeals to magic and supernaturalism,  the fundamentalists typically react as you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inference that I am angry is born of your narcissism.  I couldn't care less about what you believe.  It's the incessant crowing and attacks on others that makes yours an angry, militant religion, geared toward the ridicule of scorn of all others.  What you infer from my postings is nothing more than your mistaken opinion.  It takes a lot more than what you say to bring me to anger.  You overrate yourself.
> 
> If it really makes you happy, I am proud to have provided you with some comfort and joy.  I bring you tidings of comfort and joy.  That's cool with me!  God Rest Ye Merry People All!
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd get a lot less ridicule if you'd quit trying to define us.  Just saying...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not trying to define you.  That's already be done.  You define yourselves by holding to the faith.
> 
> Cheers!
Click to expand...


But I don't have faith....  Why are you trying to turn me into you?


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you make shit up as you go along.  I simply do not believe in deities. I'm an atheist. I have no religion. Outside of this forum, I rarely think about it, or even talk about it.Outside of posting on this forum, I don't even personally know any other atheists. I have one family member who's agnostic, and the rest of my family are Christian. I have a total of two family members that know I'm an atheist.
> 
> I even celebrate Christmas!
> 
> 
> 
> Likely, you go along with Christmas just to get the gifts!  Whatever.
> 
> I haven't been making shit up.  In many cases I posted links to my claims.  You people (all you Atheist militants) have yet to refute any one of them, except with some pithy little sayings promoted by that pseudo intelligent dickweed, Bill Maher and some of your more famous preachers of Atheism.
> 
> Not to worry though.  Just because you belong to a group known to be a religion doesn't mean you have to be religious.  I'm a not-very-religious Baptist myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wowza, you might want to read your own writing and take a look at who's militant.
> 
> And are you upset that my family buys me gifts?  I hate Christmas, come to think of it. It's a holiday that many go in debt over. I celebrate it because I have two grown children I like to buy for. I pull out my 24 inch pre-decorated tree, put presents around it, and have fun with my kids. Other than that, it really has no meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's strange behavior for an adamant Atheist.  I would think you would teach your children to ignore such folly and criticize those that observe such silly, seasonal  traditions.
> 
> I give gifts to my grown children all through the year, not just at Christmas time.  There's no need to wait 'til Christmas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're trying to out-gift me, when you really have no idea what I do for my children?  How strange.
> 
> I do more. I'm so great, I'm superior.
> 
> I can't quite put my finger on this type of attitude.  It's sort of a mixture of American exceptional-ism and Christian superiority. The two things I notice in people at Christmas time....and part of the reason I'm always so ready for the season to be over. Christmas in America really has little to do with Jesus's birthday.
> 
> I don't know why this would seem like strange behavior for an atheist.  I've repeatedly told you that all atheists are different. We don't all share the same brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again, narcissist.  My year round gifting to my grown children has nothing to do with your reported Christmas time gifting.  I don't compare myself to you in any way.  I don't really care what you do as long as it does not affect me negatively.  It really doesn't bother me that Atheists continually scorn and verbally abuse Christians.  It's just a sign of deep seeded hatred and insecurity with your own religious beliefs.  None of this actually hurts me one iota.  It does give me pause the laugh and wonder what your purpose is....other than self gratification and aggrandizement.
> 
> You silly people need to learn how to live and let live.
Click to expand...



Look in this giant mirror I'm holding up....


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you make shit up as you go along.  I simply do not believe in deities. I'm an atheist. I have no religion. Outside of this forum, I rarely think about it, or even talk about it.Outside of posting on this forum, I don't even personally know any other atheists. I have one family member who's agnostic, and the rest of my family are Christian. I have a total of two family members that know I'm an atheist.
> 
> I even celebrate Christmas!
> 
> 
> 
> Likely, you go along with Christmas just to get the gifts!  Whatever.
> 
> I haven't been making shit up.  In many cases I posted links to my claims.  You people (all you Atheist militants) have yet to refute any one of them, except with some pithy little sayings promoted by that pseudo intelligent dickweed, Bill Maher and some of your more famous preachers of Atheism.
> 
> Not to worry though.  Just because you belong to a group known to be a religion doesn't mean you have to be religious.  I'm a not-very-religious Baptist myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wowza, you might want to read your own writing and take a look at who's militant.
> 
> And are you upset that my family buys me gifts?  I hate Christmas, come to think of it. It's a holiday that many go in debt over. I celebrate it because I have two grown children I like to buy for. I pull out my 24 inch pre-decorated tree, put presents around it, and have fun with my kids. Other than that, it really has no meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's strange behavior for an adamant Atheist.  I would think you would teach your children to ignore such folly and criticize those that observe such silly, seasonal  traditions.
> 
> I give gifts to my grown children all through the year, not just at Christmas time.  There's no need to wait 'til Christmas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're trying to out-gift me, when you really have no idea what I do for my children?  How strange.
> 
> I do more. I'm so great, I'm superior.
> 
> I can't quite put my finger on this type of attitude.  It's sort of a mixture of American exceptional-ism and Christian superiority. The two things I notice in people at Christmas time....and part of the reason I'm always so ready for the season to be over. Christmas in America really has little to do with Jesus's birthday.
> 
> I don't know why this would seem like strange behavior for an atheist.  I've repeatedly told you that all atheists are different. We don't all share the same brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again, narcissist.  My year round gifting to my grown children has nothing to do with your reported Christmas time gifting.  I don't compare myself to you in any way.  I don't really care what you do as long as it does not affect me negatively.  It really doesn't bother me that Atheists continually scorn and verbally abuse Christians.  It's just a sign of deep seeded hatred and insecurity with your own religious beliefs.  None of this actually hurts me one iota.  It does give me pause the laugh and wonder what your purpose is....other than self gratification and aggrandizement.
> 
> You silly people need to learn how to live and let live.
Click to expand...




I never said I only do for my children at Christmas.  That's your assumptive Christian superiority showing, that's all.


----------



## Tuatara

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...<snip>...
> 
> Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief.* I don't believe in unicorns. That is not a belief.* Seriously, think about what you write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It implies that you have a belief that unicorns do not exist.  It is not a non-belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That means Tuatara no longer follows the Unicornist doctrine, and is not affiliated with the Unicorn Church.  He/she does not share the unrealistic belief in Unicorns. *Tuatara in now an Unicorneist*. There is no doctrine for Unicorneism.
Click to expand...

I'm also a Santa Clausiest, a leprachauneist, a fairyeist, a ghosteist...


----------



## teapartysamurai

Carla_Danger said:


> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith,* belief*, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.
> 
> But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!  You BELIEVE there is no God.  Guess what!  You just defeated your own argument with your definition.
> 
> You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.
> 
> You lose, pal!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply having beliefs, is not religion.  Everyone has beliefs, but not everyone has religion.
Click to expand...


I'm quoting from YOUR OWN DEFINITION!!!!!  

UNLESS YOU HAVE ABSOLUTE PROOF that there is no God, then you have FAITH you are correct.

That's not only belief but faith.

You are just trying to say it doesn't count for you, because you say it doesn't count.

You can't hold Christians to one standard and then say it doesn't count for you.

You still lose.


----------



## Tuatara

asaratis said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...<snip>...
> 
> Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief.* I don't believe in unicorns. That is not a belief.* Seriously, think about what you write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It implies that you have a belief that unicorns do not exist.  It is not a non-belief.
Click to expand...

Now you are getting ridiculous. It's like me saying you have a belief that a 71' Chevy Camaro inbedded in my armpit hair does not exist.


----------



## dblack

teapartysamurai said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith,* belief*, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.
> 
> But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!  You BELIEVE there is no God.  Guess what!  You just defeated your own argument with your definition.
> 
> You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.
> 
> You lose, pal!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply having beliefs, is not religion.  Everyone has beliefs, but not everyone has religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm quoting from YOUR OWN DEFINITION!!!!!
> 
> UNLESS YOU HAVE ABSOLUTE PROOF that there is no God, then you have FAITH you are correct.
> 
> That's not only belief but faith.
> 
> You are just trying to say it doesn't count for you, because you say it doesn't count.
> 
> You can't hold Christians to one standard and then say it doesn't count for you.
> 
> You still lose.
Click to expand...


Where do you dig up this fantasy that atheism is a belief "system"??? A system implies an integrated collections of beliefs - not one negation. Atheists share exactly one trait - they don't believe gods. That's it. Beyond that, their beliefs are all over the map. There is no system binding all atheists together as a unified religion. There are weird cults of all stripes in this world, and some of them are no doubt comprised of atheists. But that's a first year logical fallacy - just because some atheists make a religion out of their belief, doesn't mean all atheist do, and it doesn't make atheism a religion.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Tuatara said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...<snip>...
> 
> Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief.* I don't believe in unicorns. That is not a belief.* Seriously, think about what you write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It implies that you have a belief that unicorns do not exist.  It is not a non-belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That means Tuatara no longer follows the Unicornist doctrine, and is not affiliated with the Unicorn Church.  He/she does not share the unrealistic belief in Unicorns. *Tuatara in now an Unicorneist*. There is no doctrine for Unicorneism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm also a Santa Clausiest, a leprachauneist, a fairyeist, a ghosteist...
Click to expand...



I have a joke for you.  Why does Santa wash his costume in Tide?


Answer:  Because it's too cold out-tide.  LOL!


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...<snip>...
> 
> Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief.* I don't believe in unicorns. That is not a belief.* Seriously, think about what you write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It implies that you have a belief that unicorns do not exist.  It is not a non-belief.
Click to expand...


It's also not a 'belief system', and it sure as fuck isn't a religion.


----------



## Tuatara

teapartysamurai said:


> I'm quoting from YOUR OWN DEFINITION!!!!!
> 
> UNLESS YOU HAVE ABSOLUTE PROOF that there is no God, then you have FAITH you are correct.
> 
> That's not only belief but faith.
> 
> You are just trying to say it doesn't count for you, because you say it doesn't count.
> 
> You can't hold Christians to one standard and then say it doesn't count for you.
> 
> You still lose.


This is so wrong. First of all no one can have absolute proof of a negative. Do you have absolute proof that there is no Zeus, Ra, FSM or martians. Of course you don't but it would be ridiculous to say that not believing in any of those is a belief and faith. By your definition you would.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need to do that.  You do...if you want to switch over to being honest.  Pigs will fly first.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you're angry. That's a typical reaction from fundamentalists when they're tasked with supporting their claims to supernaturalism.  Similarly, when fundamentalists are confronted with their pointless claims that others need to disprove their appeals to magic and supernaturalism,  the fundamentalists typically react as you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inference that I am angry is born of your narcissism.  I couldn't care less about what you believe.  It's the incessant crowing and attacks on others that makes yours an angry, militant religion, geared toward the ridicule of scorn of all others.  What you infer from my postings is nothing more than your mistaken opinion.  It takes a lot more than what you say to bring me to anger.  You overrate yourself.
> 
> If it really makes you happy, I am proud to have provided you with some comfort and joy.  I bring you tidings of comfort and joy.  That's cool with me!  God Rest Ye Merry People All!
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd get a lot less ridicule if you'd quit trying to define us.  Just saying...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not trying to define you.  That's already be done.  You define yourselves by holding to the faith.
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I don't have faith....  Why are you trying to turn me into you?
Click to expand...

You have faith in your belief that God doesn't exist.  Since you have no proof of it, you must believe it on faith.  Why can't you numbnuts grab that?


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Likely, you go along with Christmas just to get the gifts!  Whatever.
> 
> I haven't been making shit up.  In many cases I posted links to my claims.  You people (all you Atheist militants) have yet to refute any one of them, except with some pithy little sayings promoted by that pseudo intelligent dickweed, Bill Maher and some of your more famous preachers of Atheism.
> 
> Not to worry though.  Just because you belong to a group known to be a religion doesn't mean you have to be religious.  I'm a not-very-religious Baptist myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wowza, you might want to read your own writing and take a look at who's militant.
> 
> And are you upset that my family buys me gifts?  I hate Christmas, come to think of it. It's a holiday that many go in debt over. I celebrate it because I have two grown children I like to buy for. I pull out my 24 inch pre-decorated tree, put presents around it, and have fun with my kids. Other than that, it really has no meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's strange behavior for an adamant Atheist.  I would think you would teach your children to ignore such folly and criticize those that observe such silly, seasonal  traditions.
> 
> I give gifts to my grown children all through the year, not just at Christmas time.  There's no need to wait 'til Christmas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're trying to out-gift me, when you really have no idea what I do for my children?  How strange.
> 
> I do more. I'm so great, I'm superior.
> 
> I can't quite put my finger on this type of attitude.  It's sort of a mixture of American exceptional-ism and Christian superiority. The two things I notice in people at Christmas time....and part of the reason I'm always so ready for the season to be over. Christmas in America really has little to do with Jesus's birthday.
> 
> I don't know why this would seem like strange behavior for an atheist.  I've repeatedly told you that all atheists are different. We don't all share the same brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again, narcissist.  My year round gifting to my grown children has nothing to do with your reported Christmas time gifting.  I don't compare myself to you in any way.  I don't really care what you do as long as it does not affect me negatively.  It really doesn't bother me that Atheists continually scorn and verbally abuse Christians.  It's just a sign of deep seeded hatred and insecurity with your own religious beliefs.  None of this actually hurts me one iota.  It does give me pause the laugh and wonder what your purpose is....other than self gratification and aggrandizement.
> 
> You silly people need to learn how to live and let live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I only do for my children at Christmas.  That's your assumptive Christian superiority showing, that's all.
Click to expand...

No, silly.  You pointed out that you observe Christmas because you have grown children you like to buy for.  I merely poiunted out that you don't have to celebrate Christmas to do that.  No superiority involved.


----------



## asaratis

Tuatara said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...<snip>...
> 
> Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief.* I don't believe in unicorns. That is not a belief.* Seriously, think about what you write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It implies that you have a belief that unicorns do not exist.  It is not a non-belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are getting ridiculous. It's like me saying you have a belief that a 71' Chevy Camaro inbedded in my armpit hair does not exist.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see we have another imbecilic poster chiming in.  Grow up, little one!  Come back when have you can comprehend abstract thought.


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you're angry. That's a typical reaction from fundamentalists when they're tasked with supporting their claims to supernaturalism.  Similarly, when fundamentalists are confronted with their pointless claims that others need to disprove their appeals to magic and supernaturalism,  the fundamentalists typically react as you do.
> 
> 
> 
> Your inference that I am angry is born of your narcissism.  I couldn't care less about what you believe.  It's the incessant crowing and attacks on others that makes yours an angry, militant religion, geared toward the ridicule of scorn of all others.  What you infer from my postings is nothing more than your mistaken opinion.  It takes a lot more than what you say to bring me to anger.  You overrate yourself.
> 
> If it really makes you happy, I am proud to have provided you with some comfort and joy.  I bring you tidings of comfort and joy.  That's cool with me!  God Rest Ye Merry People All!
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd get a lot less ridicule if you'd quit trying to define us.  Just saying...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not trying to define you.  That's already be done.  You define yourselves by holding to the faith.
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I don't have faith....  Why are you trying to turn me into you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have faith in your belief that God doesn't exist.  Since you have no proof of it, you must believe it on faith.  Why can't you numbnuts grab that?
Click to expand...


Do you realize how much this point of view trivializes the concept of faith? My best friend is a devout Catholic, and he detests the argument you're making for exactly that reason. In his view his faith is profoundly different from mundane, non-spiritual convictions. It's exactly the extra-rational nature of religious faith that gives it its emotional power and meaning. That's what the phrase "leap of faith" is all about - it takes a certain level of courage to commit to a belief that has no rational basis.

To compare that kind of deliberate act with it's antithesis, with the flat observation of logic and reason, is totally missing the point. The typical atheist's beliefs about the existence of gods have no level of spirituality. They don't engage in prayer to their non-gods, they don't achieve levels of ecstatic enlightenment contemplating the non-existence of gods. And I think this is a key point that most believers don't get. An atheist's non-belief in gods really is no more spiritually meaningful than their non-belief in unicorns. It's nothing at all like religious faith.


----------



## asaratis

dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your inference that I am angry is born of your narcissism.  I couldn't care less about what you believe.  It's the incessant crowing and attacks on others that makes yours an angry, militant religion, geared toward the ridicule of scorn of all others.  What you infer from my postings is nothing more than your mistaken opinion.  It takes a lot more than what you say to bring me to anger.  You overrate yourself.
> 
> If it really makes you happy, I am proud to have provided you with some comfort and joy.  I bring you tidings of comfort and joy.  That's cool with me!  God Rest Ye Merry People All!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd get a lot less ridicule if you'd quit trying to define us.  Just saying...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not trying to define you.  That's already be done.  You define yourselves by holding to the faith.
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I don't have faith....  Why are you trying to turn me into you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have faith in your belief that God doesn't exist.  Since you have no proof of it, you must believe it on faith.  Why can't you numbnuts grab that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you realize how much this point of view trivializes the concept of faith? My best friend is a devout Catholic, and he detests the argument you're making for exactly that reason. In his view his faith is profoundly different from mundane, non-spiritual convictions. It's exactly the extra-rational nature of religious faith that gives it its emotional power and meaning. That's what the phrase "leap of faith" is all about - it takes a certain level of courage to commit to a belief that has no rational basis.
> 
> To compare that kind of deliberate act with it's antithesis, with the flat observation of logic and reason, is totally missing the point. The typical atheist's beliefs about the existence of gods have no level of spirituality. They don't engage in prayer to their non-gods, they don't achieve levels of ecstatic enlightenment contemplating the non-existence of gods. And I think this is a key point that most believers don't get. An atheist's non-belief in gods really is no more spiritually meaningful than their non-belief in unicorns. It's nothing at all like religious faith.
Click to expand...

I understand the difference. I see your intent of your argument. But that does not detract from the fact that modern day Atheists have made a religion out of ridicule and scorn aimed at believers in spiritual things.  If you simply believe deities do not exist, you still have no cause to ridicule those that believe otherwise.

If you had evidence of non-existence, you might have a reason to argue with other religions.  There is no proof either way that I am aware of.  So the Atheist doctrine of opposing religion and any sign thereof has become a religion.

If you think Atheism precludes spirituality, try this book:

Atheism The Spiritual Atheist Personal Spiritual Growth In An Age Of Skeptics Spirituality Meditation Life Choices Book 5 - Kindle edition by David Carlyle atheism atheist atheism for dummies atheists in america atheism advanced atheist manifesto spirituality books atheism and spirituality. Religion Spirituality Kindle eBooks Amazon.com.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> I guess your goal is to get more people using your custom definitions. Good luck with that.



A definition that exist in dictionaries is now custom, while one that contradicts those dictionaries has to be accepted by everyone because not doing so upsets some idiots.

Sorry, I don't care if idiots don't like reality.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Wrong again as usual.
> 
> *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, *atheism* is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, *atheism* is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
> 
> So maybe in the narrow sense.
> 
> The other two sentences clearly say the rejection of belief and absence of belief.  Dummy.



I bet you cannot find a single non internet dictionary that defines atheism as a lack of belief.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> There's no belief required to conclude your gods are of myth and legend.
> 
> It's your anger directed at those who conclude your gods don't exist that causes you such angst. While you may harbor deep seated hatreds for those who reject your gods, the majority of the planet are _a-theistic _regarding your version of gods. Learn to let go of the hate that causes you to behave in such a childish and petulant manner.



Really?

You have to be able to arrive at a judgement using reason in order to conclude something. Tell me how you can do that without believing, oh he who hates to use proper definitions.


----------



## Tuatara

asaratis said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...<snip>...
> 
> Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief.* I don't believe in unicorns. That is not a belief.* Seriously, think about what you write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It implies that you have a belief that unicorns do not exist.  It is not a non-belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are getting ridiculous. It's like me saying you have a belief that a 71' Chevy Camaro inbedded in my armpit hair does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, I see we have another imbecilic poster chiming in.  Grow up, little one!  Come back when have you can comprehend abstract thought.
Click to expand...

I knew you couldn't respond. Thanks for playing.


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> I understand the difference. I see your intent of your argument. But that does not detract from the fact that modern day Atheists have made a religion out of ridicule and scorn aimed at believers in spiritual things.  *If you simply believe deities do not exist, you still have no cause to ridicule those that believe otherwise.*



I agree. And it's true that some have turned their rejection of theism into a religious campaign. But any fixation can be turned into a religion. People have built religions around sex. But that didn't make sex itself is a religion, or everyone who's ever been laid a follower of the sex religion.



> If you had evidence of non-existence, you might have a reason to argue with other religions.  There is no proof either way that I am aware of.  So the Atheist doctrine of opposing religion and any sign thereof has become a religion.



Again, some atheists may think that way. But there is no "atheist doctrine", any more than there's a single 'theist' doctrine. Come to think of it, that's probably a pretty good way to make my point. Theism isn't a religion either. It's just a belief in one or more gods. It takes more than one belief to make a religion.



> *If you think Atheism precludes spirituality*, try this book:
> 
> Atheism The Spiritual Atheist Personal Spiritual Growth In An Age Of Skeptics Spirituality Meditation Life Choices Book 5 - Kindle edition by David Carlyle atheism atheist atheism for dummies atheists in america atheism advanced atheist manifesto spirituality books atheism and spirituality. Religion Spirituality Kindle eBooks Amazon.com.



I don't think that at all. Depending who is practicing it, and how, Bhuddism is arguably an atheistic, spiritual practice, even a religion. But the mere lack of a belief in god isn't inherently spiritual. I suppose you could posit a "mundane" belief in a god, that also lacked spirituality - but the term "faith" implies more. I _does_ depend on a spiritual component, and that aspect is missing from the lack of faith exhibited by an atheist.


----------



## Tuatara

I guess these christians have to realize that their non beliefs in all the other gods are beliefs according to themselves.


----------



## Derideo_Te

dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the difference. I see your intent of your argument. But that does not detract from the fact that modern day Atheists have made a religion out of ridicule and scorn aimed at believers in spiritual things.  *If you simply believe deities do not exist, you still have no cause to ridicule those that believe otherwise.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. And it's true that some have turned their rejection of theism into a religious campaign. But any fixation can be turned into a religion. People have built religions around sex. But that didn't make sex itself is a religion, or everyone who's ever been laid a follower of the sex religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had evidence of non-existence, you might have a reason to argue with other religions.  There is no proof either way that I am aware of.  So the Atheist doctrine of opposing religion and any sign thereof has become a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, some atheists may think that way. But there is no "atheist doctrine", any more than there's a single 'theist' doctrine. Come to think of it, that's probably a pretty good way to make my point. Theism isn't a religion either. It's just a belief in one or more gods. It takes more than one belief to make a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If you think Atheism precludes spirituality*, try this book:
> 
> Atheism The Spiritual Atheist Personal Spiritual Growth In An Age Of Skeptics Spirituality Meditation Life Choices Book 5 - Kindle edition by David Carlyle atheism atheist atheism for dummies atheists in america atheism advanced atheist manifesto spirituality books atheism and spirituality. Religion Spirituality Kindle eBooks Amazon.com.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that at all. Depending who is practicing it, and how, Bhuddism is arguably an atheistic, spiritual practice, even a religion. But the mere lack of a belief in god isn't inherently spiritual. I suppose you could posit a "mundane" belief in a god, that also lacked spirituality - but the term "faith" implies more. I _does_ depend on a spiritual component, and that aspect is missing from the lack of faith exhibited by an atheist.
Click to expand...


And just to make your point about atheists being diverse I am a self described "spiritual atheist". Doesn't mean that I "believe" in any connections to a "spirit world" but rather that there is a tangible aspect to us that is spiritual in nature. It can be measured and exists in other mammal species. Religions have taken this spiritual aspect of ourselves and attempted to claim that it is "evidence" for their deities. However there is zero evidence to support that claim.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "f it doesn't take belief to conclude that God doesn't exist, then you must have some proof somewhere. Where is it?"
> 
> 
> This fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
> 
> 
> Lack of evidence that something doesn't exist doesn't 'prove' that it does, nor is it a 'belief' to acknowledge that lack of evidence.



In order to reach a conclusion you have to do more than simply say there is no evidence, you have to examine the evidence using reason. That, like it or not, does not lead me into any fallacies when I point out that it is impossible to not believe in your conclusion that god does not exist.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> Yours is a failed argument that is typical for angry fundamentalists. You're unable to argue affirmatively for your belief in magic and superstition. Because you cannot make a rational argument for ancient myths, you're left to make goofy utterances that others must "disprove" your nonsensical  musings.



I can argue affirmatively for anything. For instance, atheism is, by definition, a doctrine because the suffix -ism means "a distinctive doctrine, cause, system, or theory." If you have an objection to that I suggest you contact the publishers and editors of Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, © 2002.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> You'd get a lot less ridicule if you'd quit trying to define us.  Just saying...



This form someone who has used half of her posts to define others.

No just saying about it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> But I don't have faith....  Why are you trying to turn me into you?



If you have ever eaten at a restaurant, or even food bought from a grocery, you have displayed the faith you say you do not have.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> Where do you dig up this fantasy that atheism is a belief "system"??? A system implies an integrated collections of beliefs - not one negation. Atheists share exactly one trait - they don't believe gods. That's it. Beyond that, their beliefs are all over the map. There is no system binding all atheists together as a unified religion. There are weird cults of all stripes in this world, and some of them are no doubt comprised of atheists. But that's a first year logical fallacy - just because some atheists make a religion out of their belief, doesn't mean all atheist do, and it doesn't make atheism a religion.



From the fact that tacking -ism onto a word means it is a belief system.

Where do you dig up the fantasy that it isn't?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> Do you realize how much this point of view trivializes the concept of faith? My best friend is a devout Catholic, and he detests the argument you're making for exactly that reason. In his view his faith is profoundly different from mundane, non-spiritual convictions. It's exactly the extra-rational nature of religious faith that gives it its emotional power and meaning. That's what the phrase "leap of faith" is all about - it takes a certain level of courage to commit to a belief that has no rational basis.
> 
> To compare that kind of deliberate act with it's antithesis, with the flat observation of logic and reason, is totally missing the point. The typical atheist's beliefs about the existence of gods have no level of spirituality. They don't engage in prayer to their non-gods, they don't achieve levels of ecstatic enlightenment contemplating the non-existence of gods. And I think this is a key point that most believers don't get. An atheist's non-belief in gods really is no more spiritually meaningful than their non-belief in unicorns. It's nothing at all like religious faith.



Do you realize that faith and worship are two different things? Faith, by definition, is simply confidence or trust in someone or something. It does not have to involve the existence of god any more than eating does.


----------



## dblack

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize how much this point of view trivializes the concept of faith? My best friend is a devout Catholic, and he detests the argument you're making for exactly that reason. In his view his faith is profoundly different from mundane, non-spiritual convictions. It's exactly the extra-rational nature of religious faith that gives it its emotional power and meaning. That's what the phrase "leap of faith" is all about - it takes a certain level of courage to commit to a belief that has no rational basis.
> 
> To compare that kind of deliberate act with it's antithesis, with the flat observation of logic and reason, is totally missing the point. The typical atheist's beliefs about the existence of gods have no level of spirituality. They don't engage in prayer to their non-gods, they don't achieve levels of ecstatic enlightenment contemplating the non-existence of gods. And I think this is a key point that most believers don't get. An atheist's non-belief in gods really is no more spiritually meaningful than their non-belief in unicorns. It's nothing at all like religious faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that faith and worship are two different things? Faith, by definition, is simply confidence or trust in someone or something. It does not have to involve the existence of god any more than eating does.
Click to expand...


The term "faith" is used in a variety of ways. In a religious context, it refers to something more profound than simple 'confidence or trust'.


----------



## dblack

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you dig up this fantasy that atheism is a belief "system"??? A system implies an integrated collections of beliefs - not one negation. Atheists share exactly one trait - they don't believe gods. That's it. Beyond that, their beliefs are all over the map. There is no system binding all atheists together as a unified religion. There are weird cults of all stripes in this world, and some of them are no doubt comprised of atheists. But that's a first year logical fallacy - just because some atheists make a religion out of their belief, doesn't mean all atheist do, and it doesn't make atheism a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the fact that tacking -ism onto a word means it is a belief system.
> 
> Where do you dig up the fantasy that it isn't?
Click to expand...


I think 90% of thread is guileless equivocation. "ism" is a suffix with a wide variety of uses. The suffix "-ism" doesn't make atheism a religion any more than it makes theism a religion. It just specifies whether someone believes in gods or not.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> The term "faith" is used in a variety of ways. In a religious context, it refers to something more profound than simple 'confidence or trust'.



Only if you confuse it with something more profound, which I am sure your Catholic friend does not do.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> I think 90% of thread is guileless equivocation. "ism" is a suffix with a wide variety of uses. The suffix "-ism" doesn't make atheism a religion any more than it makes theism a religion. It just specifies whether someone believes in gods or not.



As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief.


----------



## dblack

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term "faith" is used in a variety of ways. In a religious context, it refers to something more profound than simple 'confidence or trust'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you confuse it with something more profound, which I am sure your Catholic friend does not do.
Click to expand...


So, do you consider theism a religion?


----------



## dblack

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think 90% of thread is guileless equivocation. "ism" is a suffix with a wide variety of uses. The suffix "-ism" doesn't make atheism a religion any more than it makes theism a religion. It just specifies whether someone believes in gods or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief.
Click to expand...


Oh what the heck, I'm bored... first hit on google says....



> *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, *atheism* is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, *atheism* is the absence of belief that any deities exist.



Copy'n and Past'n whoowhoooooo!!!!1


----------



## PratchettFan

Tuatara said:


> I guess these christians have to realize that their non beliefs in all the other gods are beliefs according to themselves.



Of course they are.  They can't be anything else.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Tuatara said:


> I guess these christians have to realize that their non beliefs in all the other gods are beliefs according to themselves.


obviously.....why would anyone bother denying it?......


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> So, do you consider theism a religion?



What does that have to do with anything I said?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> Oh what the heck, I'm bored... first hit on google says....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, *atheism* is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, *atheism* is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Copy'n and Past'n whoowhoooooo!!!!1
Click to expand...


I already challenged one poster to find that definition in a non internet dictionary. I am all but positive that Wikipedia doesn't meet that definition, and I have seen may people reject any Wiki reference based on their ignorant belief that nothing posted in it is accurate.

As for Google, did you know that t is based on what idiots click on over facts?


----------



## dblack

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you consider theism a religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything I said?
Click to expand...


It has to do with the topic of the thread. I posted that before your reply where you clarified that you don't think atheism is, in fact, a religion. I assume you see theism likewise.


----------



## dblack

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh what the heck, I'm bored... first hit on google says....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, *atheism* is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, *atheism* is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Copy'n and Past'n whoowhoooooo!!!!1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already challenged one poster to find that definition in a non internet dictionary. I am all but positive that Wikipedia doesn't meet that definition, and I have seen may people reject any Wiki reference based on their ignorant belief that nothing posted in it is accurate.
> 
> As for Google, did you know that t is based on what idiots click on over facts?
Click to expand...


Whatever. I'm not THAT bored.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> It has to do with the topic of the thread. I posted that before your reply where you clarified that you don't think atheism is, in fact, a religion. I assume you see theism likewise.



I posted that I don't think atheism is a religion days ago. I also pointed out that some atheist actually disagree with me, and that they have made it into a religion, which is fine with me. I have more respect them than I do for practitioners of Scientology, which is not a religion in any sense of the word I understand it. That said, I would strenuously object to the government not treating Scientology as a religion because it is not their job to define what is, and is not, a religion.

Just to be nice, there are people that treat theism as a religion. I happen to be one of them because I understand theism to be more than a simple existence in god or gods, it is the belief that the universe is populated by free agents, and that the future is not entirely fixed by the gods that exist. I also realize that other people do not define it is a religion, which in no way matters to me. I have never met a non religious theist that objected to me viewing theism as a religion, which leaves me dumbfounded when I see atheists objecting to anyone pointing that some atheist view their beliefs as being religious.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is a failed argument that is typical for angry fundamentalists. You're unable to argue affirmatively for your belief in magic and superstition. Because you cannot make a rational argument for ancient myths, you're left to make goofy utterances that others must "disprove" your nonsensical  musings.
> 
> 
> 
> Mistaken again you are.  I didn't ask you to disprove.  I merely pointed out that proof or disproof does not exist on either side....so claiming either side is done on faith alone.  You have faith one way, I have faith the other.  We each have faith that our belief is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't expect honesty from fundamentalists, but you might want to review what you previously wrote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no need to do that.  You do...if you want to switch over to being honest.  Pigs will fly first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand you're angry. That's a typical reaction from fundamentalists when they're tasked with supporting their claims to supernaturalism.  Similarly, when fundamentalists are confronted with their pointless claims that others need to disprove their appeals to magic and supernaturalism,  the fundamentalists typically react as you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inference that I am angry is born of your narcissism.  I couldn't care less about what you believe.  It's the incessant crowing and attacks on others that makes yours an angry, militant religion, geared toward the ridicule of scorn of all others.  What you infer from my postings is nothing more than your mistaken opinion.  It takes a lot more than what you say to bring me to anger.  You overrate yourself.
> 
> If it really makes you happy, I am proud to have provided you with some comfort and joy.  I bring you tidings of comfort and joy.  That's cool with me!  God Rest Ye Merry People All!
Click to expand...

It's a profoundly silly comment to make such that "I couldn't care less about what you believe", yet, you spend inordinate amounts of time agonizing over those who dismiss your gawds as simply myth and legend. 

Your anger and rage is palpable. You apply "religion" to atheism as a slur because you're incensed that even after all the history of pages in this thread and your continued attempts to define rejection of fear and superstition as "religion", you're still pursuing a failed argument.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you make shit up as you go along.  I simply do not believe in deities. I'm an atheist. I have no religion. Outside of this forum, I rarely think about it, or even talk about it.Outside of posting on this forum, I don't even personally know any other atheists. I have one family member who's agnostic, and the rest of my family are Christian. I have a total of two family members that know I'm an atheist.
> 
> I even celebrate Christmas!
> 
> 
> 
> Likely, you go along with Christmas just to get the gifts!  Whatever.
> 
> I haven't been making shit up.  In many cases I posted links to my claims.  You people (all you Atheist militants) have yet to refute any one of them, except with some pithy little sayings promoted by that pseudo intelligent dickweed, Bill Maher and some of your more famous preachers of Atheism.
> 
> Not to worry though.  Just because you belong to a group known to be a religion doesn't mean you have to be religious.  I'm a not-very-religious Baptist myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wowza, you might want to read your own writing and take a look at who's militant.
> 
> And are you upset that my family buys me gifts?  I hate Christmas, come to think of it. It's a holiday that many go in debt over. I celebrate it because I have two grown children I like to buy for. I pull out my 24 inch pre-decorated tree, put presents around it, and have fun with my kids. Other than that, it really has no meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's strange behavior for an adamant Atheist.  I would think you would teach your children to ignore such folly and criticize those that observe such silly, seasonal  traditions.
> 
> I give gifts to my grown children all through the year, not just at Christmas time.  There's no need to wait 'til Christmas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're trying to out-gift me, when you really have no idea what I do for my children?  How strange.
> 
> I do more. I'm so great, I'm superior.
> 
> I can't quite put my finger on this type of attitude.  It's sort of a mixture of American exceptional-ism and Christian superiority. The two things I notice in people at Christmas time....and part of the reason I'm always so ready for the season to be over. Christmas in America really has little to do with Jesus's birthday.
> 
> I don't know why this would seem like strange behavior for an atheist.  I've repeatedly told you that all atheists are different. We don't all share the same brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again, narcissist.  My year round gifting to my grown children has nothing to do with your reported Christmas time gifting.  I don't compare myself to you in any way.  I don't really care what you do as long as it does not affect me negatively.  It really doesn't bother me that Atheists continually scorn and verbally abuse Christians.  It's just a sign of deep seeded hatred and insecurity with your own religious beliefs.  None of this actually hurts me one iota.  It does give me pause the laugh and wonder what your purpose is....other than self gratification and aggrandizement.
> 
> You silly people need to learn how to live and let live.
Click to expand...

It seems that the siege mentality that causes you fundies to invent conspiracy theories has become a pathology for the more excitable of the thumpers.


----------



## asaratis

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think 90% of thread is guileless equivocation. "ism" is a suffix with a wide variety of uses. The suffix "-ism" doesn't make atheism a religion any more than it makes theism a religion. It just specifies whether someone believes in gods or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh what the heck, I'm bored... first hit on google says....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, *atheism* is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, *atheism* is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Copy'n and Past'n whoowhoooooo!!!!1
Click to expand...

Have you the balls to quote the link from which that came?  I'm from Missouri..SHOW ME!


----------



## dblack

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the topic of the thread. I posted that before your reply where you clarified that you don't think atheism is, in fact, a religion. I assume you see theism likewise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted that I don't think atheism is a religion days ago. I also pointed out that some atheist actually disagree with me, and that they have made it into a religion, which is fine with me. I have more respect them than I do for practitioners of Scientology, which is not a religion in any sense of the word I understand it. That said, I would strenuously object to the government not treating Scientology as a religion because it is not their job to define what is, and is not, a religion.
> 
> Just to be nice, there are people that treat theism as a religion. I happen to be one of them because I understand theism to be more than a simple existence in god or gods, it is the belief that the universe is populated by free agents, and that the future is not entirely fixed by the gods that exist. I also realize that other people do not define it is a religion, which in no way matters to me. I have never met a non religious theist that objected to me viewing theism as a religion, which leaves me dumbfounded when I see atheists objecting to anyone pointing that some atheist view their beliefs as being religious.
Click to expand...


The thing is, language is flexible, and words mean different things in different contexts to different people. For the purposes of discussion, what matters is that we clearly communicate the ideas involved. The problems arise when people leverage the ambiguities of the language to deliberately equivocate.

When @asaratis says the strident fanatical atheists like Dawkins are jerks or that some atheists are so committed to an "anti-god" stance that it amounts to just another religious belief, I can agree. But it doesn't follow that narrow examples define the general concept. It's like observing that some Tea Party members are racist rednecks and trying to use that to smear the entire movement.

As far as the government's treating a belief system as a religion, you know how I see that. Government shouldn't be "treating" religious practices or views any differently than any other beliefs people might have. The mere fact that we have different legal standards for religions forces government to make a determination concerning which beliefs are genuinely "religious" and which aren't.


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think 90% of thread is guileless equivocation. "ism" is a suffix with a wide variety of uses. The suffix "-ism" doesn't make atheism a religion any more than it makes theism a religion. It just specifies whether someone believes in gods or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh what the heck, I'm bored... first hit on google says....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, *atheism* is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, *atheism* is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Copy'n and Past'n whoowhoooooo!!!!1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you the balls to quote the link from which that came?  I'm from Missouri..SHOW ME!
Click to expand...


I dunno. Do you have the mental acumen to google "atheism"? It was at the top of the page, in a quote block. I didn't follow the link, cause I don't really care. But I think it was from Wikipedia. I'm from Missouri too.


----------



## HUGGY

I love it the way the religists are always trying to down play and "normalize" that which they subscribe to which is not normal.

"Faith" as they use it is much more akin to the mental hell that many schitzophrenics are trapped in believing the voices in their heads are real. 

This "faith" they speak of is more like a symptom of a mental disease than some benign wish list.

....Like believing in the Easter Bunny or the tooth fairy or the truly odd perpetuation of Santa Claus... altho I can see how the use of the Santa Claus could be helpfull if preparing children to have "faith" and believe in the impossible.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mistaken again you are.  I didn't ask you to disprove.  I merely pointed out that proof or disproof does not exist on either side....so claiming either side is done on faith alone.  You have faith one way, I have faith the other.  We each have faith that our belief is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't expect honesty from fundamentalists, but you might want to review what you previously wrote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no need to do that.  You do...if you want to switch over to being honest.  Pigs will fly first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand you're angry. That's a typical reaction from fundamentalists when they're tasked with supporting their claims to supernaturalism.  Similarly, when fundamentalists are confronted with their pointless claims that others need to disprove their appeals to magic and supernaturalism,  the fundamentalists typically react as you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inference that I am angry is born of your narcissism.  I couldn't care less about what you believe.  It's the incessant crowing and attacks on others that makes yours an angry, militant religion, geared toward the ridicule of scorn of all others.  What you infer from my postings is nothing more than your mistaken opinion.  It takes a lot more than what you say to bring me to anger.  You overrate yourself.
> 
> If it really makes you happy, I am proud to have provided you with some comfort and joy.  I bring you tidings of comfort and joy.  That's cool with me!  God Rest Ye Merry People All!
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a profoundly silly comment to make such that "I couldn't care less about what you believe", yet, you spend inordinate amounts of time agonizing over those who dismiss your gawds as simply myth and legend.
> 
> Your anger and rage is palpable. You apply "religion" to atheism as a slur because you're incensed that even after all the history of pages in this thread and your continued attempts to define rejection of fear and superstition as "religion", you're still pursuing a failed argument.
Click to expand...

You cling to the misunderstanding that I am angry.  There is no anger here, no agony here.  You praise yourself and other Atheists here in thinking that you are capable of driving me to anger.  I honestly do not give a tinker's damn whether you believe God exists or doesn't exist.  We're merely discussing the flawed posit that "Atheism is NOT a religion.  You are simply following the doctrine of Atheism.  It is more likely you that is pissed off.   I sleep well every night with absolutely no malice toward the stupid fucking active Atheists that think they are not part of a religion.  I simply wonder why you idiots object to its being defined as a religion.

You can repeat you lies 'til the cows come home...won't make them true.


----------



## asaratis

dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think 90% of thread is guileless equivocation. "ism" is a suffix with a wide variety of uses. The suffix "-ism" doesn't make atheism a religion any more than it makes theism a religion. It just specifies whether someone believes in gods or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh what the heck, I'm bored... first hit on google says....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, *atheism* is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, *atheism* is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Copy'n and Past'n whoowhoooooo!!!!1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you the balls to quote the link from which that came?  I'm from Missouri..SHOW ME!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dunno. Do you have the mental acumen to google "atheism"? It was at the top of the page, in a quote block. I didn't follow the link, cause I don't really care. But I think it was from Wikipedia. I'm from Missouri too.
Click to expand...

I guessed you would not post the link.  It does come ver batum from Wikipedia...a source that is open to editing by anyone.  Your boy editor in this case was *Kai Nielsen* (born 1926) is professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Calgary. Before moving to Canada, Nielsen taught at New York University (NYU). He specializes in metaphilosophy, ethics, and social and political philosophy. Nielsen has also written about philosophy of religion, and is *an advocate of contemporary atheism.*

He has redefined it for you.  The original definition comes from 1570 AD.  Google that! Redefining yourselves to keep from being called a religion doesn't work.  That's like the liberals redefining themselves to be progressives...instead of liberals because liberalism took on a bad name several years ago.  They are still nothing more than worthless fucking liberals....and an Atheist is still just one who believes that God does not exist.

Nice try, but no cigar!

*atheist*
noun [C]  /ˈeɪ·θi·ɪst/  us  

› someone who believes that God does not exist


atheist - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online


----------



## NYcarbineer

asaratis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think 90% of thread is guileless equivocation. "ism" is a suffix with a wide variety of uses. The suffix "-ism" doesn't make atheism a religion any more than it makes theism a religion. It just specifies whether someone believes in gods or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh what the heck, I'm bored... first hit on google says....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, *atheism* is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, *atheism* is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Copy'n and Past'n whoowhoooooo!!!!1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you the balls to quote the link from which that came?  I'm from Missouri..SHOW ME!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dunno. Do you have the mental acumen to google "atheism"? It was at the top of the page, in a quote block. I didn't follow the link, cause I don't really care. But I think it was from Wikipedia. I'm from Missouri too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guessed you would not post the link.  It does come ver batum from Wikipedia...a source that is open to editing by anyone.  Your boy editor in this case was *Kai Nielsen* (born 1926) is professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Calgary. Before moving to Canada, Nielsen taught at New York University (NYU). He specializes in metaphilosophy, ethics, and social and political philosophy. Nielsen has also written about philosophy of religion, and is *an advocate of contemporary atheism.*
> 
> He has redefined it for you.  The original definition comes from 1570 AD.  Google that! Redefining yourselves to keep from being called a religion doesn't work.  That's like the liberals redefining themselves to be progressives...instead of liberals because liberalism took on a bad name several years ago.  They are still nothing more than worthless fucking liberals....and an Atheist is still just one who believes that God does not exist.
> 
> Nice try, but no cigar!
> 
> *atheist*
> noun [C]  /ˈeɪ·θi·ɪst/  us
> 
> › someone who believes that God does not exist
> 
> 
> atheist - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
Click to expand...


That's a great argument if you accept the premise that humanity has not advanced one step since 1570.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Should the Constitution ban not praying in school?  According to some here, that would be an atheist religious practice.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> The thing is, language is flexible, and words mean different things in different contexts to different people. For the purposes of discussion, what matters is that we clearly communicate the ideas involved. The problems arise when people leverage the ambiguities of the language to deliberately equivocate.



I am pretty sure that is why we have actual books that allow people to clarify the definition of words using generally accepted standards rather than allowing everyone to insist that there definition of a words is acceptable. I posted the definition from multiple dictionaries to back up my position that atheism is a belief, you had to resort to Wikipedia.



dblack said:


> When @asaratis says the strident fanatical atheists like Dawkins are jerks or that some atheists are so committed to an "anti-god" stance that it amounts to just another religious belief, I can agree. But it doesn't follow that narrow examples define the general concept. It's like observing that some Tea Party members are racist rednecks and trying to use that to smear the entire movement.



I never said it did. In fact, I have repeatedly posted my opinion that atheism, in and of itself, is not a religion. That does not mean it is not an actual belief.



dblack said:


> As far as the government's treating a belief system as a religion, you know how I see that. Government shouldn't be "treating" religious practices or views any differently than any other beliefs people might have. The mere fact that we have different legal standards for religions forces government to make a determination concerning which beliefs are genuinely "religious" and which aren't.



That is because you continue to believe that doing so bestows privileges on people who believe that others are not able to access. If it really worked that way museums would not get the same tax benefits as churches, nor would non believers be able to claim the status of conscientious objectors.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

HUGGY said:


> I love it the way the religists are always trying to down play and "normalize" that which they subscribe to which is not normal.
> 
> "Faith" as they use it is much more akin to the mental hell that many schitzophrenics are trapped in believing the voices in their heads are real.
> 
> This "faith" they speak of is more like a symptom of a mental disease than some benign wish list.
> 
> ....Like believing in the Easter Bunny or the tooth fairy or the truly odd perpetuation of Santa Claus... altho I can see how the use of the Santa Claus could be helpfull if preparing children to have "faith" and believe in the impossible.



Funny how you condemn others for doing exactly what you do.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Should the Constitution ban not praying in school?  According to some here, that would be an atheist religious practice.



The Constitution does not ban not praying in school any more than it bans praying in school.


----------



## HUGGY

Quantum Windbag said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it the way the religists are always trying to down play and "normalize" that which they subscribe to which is not normal.
> 
> "Faith" as they use it is much more akin to the mental hell that many schitzophrenics are trapped in believing the voices in their heads are real.
> 
> This "faith" they speak of is more like a symptom of a mental disease than some benign wish list.
> 
> ....Like believing in the Easter Bunny or the tooth fairy or the truly odd perpetuation of Santa Claus... altho I can see how the use of the Santa Claus could be helpfull if preparing children to have "faith" and believe in the impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you condemn others for doing exactly what you do.
Click to expand...

 
Don't have a clue what you are going on about Boss.

I have no imaginary friends.


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think 90% of thread is guileless equivocation. "ism" is a suffix with a wide variety of uses. The suffix "-ism" doesn't make atheism a religion any more than it makes theism a religion. It just specifies whether someone believes in gods or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. *By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief*.
Click to expand...

Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.

Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


Thanks for coming out.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should the Constitution ban not praying in school?  According to some here, that would be an atheist religious practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution does not ban not praying in school any more than it bans praying in school.
Click to expand...


*Engel v. Vitale*, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that ruled it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools.

That being the case,  by prohibiting an official school prayer, the Court made not having an official school prayer mandatory, which,

if atheism is a religion, means that the Court  mandated that public schools practice the atheist religious belief on prayer.   That would be a 1st Amendment violation as well.

Some people get the point.  I'm not going to suffer at length agonizing over the fact that you don't.


----------



## PratchettFan

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should the Constitution ban not praying in school?  According to some here, that would be an atheist religious practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution does not ban not praying in school any more than it bans praying in school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Engel v. Vitale*, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that ruled it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools.
> 
> That being the case,  by prohibiting an official school prayer, the Court made not having an official school prayer mandatory, which,
> 
> if atheism is a religion, means that the Court  mandated that public schools practice the atheist religious belief on prayer.   That would be a 1st Amendment violation as well.
> 
> Some people get the point.  I'm not going to suffer at length agonizing over the fact that you don't.
Click to expand...


No one has suggested that Atheists get together to not pray.  Not allowing children to be forced to engage in prayer is not forcing them to not believe in God.  Now, if rather than a prayer the school was instead doing a quick recitation of why there was no God, then you might have an argument.  I believe the SC would have found that unacceptable as well.


----------



## PostmodernProph

NYcarbineer said:


> Should the Constitution ban not praying in school?  According to some here, that would be an atheist religious practice.


no, the atheists' practice of choice is to demand prayer be banned.....therefore what the Constitution should ban them from doing is the demand that prayer be banned.....


----------



## PratchettFan

Tuatara said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think 90% of thread is guileless equivocation. "ism" is a suffix with a wide variety of uses. The suffix "-ism" doesn't make atheism a religion any more than it makes theism a religion. It just specifies whether someone believes in gods or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. *By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.
> 
> Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming out.
Click to expand...


If you want to use it then you use it all:

Merriam-Webster:

*Definition of ATHEISM*
1
_archaic_ *:* ungodliness, wickedness
2
_a_ *:*  a disbelief in the existence of deity
_b_ *:*  the doctrine that there is no deity  .



 See atheism defined for kids »
*Origin of ATHEISM*
Middle French _athéisme,_ from _athée_ atheist, from Greek _atheos_ godless, from _a-_ + _theos_ god
First Known Use: 1546

Oxford Reference

atheism 
Subject:  Religion
The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek _atheos_, from _a-_ ‘without’ + _theos_ ‘god’.

You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos".  It does not apply it to the suffix "ism".  "No god" not "no belief".
The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
*ism*
_noun_ \ˈi-zəm\ .
: a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix _-ism_
*Full Definition of ISM*
1
*:*  a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory

While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god.  Which is why I don't like definitions that much.  It implies the word creates the thing.  It does not.  If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:

An Atheist has no god beliefs.
I am an Atheist.
Therefore, I have no god beliefs.

While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration.  I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god.  In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief.  So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong.  It can't be both.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should the Constitution ban not praying in school?  According to some here, that would be an atheist religious practice.
> 
> 
> 
> no, the atheists' practice of choice is to demand prayer be banned.....therefore what the Constitution should ban them from doing is the demand that prayer be banned.....
Click to expand...


Then amend the Constitution.


----------



## Montrovant

PratchettFan said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think 90% of thread is guileless equivocation. "ism" is a suffix with a wide variety of uses. The suffix "-ism" doesn't make atheism a religion any more than it makes theism a religion. It just specifies whether someone believes in gods or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. *By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.
> 
> Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to use it then you use it all:
> 
> Merriam-Webster:
> 
> *Definition of ATHEISM*
> 1
> _archaic_ *:* ungodliness, wickedness
> 2
> _a_ *:*  a disbelief in the existence of deity
> _b_ *:*  the doctrine that there is no deity  .
> 
> 
> 
> See atheism defined for kids »
> *Origin of ATHEISM*
> Middle French _athéisme,_ from _athée_ atheist, from Greek _atheos_ godless, from _a-_ + _theos_ god
> First Known Use: 1546
> 
> Oxford Reference
> 
> atheism
> Subject:  Religion
> The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek _atheos_, from _a-_ ‘without’ + _theos_ ‘god’.
> 
> You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos".  It does not apply it to the suffix "ism".  "No god" not "no belief".
> The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
> *ism*
> _noun_ \ˈi-zəm\ .
> : a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix _-ism_
> *Full Definition of ISM*
> 1
> *:*  a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
> 
> While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god.  Which is why I don't like definitions that much.  It implies the word creates the thing.  It does not.  If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:
> 
> An Atheist has no god beliefs.
> I am an Atheist.
> Therefore, I have no god beliefs.
> 
> While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration.  I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god.  In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief.  So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong.  It can't be both.
Click to expand...


If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?

What we have seen, as usual, is that there are multiple definitions of atheism.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PratchettFan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should the Constitution ban not praying in school?  According to some here, that would be an atheist religious practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution does not ban not praying in school any more than it bans praying in school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Engel v. Vitale*, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that ruled it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools.
> 
> That being the case,  by prohibiting an official school prayer, the Court made not having an official school prayer mandatory, which,
> 
> if atheism is a religion, means that the Court  mandated that public schools practice the atheist religious belief on prayer.   That would be a 1st Amendment violation as well.
> 
> Some people get the point.  I'm not going to suffer at length agonizing over the fact that you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has suggested that Atheists get together to not pray.  Not allowing children to be forced to engage in prayer is not forcing them to not believe in God.  Now, if rather than a prayer the school was instead doing a quick recitation of why there was no God, then you might have an argument.  I believe the SC would have found that unacceptable as well.
Click to expand...


I wasn't making my argument.  I was make the argument that logically follows one's belief that atheism is a religion.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't expect honesty from fundamentalists, but you might want to review what you previously wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need to do that.  You do...if you want to switch over to being honest.  Pigs will fly first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand you're angry. That's a typical reaction from fundamentalists when they're tasked with supporting their claims to supernaturalism.  Similarly, when fundamentalists are confronted with their pointless claims that others need to disprove their appeals to magic and supernaturalism,  the fundamentalists typically react as you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inference that I am angry is born of your narcissism.  I couldn't care less about what you believe.  It's the incessant crowing and attacks on others that makes yours an angry, militant religion, geared toward the ridicule of scorn of all others.  What you infer from my postings is nothing more than your mistaken opinion.  It takes a lot more than what you say to bring me to anger.  You overrate yourself.
> 
> If it really makes you happy, I am proud to have provided you with some comfort and joy.  I bring you tidings of comfort and joy.  That's cool with me!  God Rest Ye Merry People All!
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a profoundly silly comment to make such that "I couldn't care less about what you believe", yet, you spend inordinate amounts of time agonizing over those who dismiss your gawds as simply myth and legend.
> 
> Your anger and rage is palpable. You apply "religion" to atheism as a slur because you're incensed that even after all the history of pages in this thread and your continued attempts to define rejection of fear and superstition as "religion", you're still pursuing a failed argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cling to the misunderstanding that I am angry.  There is no anger here, no agony here.  You praise yourself and other Atheists here in thinking that you are capable of driving me to anger.  I honestly do not give a tinker's damn whether you believe God exists or doesn't exist.  We're merely discussing the flawed posit that "Atheism is NOT a religion.  You are simply following the doctrine of Atheism.  It is more likely you that is pissed off.   I sleep well every night with absolutely no malice toward the stupid fucking active Atheists that think they are not part of a religion.  I simply wonder why you idiots object to its being defined as a religion.
> 
> You can repeat you lies 'til the cows come home...won't make them true.
Click to expand...

But here you are still, incensed that anyone would challenge your specious opinions. It's your self-hate that causes you to spew the "atheism is a religion" canard. You consistently fail to show any connection between the rejection of fear and superstition and religious belief. That's most important as for you extremists, fear and superstition is a primary component of your religious belief.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should the Constitution ban not praying in school?  According to some here, that would be an atheist religious practice.
> 
> 
> 
> no, the atheists' practice of choice is to demand prayer be banned.....therefore what the Constitution should ban them from doing is the demand that prayer be banned.....
Click to expand...

The ravings of the extreme religious right. While you may find it personally offensive that others are protected from you imposing your extremist beliefs on others, I have no issue with your religion being banned where unconstitutional; as in public schools for example. Fundie Christians have no special exemption from adhering to the law.


----------



## sealybobo

MaxGrit said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't believe.  It isn't a belief system it's a non belief system.  Much different.  Do you believe in Leprechauns?  Then that is your belief system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is, by definition a belief. Agnosticism is not a word, therefore, by lack of definition, is not a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again as usual.
> 
> *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, *atheism* is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, *atheism* is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
> 
> So maybe in the narrow sense.
> 
> The other two sentences clearly say the rejection of belief and absence of belief.  Dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that's fine too.
> 
> I will be calling atheism a religion. it seems like it is catching on all over.
Click to expand...


And I promise not to chop your head off for doing it.  I hope you don't do that to me for not agreeing with you.  We know how you theists get when people don't agree with you.  

It's like crack or heroine.  Doing them could ruin your life.  Not everyone who tries cocaine or heroine has their life ruined but some people can't handle it.   Same with religion.

Oklahoma Woman Beheaded By Fired Muslim Co-Worker The Daily Caller


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith,* belief*, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.
> 
> But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!  You BELIEVE there is no God.  Guess what!  You just defeated your own argument with your definition.
> 
> You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.
> 
> You lose, pal!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't believe.  It isn't a belief system it's a non belief system.  Much different.  Do you believe in Leprechauns?  Then that is your belief system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religions concern beliefs regarding deities.  Believing that my car will start everyday forever is having faith in the battery, the starter, the spark plugs, the fuel and the motor.  That's not religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religion, (depending on the brand),  is often the belief in supernaturalism and mysticism as the engine that drives existence. There is no religion associated with rejecting supernaturalism and mysticism. It is only you supernaturalists who have a difficult time with separating your beliefs in magic with rational and reasoned conclusions rejecting your appeals to magic, fear and superstition.
Click to expand...


Did you see yesterday they finally caught a ghost on tape?

http://abc13.com/society/is-that-a-g-g-g-ghost/325047/

I don't know what that is, but I'm pretty sure it's not a ghost.  How many of these supposed rational logical intelligent theists believe it is a ghost?  Isn't that insane to not be skeptical about something like this?


----------



## sealybobo

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teapartysamurai said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith,* belief*, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.
> 
> But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!!  You BELIEVE there is no God.  Guess what!  You just defeated your own argument with your definition.
> 
> You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.
> 
> You lose, pal!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply having beliefs, is not religion.  Everyone has beliefs, but not everyone has religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is religious.  That doesn't mean their religion doesn't exist.  Yours is Atheism if you believe deities do not exist.
> 
> If you simply have a non-belief in deities, you are agnostic....not Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no belief required to conclude your gods are of myth and legend.
> 
> It's your anger directed at those who conclude your gods don't exist that causes you such angst. While you may harbor deep seated hatreds for those who reject your gods, the majority of the planet are _a-theistic _regarding your version of gods. Learn to let go of the hate that causes you to behave in such a childish and petulant manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are quite mistaken to think that you Atheists drive anyone to hatred.  You overrate yourself.  If it doesn't take belief to conclude that God doesn't exist, then you must have some proof somewhere.  Where is it?  Contrary to what you wish, your assertion that God does not exist takes faith on your part...just as it takes faith on my part to claim you are wrong.  There is no iron clad proof either way that I am aware of.  If you come up with any, please let me know.  You faith in the belief that God does not exist is no different from my faith that He does.  Your belief is a religious one just as is mine.
Click to expand...


You're right.  It was probably more about that guy losing his job than it was her not converting.

Oklahoma Woman Beheaded By Fired Muslim Co-Worker The Daily Caller

Don't forget the Chinese Christians who stabbed that woman for not converting.   They call them a cult but they were Christians.

BBC News - The Chinese cult that kills demons 

Maybe not your version of Christianity, but Christ is part of their schtick too.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Montrovant said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think 90% of thread is guileless equivocation. "ism" is a suffix with a wide variety of uses. The suffix "-ism" doesn't make atheism a religion any more than it makes theism a religion. It just specifies whether someone believes in gods or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. *By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.
> 
> Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to use it then you use it all:
> 
> Merriam-Webster:
> 
> *Definition of ATHEISM*
> 1
> _archaic_ *:* ungodliness, wickedness
> 2
> _a_ *:*  a disbelief in the existence of deity
> _b_ *:*  the doctrine that there is no deity  .
> 
> 
> 
> See atheism defined for kids »
> *Origin of ATHEISM*
> Middle French _athéisme,_ from _athée_ atheist, from Greek _atheos_ godless, from _a-_ + _theos_ god
> First Known Use: 1546
> 
> Oxford Reference
> 
> atheism
> Subject:  Religion
> The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek _atheos_, from _a-_ ‘without’ + _theos_ ‘god’.
> 
> You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos".  It does not apply it to the suffix "ism".  "No god" not "no belief".
> The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
> *ism*
> _noun_ \ˈi-zəm\ .
> : a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix _-ism_
> *Full Definition of ISM*
> 1
> *:*  a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
> 
> While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god.  Which is why I don't like definitions that much.  It implies the word creates the thing.  It does not.  If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:
> 
> An Atheist has no god beliefs.
> I am an Atheist.
> Therefore, I have no god beliefs.
> 
> While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration.  I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god.  In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief.  So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong.  It can't be both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?
Click to expand...

perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....


----------



## asaratis

NYcarbineer said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh what the heck, I'm bored... first hit on google says....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, *atheism* is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, *atheism* is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Copy'n and Past'n whoowhoooooo!!!!1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you the balls to quote the link from which that came?  I'm from Missouri..SHOW ME!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dunno. Do you have the mental acumen to google "atheism"? It was at the top of the page, in a quote block. I didn't follow the link, cause I don't really care. But I think it was from Wikipedia. I'm from Missouri too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guessed you would not post the link.  It does come ver batum from Wikipedia...a source that is open to editing by anyone.  Your boy editor in this case was *Kai Nielsen* (born 1926) is professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Calgary. Before moving to Canada, Nielsen taught at New York University (NYU). He specializes in metaphilosophy, ethics, and social and political philosophy. Nielsen has also written about philosophy of religion, and is *an advocate of contemporary atheism.*
> 
> He has redefined it for you.  The original definition comes from 1570 AD.  Google that! Redefining yourselves to keep from being called a religion doesn't work.  That's like the liberals redefining themselves to be progressives...instead of liberals because liberalism took on a bad name several years ago.  They are still nothing more than worthless fucking liberals....and an Atheist is still just one who believes that God does not exist.
> 
> Nice try, but no cigar!
> 
> *atheist*
> noun [C]  /ˈeɪ·θi·ɪst/  us
> 
> › someone who believes that God does not exist
> 
> 
> atheist - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a great argument if you accept the premise that humanity has not advanced one step since 1570.
Click to expand...

The definition I quoted above came from a modern day dictionary.

Cambridge Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus

The etymology of the word indicates its origin being around 1570.

Online Etymology Dictionary

atheist (n.) 


1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-)

There is no need to redefine the word just to make Atheists feel better about themselves.  If you simply have a lack of belief in God, you're simply agnostic.  It's really that simple, simpleton.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need to do that.  You do...if you want to switch over to being honest.  Pigs will fly first.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you're angry. That's a typical reaction from fundamentalists when they're tasked with supporting their claims to supernaturalism.  Similarly, when fundamentalists are confronted with their pointless claims that others need to disprove their appeals to magic and supernaturalism,  the fundamentalists typically react as you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inference that I am angry is born of your narcissism.  I couldn't care less about what you believe.  It's the incessant crowing and attacks on others that makes yours an angry, militant religion, geared toward the ridicule of scorn of all others.  What you infer from my postings is nothing more than your mistaken opinion.  It takes a lot more than what you say to bring me to anger.  You overrate yourself.
> 
> If it really makes you happy, I am proud to have provided you with some comfort and joy.  I bring you tidings of comfort and joy.  That's cool with me!  God Rest Ye Merry People All!
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a profoundly silly comment to make such that "I couldn't care less about what you believe", yet, you spend inordinate amounts of time agonizing over those who dismiss your gawds as simply myth and legend.
> 
> Your anger and rage is palpable. You apply "religion" to atheism as a slur because you're incensed that even after all the history of pages in this thread and your continued attempts to define rejection of fear and superstition as "religion", you're still pursuing a failed argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cling to the misunderstanding that I am angry.  There is no anger here, no agony here.  You praise yourself and other Atheists here in thinking that you are capable of driving me to anger.  I honestly do not give a tinker's damn whether you believe God exists or doesn't exist.  We're merely discussing the flawed posit that "Atheism is NOT a religion.  You are simply following the doctrine of Atheism.  It is more likely you that is pissed off.   I sleep well every night with absolutely no malice toward the stupid fucking active Atheists that think they are not part of a religion.  I simply wonder why you idiots object to its being defined as a religion.
> 
> You can repeat you lies 'til the cows come home...won't make them true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But here you are still, incensed that anyone would challenge your specious opinions. It's your self-hate that causes you to spew the "atheism is a religion" canard. You consistently fail to show any connection between the rejection of fear and superstition and religious belief. That's most important as for you extremists, fear and superstition is a primary component of your religious belief.
Click to expand...

Again you erroneous perceive that I am angry.  I'm simply denying the stupid claim that Atheism is not a religion.  How you translate that into anger is beyond me.  You are evidently incorrigibly warped in the head,


----------



## Delta4Embassy

In a way, atheism makes even less sense than any religion. Religions claim there's a god or gods or some higher power, but they can't prove it. That's bad enough. But atheists claim there's no god whatsoever absent any evidence for that position. Until you've catalogued everything in the universe you can't say there isn't something like a god somewhere in it. And if you did have that massive store of information you'd arguably BE god rendering your original claim false.


----------



## Montrovant

PostmodernProph said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think 90% of thread is guileless equivocation. "ism" is a suffix with a wide variety of uses. The suffix "-ism" doesn't make atheism a religion any more than it makes theism a religion. It just specifies whether someone believes in gods or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. *By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.
> 
> Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to use it then you use it all:
> 
> Merriam-Webster:
> 
> *Definition of ATHEISM*
> 1
> _archaic_ *:* ungodliness, wickedness
> 2
> _a_ *:*  a disbelief in the existence of deity
> _b_ *:*  the doctrine that there is no deity  .
> 
> 
> 
> See atheism defined for kids »
> *Origin of ATHEISM*
> Middle French _athéisme,_ from _athée_ atheist, from Greek _atheos_ godless, from _a-_ + _theos_ god
> First Known Use: 1546
> 
> Oxford Reference
> 
> atheism
> Subject:  Religion
> The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek _atheos_, from _a-_ ‘without’ + _theos_ ‘god’.
> 
> You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos".  It does not apply it to the suffix "ism".  "No god" not "no belief".
> The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
> *ism*
> _noun_ \ˈi-zəm\ .
> : a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix _-ism_
> *Full Definition of ISM*
> 1
> *:*  a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
> 
> While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god.  Which is why I don't like definitions that much.  It implies the word creates the thing.  It does not.  If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:
> 
> An Atheist has no god beliefs.
> I am an Atheist.
> Therefore, I have no god beliefs.
> 
> While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration.  I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god.  In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief.  So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong.  It can't be both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....
Click to expand...


Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you're angry. That's a typical reaction from fundamentalists when they're tasked with supporting their claims to supernaturalism.  Similarly, when fundamentalists are confronted with their pointless claims that others need to disprove their appeals to magic and supernaturalism,  the fundamentalists typically react as you do.
> 
> 
> 
> Your inference that I am angry is born of your narcissism.  I couldn't care less about what you believe.  It's the incessant crowing and attacks on others that makes yours an angry, militant religion, geared toward the ridicule of scorn of all others.  What you infer from my postings is nothing more than your mistaken opinion.  It takes a lot more than what you say to bring me to anger.  You overrate yourself.
> 
> If it really makes you happy, I am proud to have provided you with some comfort and joy.  I bring you tidings of comfort and joy.  That's cool with me!  God Rest Ye Merry People All!
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a profoundly silly comment to make such that "I couldn't care less about what you believe", yet, you spend inordinate amounts of time agonizing over those who dismiss your gawds as simply myth and legend.
> 
> Your anger and rage is palpable. You apply "religion" to atheism as a slur because you're incensed that even after all the history of pages in this thread and your continued attempts to define rejection of fear and superstition as "religion", you're still pursuing a failed argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cling to the misunderstanding that I am angry.  There is no anger here, no agony here.  You praise yourself and other Atheists here in thinking that you are capable of driving me to anger.  I honestly do not give a tinker's damn whether you believe God exists or doesn't exist.  We're merely discussing the flawed posit that "Atheism is NOT a religion.  You are simply following the doctrine of Atheism.  It is more likely you that is pissed off.   I sleep well every night with absolutely no malice toward the stupid fucking active Atheists that think they are not part of a religion.  I simply wonder why you idiots object to its being defined as a religion.
> 
> You can repeat you lies 'til the cows come home...won't make them true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But here you are still, incensed that anyone would challenge your specious opinions. It's your self-hate that causes you to spew the "atheism is a religion" canard. You consistently fail to show any connection between the rejection of fear and superstition and religious belief. That's most important as for you extremists, fear and superstition is a primary component of your religious belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you erroneous perceive that I am angry.  I'm simply denying the stupid claim that Atheism is not a religion.  How you translate that into anger is beyond me.  You are evidently incorrigibly warped in the head,
Click to expand...

It's fine to deny your anger. It's also fine that you have an insensate need to assign the "religion" label to rational and reasoned conclusions that have no connection to religion or a religious belief. 

It will cause you further anger and angst but those who conclude that magic and supernaturalism is not a requirement for existence has no connection with any religious belief. It's a shame that you extremist Christians become incensed at others concluding that fear and superstition are the harbingers of a maladjusted personality.

For all your saliva-slinging tirades wherein you insist that atheism is a religion, you have never made any argument showing a common connection with religious beliefs, rituals, traditions, etc., that are a common theme shared by religions but are totally absent among those who conclude that your gods are no more real or extant than the Egyptian gods.


----------



## Hollie

Delta4Embassy said:


> In a way, atheism makes even less sense than any religion. Religions claim there's a god or gods or some higher power, but they can't prove it. That's bad enough. But atheists claim there's no god whatsoever absent any evidence for that position. Until you've catalogued everything in the universe you can't say there isn't something like a god somewhere in it. And if you did have that massive store of information you'd arguably BE god rendering your original claim false.


Not true at all. Religious belief carries a lot of baggage with it. Concluding that Leprechauns, gods, Invisible Pink Unicorns, etc., don't exist is fairly low yield in comparison to the wars, atrocities and suffering imposed by various religious entities in their quest to convert those of the other, competing religions.

Unfortunately, the religious perspectives have been the prime antecedent of 10,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants-Gregorian and otherwise, magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated books, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!

But none of them make the absolute case of authority -- hence, I select the default position of atheism until such time as there is a clear defining _reason_ to select one over the other.


----------



## sealybobo

asaratis said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh what the heck, I'm bored... first hit on google says....
> 
> Copy'n and Past'n whoowhoooooo!!!!1
> 
> 
> 
> Have you the balls to quote the link from which that came?  I'm from Missouri..SHOW ME!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dunno. Do you have the mental acumen to google "atheism"? It was at the top of the page, in a quote block. I didn't follow the link, cause I don't really care. But I think it was from Wikipedia. I'm from Missouri too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guessed you would not post the link.  It does come ver batum from Wikipedia...a source that is open to editing by anyone.  Your boy editor in this case was *Kai Nielsen* (born 1926) is professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Calgary. Before moving to Canada, Nielsen taught at New York University (NYU). He specializes in metaphilosophy, ethics, and social and political philosophy. Nielsen has also written about philosophy of religion, and is *an advocate of contemporary atheism.*
> 
> He has redefined it for you.  The original definition comes from 1570 AD.  Google that! Redefining yourselves to keep from being called a religion doesn't work.  That's like the liberals redefining themselves to be progressives...instead of liberals because liberalism took on a bad name several years ago.  They are still nothing more than worthless fucking liberals....and an Atheist is still just one who believes that God does not exist.
> 
> Nice try, but no cigar!
> 
> *atheist*
> noun [C]  /ˈeɪ·θi·ɪst/  us
> 
> › someone who believes that God does not exist
> 
> 
> atheist - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a great argument if you accept the premise that humanity has not advanced one step since 1570.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The definition I quoted above came from a modern day dictionary.
> 
> Cambridge Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus
> 
> The etymology of the word indicates its origin being around 1570.
> 
> Online Etymology Dictionary
> 
> atheist (n.)
> 
> 
> 1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-)
> 
> There is no need to redefine the word just to make Atheists feel better about themselves.  If you simply have a lack of belief in God, you're simply agnostic.  It's really that simple, simpleton.
Click to expand...


Agnostic is not sure either way.  Too wishy washy for me.  I'm an agnostic atheist.  

I don't know if there is a god.  To know that I would have to be a god myself and be able to peek inside black holes.  But I'm certain enough that none of the organized religions are real so I call myself an atheist.

Lack of belief in your faith takes no faith just a brain.


----------



## NYcarbineer

asaratis said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh what the heck, I'm bored... first hit on google says....
> 
> Copy'n and Past'n whoowhoooooo!!!!1
> 
> 
> 
> Have you the balls to quote the link from which that came?  I'm from Missouri..SHOW ME!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dunno. Do you have the mental acumen to google "atheism"? It was at the top of the page, in a quote block. I didn't follow the link, cause I don't really care. But I think it was from Wikipedia. I'm from Missouri too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guessed you would not post the link.  It does come ver batum from Wikipedia...a source that is open to editing by anyone.  Your boy editor in this case was *Kai Nielsen* (born 1926) is professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Calgary. Before moving to Canada, Nielsen taught at New York University (NYU). He specializes in metaphilosophy, ethics, and social and political philosophy. Nielsen has also written about philosophy of religion, and is *an advocate of contemporary atheism.*
> 
> He has redefined it for you.  The original definition comes from 1570 AD.  Google that! Redefining yourselves to keep from being called a religion doesn't work.  That's like the liberals redefining themselves to be progressives...instead of liberals because liberalism took on a bad name several years ago.  They are still nothing more than worthless fucking liberals....and an Atheist is still just one who believes that God does not exist.
> 
> Nice try, but no cigar!
> 
> *atheist*
> noun [C]  /ˈeɪ·θi·ɪst/  us
> 
> › someone who believes that God does not exist
> 
> 
> atheist - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a great argument if you accept the premise that humanity has not advanced one step since 1570.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The definition I quoted above came from a modern day dictionary.
> 
> Cambridge Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus
> 
> The etymology of the word indicates its origin being around 1570.
> 
> Online Etymology Dictionary
> 
> atheist (n.)
> 
> 
> 1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-)
> 
> There is no need to redefine the word just to make Atheists feel better about themselves.  If you simply have a lack of belief in God, you're simply agnostic.  It's really that simple, simpleton.
Click to expand...


By that logic if you believe in God, you're agnostic.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.
> 
> Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming out.



Disbelief.

Webster: the act of disbelieving *:*  mental rejection of something as untrue

Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:

In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.

Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> *Engel v. Vitale*, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that ruled it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools.
> 
> That being the case,  by prohibiting an official school prayer, the Court made not having an official school prayer mandatory, which,
> 
> if atheism is a religion, means that the Court  mandated that public schools practice the atheist religious belief on prayer.   That would be a 1st Amendment violation as well.
> 
> Some people get the point.  I'm not going to suffer at length agonizing over the fact that you don't.



Why do you idiots insist on proving you do not understand English? I said the Constitution does not ban prayer in schools anymore than it bans not praying. In an attempt to prove that you are incredibly stupid you post a reference to a case where the Supreme Court banned prayer in school that is led by a teacher or any government official. Funny thing, it doesn't say a fucking thing about student led prayer in school. which is why the See you at the Pole rally's led by students have been repeatedly upheld by courts despite the multiple challenges to them led by idiots, like you, that think they understand things that do not exist.. If you could actually prove that the Constitution banned it you would post the actual text of the Constitution that bans prayer, which only exist in the minds of delusional idiots.

You cannot do so, which means I stand unchallenged in my assertion.

Feel free to prove your ever increasing ignorance by trying to prove me wrong again.


----------



## NYcarbineer

sealybobo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you the balls to quote the link from which that came?  I'm from Missouri..SHOW ME!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno. Do you have the mental acumen to google "atheism"? It was at the top of the page, in a quote block. I didn't follow the link, cause I don't really care. But I think it was from Wikipedia. I'm from Missouri too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guessed you would not post the link.  It does come ver batum from Wikipedia...a source that is open to editing by anyone.  Your boy editor in this case was *Kai Nielsen* (born 1926) is professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Calgary. Before moving to Canada, Nielsen taught at New York University (NYU). He specializes in metaphilosophy, ethics, and social and political philosophy. Nielsen has also written about philosophy of religion, and is *an advocate of contemporary atheism.*
> 
> He has redefined it for you.  The original definition comes from 1570 AD.  Google that! Redefining yourselves to keep from being called a religion doesn't work.  That's like the liberals redefining themselves to be progressives...instead of liberals because liberalism took on a bad name several years ago.  They are still nothing more than worthless fucking liberals....and an Atheist is still just one who believes that God does not exist.
> 
> Nice try, but no cigar!
> 
> *atheist*
> noun [C]  /ˈeɪ·θi·ɪst/  us
> 
> › someone who believes that God does not exist
> 
> 
> atheist - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a great argument if you accept the premise that humanity has not advanced one step since 1570.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The definition I quoted above came from a modern day dictionary.
> 
> Cambridge Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus
> 
> The etymology of the word indicates its origin being around 1570.
> 
> Online Etymology Dictionary
> 
> atheist (n.)
> 
> 
> 1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-)
> 
> There is no need to redefine the word just to make Atheists feel better about themselves.  If you simply have a lack of belief in God, you're simply agnostic.  It's really that simple, simpleton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agnostic is not sure either way.  Too wishy washy for me.  I'm an agnostic atheist.
> 
> I don't know if there is a god.  To know that I would have to be a god myself and be able to peek inside black holes.  But I'm certain enough that none of the organized religions are real so I call myself an atheist.
> 
> Lack of belief in your faith takes no faith just a brain.
Click to expand...


The way they're trying to define atheism is based on a general 'principle' that anything is possible, therefore the atheist is committing an act of faith by not believing in God, because the possibility of God can't be ruled out.

lol, or something like that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Then amend the Constitution.



Why? It works just fine the way it is, which is why you idiots cannot get rid of student led prayer in schools despite your best efforts.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Engel v. Vitale*, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that ruled it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools.
> 
> That being the case,  by prohibiting an official school prayer, the Court made not having an official school prayer mandatory, which,
> 
> if atheism is a religion, means that the Court  mandated that public schools practice the atheist religious belief on prayer.   That would be a 1st Amendment violation as well.
> 
> Some people get the point.  I'm not going to suffer at length agonizing over the fact that you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you idiots insist on proving you do not understand English? I said the Constitution does not ban prayer in schools anymore than it bans not praying. In an attempt to prove that you are incredibly stupid you post a reference to a case where the Supreme Court banned prayer in school that is led by a teacher or any government official. Funny thing, it doesn't say a fucking thing about student led prayer in school. which is why the See you at the Pole rally's led by students have been repeatedly upheld by courts despite the multiple challenges to them led by idiots, like you, that think they understand things that do not exist.. If you could actually prove that the Constitution banned it you would post the actual text of the Constitution that bans prayer, which only exist in the minds of delusional idiots.
> 
> You cannot do so, which means I stand unchallenged in my assertion.
> 
> Feel free to prove your ever increasing ignorance by trying to prove me wrong again.
Click to expand...


You're claiming no prayer has been constitutionally banned.  You're wrong.  You're retarded.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.
> 
> Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disbelief.
> 
> Webster: the act of disbelieving *:*  mental rejection of something as untrue
> 
> Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:
> 
> In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.
> 
> Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?
Click to expand...

Better still, it's abundantly clear that disbelief is not a religion. Cutting and pasting dictionary definitions is pointless and time wasting when religious belief systems have elaborate systems of rituals, customs and practices.

 What are the elaborate systems of rituals, customs and practices associated with "disbelief" in gods, Leprechauns and other silly inventions of man?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Montrovant said:


> If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?
> 
> What we have seen, as usual, is that there are multiple definitions of atheism.



The word is not adoctrine, it is atheist.

FYI, I just destroyed your post in in 8 words.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> You're right.  It was probably more about that guy losing his job than it was her not converting.
> 
> Oklahoma Woman Beheaded By Fired Muslim Co-Worker The Daily Caller
> 
> Don't forget the Chinese Christians who stabbed that woman for not converting.   They call them a cult but they were Christians.
> 
> BBC News - The Chinese cult that kills demons
> 
> Maybe not your version of Christianity, but Christ is part of their schtick too.



He was fired because he wanted to stone women. 

Damn, I guess that proves it wasn't about religion, doesn't it? And it was just a coincidence that the only people he attacked were women.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Montrovant said:


> Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?



No, it would not. Are you another one of those religious fanatics that insist that the only valid universe is the one that they believe in?


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then amend the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? It works just fine the way it is, which is why you idiots cannot get rid of student led prayer in schools despite your best efforts.
Click to expand...

Student led prayer is not the issue of fundamentalist Christianity which you ID'iots are trying to shoe-horn in on the public schools.

Do what you usually do and waste a lot of time and bandwidth cutting and pasting dictionary definitions. Do that for "wedge strategy", intelligent design creationism, etc.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> The way they're trying to define atheism is based on a general 'principle' that anything is possible, therefore the atheist is committing an act of faith by not believing in God, because the possibility of God can't be ruled out.
> 
> lol, or something like that.



And you insist that atheist means agnostic, when it clearly does not.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> You're claiming no prayer has been constitutionally banned.  You're wrong.  You're retarded.



No, I said that the Constitution does not ban it. Let me give you an example of something the Constitution does ban just so you understand the real world.


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
*​The Constitution clearly bans the government from doing some things. It does not prohibit people from praying in school. Until you show me the actual text of the Constitution that proves my assertion wrong I am not the retarded one in this conversation.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.  It was probably more about that guy losing his job than it was her not converting.
> 
> Oklahoma Woman Beheaded By Fired Muslim Co-Worker The Daily Caller
> 
> Don't forget the Chinese Christians who stabbed that woman for not converting.   They call them a cult but they were Christians.
> 
> BBC News - The Chinese cult that kills demons
> 
> Maybe not your version of Christianity, but Christ is part of their schtick too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was fired because he wanted to stone women.
> 
> Damn, I guess that proves it wasn't about religion, doesn't it? And it was just a coincidence that the only people he attacked were women.
Click to expand...


It was his religion that told him to stone women.  Thanks for backing me up on this one.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> Better still, it's abundantly clear that disbelief is not a religion. Cutting and pasting dictionary definitions is pointless and time wasting when religious belief systems have elaborate systems of rituals, customs and practices.
> 
> What are the elaborate systems of rituals, customs and practices associated with "disbelief" in gods, Leprechauns and other silly inventions of man?



In the atheist churches, oh he who still refuse to admit the reality that, to some people, atheism is a religion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> Student led prayer is not the issue of fundamentalist Christianity which you ID'iots are trying to shoe-horn in on the public schools.
> 
> Do what you usually do and waste a lot of time and bandwidth cutting and pasting dictionary definitions. Do that for "wedge strategy", intelligent design creationism, etc.



The only thing I want to do with public schools is abolish them, idiot.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> It was his religion that told him to stone women.  Thanks for backing me up on this one.



How does me pointing out that it was about religion back up our claim that it was simply workplace violence?


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The way they're trying to define atheism is based on a general 'principle' that anything is possible, therefore the atheist is committing an act of faith by not believing in God, because the possibility of God can't be ruled out.
> 
> lol, or something like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you insist that atheist means agnostic, when it clearly does not.
Click to expand...


Well if you completely reject the Jesus and Mohammad gods, what does it matter if you are an agnostic or atheist?  It doesn't.  I'm agnostic when it comes to the generic concept of god but I am a full blown atheist when it comes to Jesus.  Those stories are all lies.  You'd have to be a fool to believe any organized religion.  Maybe that's where you are confused.  Your god?  Completely full of shit.  A generic god that might be inside a black hole?  I have no clue.  But I still lean towards not believing there is a god because I/we see no proof.  From what we see looks like fools like you made up god in your tiny brains.

*Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities

In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

Narrow you stupid fuck!

In religious belief, a *deity* (

i/ˈdiː.ɨti/ or 

i/ˈdeɪ.ɨti/)[1] is a supernatural being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred. Some religions have one supreme deity, while others have multiple deities of various ranks.

So are we talking about your Jesus god or just a generic god?  That does make a difference.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The way they're trying to define atheism is based on a general 'principle' that anything is possible, therefore the atheist is committing an act of faith by not believing in God, because the possibility of God can't be ruled out.
> 
> lol, or something like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you insist that atheist means agnostic, when it clearly does not.
Click to expand...


I insist, for the thousandth time, that is reasonable to disbelieve in the existence of something for which there is no evidence of its existence,  whether it's God or Big Foot,

and one need not repeatedly inject the caveat that it's still 'possible' for something one doesn't believe in to actually exist.

Yes, we get it.  Theoretically ANYTHING is possible.  That doesn't make one's decision not to believe in something some sort of mystical exercise.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was his religion that told him to stone women.  Thanks for backing me up on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does me pointing out that it was about religion back up our claim that it was simply workplace violence?
Click to expand...


I agree it was religion that made the guy crazy.  

So chalk another murder/death/kill on you theists.  

You guys love to talk about how hundreds of years ago atheists killed a lot of people but since then you theists are the reigning leaders of murder.  I see you all killing each other every day.  How many atheists have murdered in the name of "no god" in the last year?


----------



## NYcarbineer

The sum total of hard evidence for the existence of supernatural beings is ZERO.

It is only because of humanity's vested interest in there actually being supernatural beings that we see so much shit thrown at atheists for their having reached a very sensible and reasonable conclusion based on the above truth.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Student led prayer is not the issue of fundamentalist Christianity which you ID'iots are trying to shoe-horn in on the public schools.
> 
> Do what you usually do and waste a lot of time and bandwidth cutting and pasting dictionary definitions. Do that for "wedge strategy", intelligent design creationism, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing I want to do with public schools is abolish them, idiot.
Click to expand...

Doing so would imply we have a lot more knuckle-draggers like you - spilling out of the Falwell / Robertson madrassah's.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better still, it's abundantly clear that disbelief is not a religion. Cutting and pasting dictionary definitions is pointless and time wasting when religious belief systems have elaborate systems of rituals, customs and practices.
> 
> What are the elaborate systems of rituals, customs and practices associated with "disbelief" in gods, Leprechauns and other silly inventions of man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the atheist churches, oh he who still refuse to admit the reality that, to some people, atheism is a religion.
Click to expand...

More evidence that you probably should spend your time cutting and pasting definitions from on-line dictionaries. It seems you're clueless regarding the silliness of "atheist" churches.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Well if you completely reject the Jesus and Mohammad gods, what does it matter if you are an agnostic or atheist?  It doesn't.  I'm agnostic when it comes to the generic concept of god but I am a full blown atheist when it comes to Jesus.  Those stories are all lies.  You'd have to be a fool to believe any organized religion.  Maybe that's where you are confused.  Your god?  Completely full of shit.  A generic god that might be inside a black hole?  I have no clue.  But I still lean towards not believing there is a god because I/we see no proof.  From what we see looks like fools like you made up god in your tiny brains.
> 
> *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities
> 
> In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
> 
> Narrow you stupid fuck!
> 
> In religious belief, a *deity* (
> 
> i/ˈdiː.ɨti/ or
> 
> i/ˈdeɪ.ɨti/)[1] is a supernatural being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred. Some religions have one supreme deity, while others have multiple deities of various ranks.
> 
> So are we talking about your Jesus god or just a generic god?  That does make a difference.



My god is completely full of shit? Can you explain when you learned to read minds? Because I have repeatedly refused to even give you a hint of what I actually believe. After that, feel free to how a person who thinks he has the ability to read minds can possibly argue that other people are deluded about their beliefs.

Atheism is the categorical rejection of the very concept of a god. If you do not totally reject god you are not an atheist, oh he who has to have the simplest things explained to him multiple times and will still insist that the other guy is wrong because he refuses to lay out his belief system.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> I insist, for the thousandth time, that is reasonable to disbelieve in the existence of something for which there is no evidence of its existence,  whether it's God or Big Foot,
> 
> and one need not repeatedly inject the caveat that it's still 'possible' for something one doesn't believe in to actually exist.
> 
> Yes, we get it.  Theoretically ANYTHING is possible.  That doesn't make one's decision not to believe in something some sort of mystical exercise.



Funny, I never said that your beliefs are unreasonable, I just keep pointing out that they are beliefs. Why is that so hard for you to accept?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I agree it was religion that made the guy crazy.
> 
> So chalk another murder/death/kill on you theists.
> 
> You guys love to talk about how hundreds of years ago atheists killed a lot of people but since then you theists are the reigning leaders of murder.  I see you all killing each other every day.  How many atheists have murdered in the name of "no god" in the last year?



I never said, nor do I believe, that his religion made him crazy, which means you are not agreeing with me. 

I suggest you stop trying to use your ESP on me, you obviously cannot read my mind.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> The sum total of hard evidence for the existence of supernatural beings is ZERO.
> 
> It is only because of humanity's vested interest in there actually being supernatural beings that we see so much shit thrown at atheists for their having reached a very sensible and reasonable conclusion based on the above truth.



Your rejection of facts does not mean they do not exist.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> More evidence that you probably should spend your time cutting and pasting definitions from on-line dictionaries. It seems you're clueless regarding the silliness of "atheist" churches.



Silly or not, they still exist.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence that you probably should spend your time cutting and pasting definitions from on-line dictionaries. It seems you're clueless regarding the silliness of "atheist" churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly or not, they still exist.
Click to expand...

Silly, yes. Still you cannot identify the rituals, customs, practices or shared worship of a supernatural entity that typically identifies a religious belief.

It seems your tactic of cutting and pasting from on-line dictionaries is of little help when the argument requires the act of thinking.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're claiming no prayer has been constitutionally banned.  You're wrong.  You're retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said that the Constitution does not ban it. Let me give you an example of something the Constitution does ban just so you understand the real world.
> 
> 
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
> *​The Constitution clearly bans the government from doing some things. It does not prohibit people from praying in school. Until you show me the actual text of the Constitution that proves my assertion wrong I am not the retarded one in this conversation.
Click to expand...


You as a student can pray all you want.  We don't stop muslims from praying 5 times a day so why would we stop you?

But the teacher can't initiate it.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you completely reject the Jesus and Mohammad gods, what does it matter if you are an agnostic or atheist?  It doesn't.  I'm agnostic when it comes to the generic concept of god but I am a full blown atheist when it comes to Jesus.  Those stories are all lies.  You'd have to be a fool to believe any organized religion.  Maybe that's where you are confused.  Your god?  Completely full of shit.  A generic god that might be inside a black hole?  I have no clue.  But I still lean towards not believing there is a god because I/we see no proof.  From what we see looks like fools like you made up god in your tiny brains.
> 
> *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities
> 
> In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
> 
> Narrow you stupid fuck!
> 
> In religious belief, a *deity* (
> 
> i/ˈdiː.ɨti/ or
> 
> i/ˈdeɪ.ɨti/)[1] is a supernatural being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred. Some religions have one supreme deity, while others have multiple deities of various ranks.
> 
> So are we talking about your Jesus god or just a generic god?  That does make a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My god is completely full of shit? Can you explain when you learned to read minds? Because I have repeatedly refused to even give you a hint of what I actually believe. After that, feel free to how a person who thinks he has the ability to read minds can possibly argue that other people are deluded about their beliefs.
> 
> Atheism is the categorical rejection of the very concept of a god. If you do not totally reject god you are not an atheist, oh he who has to have the simplest things explained to him multiple times and will still insist that the other guy is wrong because he refuses to lay out his belief system.
Click to expand...


I notice in the definition of atheist it says "rejection of belief in deities".  

So most "atheists" will even admit that they can't say 100% for sure there isn't a "god" or "creator".  We understand this could be a computer simulation or we could be inside a giant snow globe for all we know.  Or our universe could be the product of some huge being that shit us out one day.  

But you guys aren't talking about generic "god".  You're talking about a deity that came and spoke to your ancestors.  As far as that goes we are atheists because it sounds like a completely made up story.  But again I can't say 100% sure because I wasn't there.  But logic and reality tell me its all bullshit.  

I'll say it again, you would have to be a god yourself to know 100% for sure that nothing made us.

BUT, as far as a deity who came and talked to Moses or sent Jesus, that's just hogwash.

No one cares which god you believe in buddy.  I'm sure it's dumb one. 

And if you just believe in generic god, who cares what other people believe?  It doesn't matter, does it?  If god never came to earth and said if we don't believe in him we will go to hell, what does it matter if something created our universe?  Do you worship air, the sun and your parents?  Because without them you wouldn't exist either.  Those are your creators silly.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your inference that I am angry is born of your narcissism.  I couldn't care less about what you believe.  It's the incessant crowing and attacks on others that makes yours an angry, militant religion, geared toward the ridicule of scorn of all others.  What you infer from my postings is nothing more than your mistaken opinion.  It takes a lot more than what you say to bring me to anger.  You overrate yourself.
> 
> If it really makes you happy, I am proud to have provided you with some comfort and joy.  I bring you tidings of comfort and joy.  That's cool with me!  God Rest Ye Merry People All!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a profoundly silly comment to make such that "I couldn't care less about what you believe", yet, you spend inordinate amounts of time agonizing over those who dismiss your gawds as simply myth and legend.
> 
> Your anger and rage is palpable. You apply "religion" to atheism as a slur because you're incensed that even after all the history of pages in this thread and your continued attempts to define rejection of fear and superstition as "religion", you're still pursuing a failed argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cling to the misunderstanding that I am angry.  There is no anger here, no agony here.  You praise yourself and other Atheists here in thinking that you are capable of driving me to anger.  I honestly do not give a tinker's damn whether you believe God exists or doesn't exist.  We're merely discussing the flawed posit that "Atheism is NOT a religion.  You are simply following the doctrine of Atheism.  It is more likely you that is pissed off.   I sleep well every night with absolutely no malice toward the stupid fucking active Atheists that think they are not part of a religion.  I simply wonder why you idiots object to its being defined as a religion.
> 
> You can repeat you lies 'til the cows come home...won't make them true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But here you are still, incensed that anyone would challenge your specious opinions. It's your self-hate that causes you to spew the "atheism is a religion" canard. You consistently fail to show any connection between the rejection of fear and superstition and religious belief. That's most important as for you extremists, fear and superstition is a primary component of your religious belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you erroneous perceive that I am angry.  I'm simply denying the stupid claim that Atheism is not a religion.  How you translate that into anger is beyond me.  You are evidently incorrigibly warped in the head,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's fine to deny your anger. It's also fine that you have an insensate need to assign the "religion" label to rational and reasoned conclusions that have no connection to religion or a religious belief.
> 
> It will cause you further anger and angst but those who conclude that magic and supernaturalism is not a requirement for existence has no connection with any religious belief. It's a shame that you extremist Christians become incensed at others concluding that fear and superstition are the harbingers of a maladjusted personality.
> 
> For all your saliva-slinging tirades wherein you insist that atheism is a religion, you have never made any argument showing a common connection with religious beliefs, rituals, traditions, etc., that are a common theme shared by religions but are totally absent among those who conclude that your gods are no more real or extant than the Egyptian gods.
Click to expand...

Okay.  I'll reply to your incessant drivel just this one more time.  After that, you join the "scroll over" club.  I may give a short glance at your subsequent posts just to see if you've regained your senses.  I challenge you to find any one or more posts in this thread wherein I can logically be perceived to have been angry when posting.

I think your persistence in claiming that I'm angry at you or any other Atheist is primarily based on your proclivity to taunt and goad, a tactic often used by religious Atheists.

You overrate yourself quite demonstrably.  You likely do not have what it takes to make me angry.  Actually, you make me think I'm exchanging posts with a small child whose lower lip is constantly pooched out...one that does not understand the difference between anger and opinionated discussion.  Just because people might not agree with you doesn't mean they're angry.  Go tell your mommy that there's a mean old man on the internet that you can't make mad.  Stomp your feet and scream...that should work!

....and do try to understand these things:


the courts recognize Atheism as religion
there are several Atheist churches that recognize Atheism as a religion
you too can become an Atheist minister...and perform weddings

an Atheist is someone who believes that God does not exist
an agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists
there is no such thing as an agnostic atheist...that is a self contradictory term made up by modern day Atheists to please themselves
the Dawkins scale is pure bullshit...you are either a believer, an agnostic, an Atheist or totally ignorant of all things related to gods and religion...such as a new born babe

I am not an Christian extremist....I go to church for weddings and funerals only (and they are quite similar for me...the weddings I attend usually signify the demise of a perfectly good, single drinking buddy)

Now, little girl....go piss up a rope!

   ...<<<Look!  I'm smiling!


----------



## asaratis

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.
> 
> Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disbelief.
> 
> Webster: the act of disbelieving *:*  mental rejection of something as untrue
> 
> Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:
> 
> In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.
> 
> Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?
Click to expand...

Here's another trusted dictionary definition:

*disbelief*
noun http://dictionary.cambridge.org/help/codes.html  /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/  us  

› the refusal to believe that something is true:

disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a profoundly silly comment to make such that "I couldn't care less about what you believe", yet, you spend inordinate amounts of time agonizing over those who dismiss your gawds as simply myth and legend.
> 
> Your anger and rage is palpable. You apply "religion" to atheism as a slur because you're incensed that even after all the history of pages in this thread and your continued attempts to define rejection of fear and superstition as "religion", you're still pursuing a failed argument.
> 
> 
> 
> You cling to the misunderstanding that I am angry.  There is no anger here, no agony here.  You praise yourself and other Atheists here in thinking that you are capable of driving me to anger.  I honestly do not give a tinker's damn whether you believe God exists or doesn't exist.  We're merely discussing the flawed posit that "Atheism is NOT a religion.  You are simply following the doctrine of Atheism.  It is more likely you that is pissed off.   I sleep well every night with absolutely no malice toward the stupid fucking active Atheists that think they are not part of a religion.  I simply wonder why you idiots object to its being defined as a religion.
> 
> You can repeat you lies 'til the cows come home...won't make them true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But here you are still, incensed that anyone would challenge your specious opinions. It's your self-hate that causes you to spew the "atheism is a religion" canard. You consistently fail to show any connection between the rejection of fear and superstition and religious belief. That's most important as for you extremists, fear and superstition is a primary component of your religious belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you erroneous perceive that I am angry.  I'm simply denying the stupid claim that Atheism is not a religion.  How you translate that into anger is beyond me.  You are evidently incorrigibly warped in the head,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's fine to deny your anger. It's also fine that you have an insensate need to assign the "religion" label to rational and reasoned conclusions that have no connection to religion or a religious belief.
> 
> It will cause you further anger and angst but those who conclude that magic and supernaturalism is not a requirement for existence has no connection with any religious belief. It's a shame that you extremist Christians become incensed at others concluding that fear and superstition are the harbingers of a maladjusted personality.
> 
> For all your saliva-slinging tirades wherein you insist that atheism is a religion, you have never made any argument showing a common connection with religious beliefs, rituals, traditions, etc., that are a common theme shared by religions but are totally absent among those who conclude that your gods are no more real or extant than the Egyptian gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay.  I'll reply to your incessant drivel just this one more time.  After that, you join the "scroll over" club.  I may give a short glance at your subsequent posts just to see if you've regained your senses.  I challenge you to find any one or more posts in this thread wherein I can logically be perceived to have been angry when posting.
> 
> I think your persistence in claiming that I'm angry at you or any other Atheist is primarily based on your proclivity to taunt and goad, a tactic often used by religious Atheists.
> 
> You overrate yourself quite demonstrably.  You likely do not have what it takes to make me angry.  Actually, you make me think I'm exchanging posts with a small child whose lower lip is constantly pooched out...one that does not understand the difference between anger and opinionated discussion.  Just because people might not agree with you doesn't mean they're angry.  Go tell your mommy that there's a mean old man on the internet that you can't make mad.  Stomp your feet and scream...that should work!
> 
> ....and do try to understand these things:
> 
> 
> the courts recognize Atheism as religion
> there are several Atheist churches that recognize Atheism as a religion
> you too can become an Atheist minister...and perform weddings
> 
> an Atheist is someone who believes that God does not exist
> an agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists
> there is no such thing as an agnostic atheist...that is a self contradictory term made up by modern day Atheists to please themselves
> the Dawkins scale is pure bullshit...you are either a believer, an agnostic, an Atheist or totally ignorant of all things related to gods and religion...such as a new born babe
> 
> I am not an Christian extremist....I go to church for weddings and funerals only (and they are quite similar for me...the weddings I attend usually signify the demise of a perfectly good, single drinking buddy)
> 
> Now, little girl....go piss up a rope!
> 
> ...<<<Look!  I'm smiling!
Click to expand...

You're getting more angry and frustrated as your "atheism is a religion" rants are less coherent and more shrill with your every post. 

You still haven't, and still can't define the rituals, practices, customs, traditions or supernatural entities that are a part of religious belief but are absent in your religion of "atheism is a religion". 

You christian extremists have gods in your head and unfortunately, choose to live trembling fear of those angry gods. But really, Bunky, why do you think that you need to impose your fears and superstitions on others who have concluded that your Gods are no more to be feared than an angry Zeus?


----------



## Montrovant

Quantum Windbag said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?
> 
> What we have seen, as usual, is that there are multiple definitions of atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word is not adoctrine, it is atheist.
> 
> FYI, I just destroyed your post in in 8 words.
Click to expand...


You completely ignored the post I was responding to.  But if it makes you feel better to think you destroyed something, have at it.


----------



## the_human_being

I didn't know it was a religion. I thought it was a mental disease, like that brain eating virus or something.


----------



## Montrovant

Quantum Windbag said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it would not. Are you another one of those religious fanatics that insist that the only valid universe is the one that they believe in?
Click to expand...


What are you even talking about?

Good job ignoring the posts I was responding to once again, by the way.


----------



## Montrovant

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.
> 
> Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disbelief.
> 
> Webster: the act of disbelieving *:*  mental rejection of something as untrue
> 
> Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:
> 
> In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.
> 
> Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?
Click to expand...


Is there some reason you skipped right over 'or lack of belief'?

Maybe everyone should just admit atheism has more than one meaning and see if some agreement can be reached on which to use.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.
> 
> Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disbelief.
> 
> Webster: the act of disbelieving *:*  mental rejection of something as untrue
> 
> Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:
> 
> In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.
> 
> Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's another trusted dictionary definition:
> 
> *disbelief*
> noun   /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/  us
> 
> › the refusal to believe that something is true:
> 
> disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
> 
> These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.
Click to expand...

And the modern day Falwell / Robertson groupies depend on cutting and pasting dictionary definitions as toothless testimony to support a pointless accusation.  

As usual, none of your cutting and pasting connects conclusions to reject claims to magic, supernatural realms, supernatural entities that you fundies share in religious belief. None of your cutting and pasting connects to religious belief.

It's as though you angry fundies have an agenda to press. Could it be that your self-hate and insecurity causes you this behavior?


----------



## sealybobo

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a profoundly silly comment to make such that "I couldn't care less about what you believe", yet, you spend inordinate amounts of time agonizing over those who dismiss your gawds as simply myth and legend.
> 
> Your anger and rage is palpable. You apply "religion" to atheism as a slur because you're incensed that even after all the history of pages in this thread and your continued attempts to define rejection of fear and superstition as "religion", you're still pursuing a failed argument.
> 
> 
> 
> You cling to the misunderstanding that I am angry.  There is no anger here, no agony here.  You praise yourself and other Atheists here in thinking that you are capable of driving me to anger.  I honestly do not give a tinker's damn whether you believe God exists or doesn't exist.  We're merely discussing the flawed posit that "Atheism is NOT a religion.  You are simply following the doctrine of Atheism.  It is more likely you that is pissed off.   I sleep well every night with absolutely no malice toward the stupid fucking active Atheists that think they are not part of a religion.  I simply wonder why you idiots object to its being defined as a religion.
> 
> You can repeat you lies 'til the cows come home...won't make them true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But here you are still, incensed that anyone would challenge your specious opinions. It's your self-hate that causes you to spew the "atheism is a religion" canard. You consistently fail to show any connection between the rejection of fear and superstition and religious belief. That's most important as for you extremists, fear and superstition is a primary component of your religious belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you erroneous perceive that I am angry.  I'm simply denying the stupid claim that Atheism is not a religion.  How you translate that into anger is beyond me.  You are evidently incorrigibly warped in the head,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's fine to deny your anger. It's also fine that you have an insensate need to assign the "religion" label to rational and reasoned conclusions that have no connection to religion or a religious belief.
> 
> It will cause you further anger and angst but those who conclude that magic and supernaturalism is not a requirement for existence has no connection with any religious belief. It's a shame that you extremist Christians become incensed at others concluding that fear and superstition are the harbingers of a maladjusted personality.
> 
> For all your saliva-slinging tirades wherein you insist that atheism is a religion, you have never made any argument showing a common connection with religious beliefs, rituals, traditions, etc., that are a common theme shared by religions but are totally absent among those who conclude that your gods are no more real or extant than the Egyptian gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay.  I'll reply to your incessant drivel just this one more time.  After that, you join the "scroll over" club.  I may give a short glance at your subsequent posts just to see if you've regained your senses.  I challenge you to find any one or more posts in this thread wherein I can logically be perceived to have been angry when posting.
> 
> I think your persistence in claiming that I'm angry at you or any other Atheist is primarily based on your proclivity to taunt and goad, a tactic often used by religious Atheists.
> 
> You overrate yourself quite demonstrably.  You likely do not have what it takes to make me angry.  Actually, you make me think I'm exchanging posts with a small child whose lower lip is constantly pooched out...one that does not understand the difference between anger and opinionated discussion.  Just because people might not agree with you doesn't mean they're angry.  Go tell your mommy that there's a mean old man on the internet that you can't make mad.  Stomp your feet and scream...that should work!
> 
> ....and do try to understand these things:
> 
> 
> the courts recognize Atheism as religion
> there are several Atheist churches that recognize Atheism as a religion
> you too can become an Atheist minister...and perform weddings
> 
> an Atheist is someone who believes that God does not exist
> an agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists
> there is no such thing as an agnostic atheist...that is a self contradictory term made up by modern day Atheists to please themselves
> the Dawkins scale is pure bullshit...you are either a believer, an agnostic, an Atheist or totally ignorant of all things related to gods and religion...such as a new born babe
> 
> I am not an Christian extremist....I go to church for weddings and funerals only (and they are quite similar for me...the weddings I attend usually signify the demise of a perfectly good, single drinking buddy)
> 
> Now, little girl....go piss up a rope!
> 
> ...<<<Look!  I'm smiling!
Click to expand...


Sorry you and the courts are wrong about Atheism.  Now, some atheists might be pushing to become an official "religion" so they can get the tax breaks and so they can get together and socialize like theists do every Sunday, but Atheism is not a religion.  

Actually, I'd like to point something out about agnostics.  Agnostics are actually atheists when it comes to Christianity and all other organized religions.  If you look at their position that " it is impossible to know whether or not God exists", aren't they basically calling BULLSHIT on your Jesus and Mohammad and Noah and Moses stories?  

So an agnostic clearly rejects all your theist stories as lies, because if they believed them to be true, it wouldn't be "impossible to know".  

So what an agnostic is saying is that they don't believe any of the stories religion tells us about back when god visited.  And if those stories are all lies, what other possible reason could you have for believing in god(s)?  

So, it is true that this "generic" god is impossible to prove or disprove".

BUT, most of us don't believe that even this generic god exists.  That's why we say the most rational position to have is agnostic atheist.

An atheist can't know 100% for sure.  We would have to be gods ourselves to know if a "generic" god exists.  
Theists ancient stories are all lies.  Even though there is no way to go back in time and see if miracles did occur back then, sounds pretty fishy to me.  
You would love to be able to say there are only 2 camps.  Theists and Agnostics.  Unfortunately for you there is a 3rd category and that's atheists who think you Jesus or Mohammad god is all made up.  There is a way to know it's called using your melon.  

We're not angry either.  Just frustrated at your stupidity.


----------



## the_human_being

Most atheists are gay or lesbian. They are cast-aways of normal society, pitied, scorned, and marveled at.


----------



## sealybobo

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.


----------



## sealybobo

the_human_being said:


> Most atheists are gay or lesbian. They are cast-aways of normal society, pitied, scorned, and marveled at.



Last week we were communists or socialists.  

Fact is, most of us are intelligent progressive liberals.  

And if I were gay I'd tell your god that says I'll go to hell to suck my dick.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I insist, for the thousandth time, that is reasonable to disbelieve in the existence of something for which there is no evidence of its existence,  whether it's God or Big Foot,
> 
> and one need not repeatedly inject the caveat that it's still 'possible' for something one doesn't believe in to actually exist.
> 
> Yes, we get it.  Theoretically ANYTHING is possible.  That doesn't make one's decision not to believe in something some sort of mystical exercise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I never said that your beliefs are unreasonable, I just keep pointing out that they are beliefs. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
Click to expand...


Watch and educate your sorry self


----------



## the_human_being

sealybobo said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists are gay or lesbian. They are cast-aways of normal society, pitied, scorned, and marveled at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last week we were communists or socialists.
> 
> Fact is, most of us are intelligent progressive liberals.
> 
> And if I were gay I'd tell your god that says I'll go to hell to suck my dick.
Click to expand...


See?  You  are gay.


----------



## sealybobo

the_human_being said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists are gay or lesbian. They are cast-aways of normal society, pitied, scorned, and marveled at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last week we were communists or socialists.
> 
> Fact is, most of us are intelligent progressive liberals.
> 
> And if I were gay I'd tell your god that says I'll go to hell to suck my dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  You  are gay.
Click to expand...


You know I'm not gay.  Do you ever see me at the meetings?


----------



## the_human_being

sealybobo said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists are gay or lesbian. They are cast-aways of normal society, pitied, scorned, and marveled at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last week we were communists or socialists.
> 
> Fact is, most of us are intelligent progressive liberals.
> 
> And if I were gay I'd tell your god that says I'll go to hell to suck my dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  You  are gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know I'm not gay.  Do you ever see me at the meetings?
Click to expand...


No. We've all got hoods on and busy burning those crosses.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

NYcarbineer said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno. Do you have the mental acumen to google "atheism"? It was at the top of the page, in a quote block. I didn't follow the link, cause I don't really care. But I think it was from Wikipedia. I'm from Missouri too.
> 
> 
> 
> I guessed you would not post the link.  It does come ver batum from Wikipedia...a source that is open to editing by anyone.  Your boy editor in this case was *Kai Nielsen* (born 1926) is professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Calgary. Before moving to Canada, Nielsen taught at New York University (NYU). He specializes in metaphilosophy, ethics, and social and political philosophy. Nielsen has also written about philosophy of religion, and is *an advocate of contemporary atheism.*
> 
> He has redefined it for you.  The original definition comes from 1570 AD.  Google that! Redefining yourselves to keep from being called a religion doesn't work.  That's like the liberals redefining themselves to be progressives...instead of liberals because liberalism took on a bad name several years ago.  They are still nothing more than worthless fucking liberals....and an Atheist is still just one who believes that God does not exist.
> 
> Nice try, but no cigar!
> 
> *atheist*
> noun [C]  /ˈeɪ·θi·ɪst/  us
> 
> › someone who believes that God does not exist
> 
> 
> atheist - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a great argument if you accept the premise that humanity has not advanced one step since 1570.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The definition I quoted above came from a modern day dictionary.
> 
> Cambridge Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus
> 
> The etymology of the word indicates its origin being around 1570.
> 
> Online Etymology Dictionary
> 
> atheist (n.)
> 
> 
> 1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-)
> 
> There is no need to redefine the word just to make Atheists feel better about themselves.  If you simply have a lack of belief in God, you're simply agnostic.  It's really that simple, simpleton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agnostic is not sure either way.  Too wishy washy for me.  I'm an agnostic atheist.
> 
> I don't know if there is a god.  To know that I would have to be a god myself and be able to peek inside black holes.  But I'm certain enough that none of the organized religions are real so I call myself an atheist.
> 
> Lack of belief in your faith takes no faith just a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way they're trying to define atheism is based on a general 'principle' that anything is possible, therefore the atheist is committing an act of faith by not believing in God, because the possibility of God can't be ruled out.
> 
> lol, or something like that.
Click to expand...

Correct, an appeal to ignorance fallacy.


One cannot 'not' believe in something that never existed as perceived by theists to begin with.


There is no evidence that 'god' as perceived by theists exists, therefore it requires faith to believe in something absent any evidence of its existence, where no 'faith' is required to simply acknowledge that lack of evidence.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I insist, for the thousandth time, that is reasonable to disbelieve in the existence of something for which there is no evidence of its existence,  whether it's God or Big Foot,
> 
> and one need not repeatedly inject the caveat that it's still 'possible' for something one doesn't believe in to actually exist.
> 
> Yes, we get it.  Theoretically ANYTHING is possible.  That doesn't make one's decision not to believe in something some sort of mystical exercise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I never said that your beliefs are unreasonable, I just keep pointing out that they are beliefs. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
Click to expand...


By your measure, everything is a belief.  Fine.

But common sense would tell us that every belief is not a religion.  If that were not so, then there would be no category of humans that could be labeled 'non-religious' or 'irreligious'.


----------



## sealybobo

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I insist, for the thousandth time, that is reasonable to disbelieve in the existence of something for which there is no evidence of its existence,  whether it's God or Big Foot,
> 
> and one need not repeatedly inject the caveat that it's still 'possible' for something one doesn't believe in to actually exist.
> 
> Yes, we get it.  Theoretically ANYTHING is possible.  That doesn't make one's decision not to believe in something some sort of mystical exercise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I never said that your beliefs are unreasonable, I just keep pointing out that they are beliefs. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By your measure, everything is a belief.  Fine.
> 
> But common sense would tell us that every belief is not a religion.  If that were not so, then there would be no category of humans that could be labeled 'non-religious' or 'irreligious'.
Click to expand...


I know why they want to lump us in together with all the other organized religions.  

Notice liberal Christians don't mind when people of other faiths don't believe their bible stories?  Why?  They're basically saying the same thing us atheists are saying about their stories.  Only difference is they believe their own fairy tales, we don't.    

So for example, a Christian doesn't mind if a Muslim believes his own stories of god.  Christians don't seem to mind Jews don't think Jesus was the Messiah either.  Us atheists aren't alone on that.  Traditional Christians don't care what Mormons think about their church being corrupt.  They don't care what Jehova's say about only they go to heaven.  Catholics don't care what born against say about having to be baptized as an adult to be saved.  

So, they want to lump us in with all the other religions they just agree to disagree with.  

Atheism is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding any claim. 

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I insist, for the thousandth time, that is reasonable to disbelieve in the existence of something for which there is no evidence of its existence,  whether it's God or Big Foot,
> 
> and one need not repeatedly inject the caveat that it's still 'possible' for something one doesn't believe in to actually exist.
> 
> Yes, we get it.  Theoretically ANYTHING is possible.  That doesn't make one's decision not to believe in something some sort of mystical exercise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I never said that your beliefs are unreasonable, I just keep pointing out that they are beliefs. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
Click to expand...


This explains everything


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists are gay or lesbian. They are cast-aways of normal society, pitied, scorned, and marveled at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last week we were communists or socialists.
> 
> Fact is, most of us are intelligent progressive liberals.
> 
> And if I were gay I'd tell your god that says I'll go to hell to suck my dick.
Click to expand...


I doubt most atheists are in the US, so using the label progressive liberals probably doesn't apply the way you seem to be using it.


----------



## the_human_being

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists are gay or lesbian. They are cast-aways of normal society, pitied, scorned, and marveled at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last week we were communists or socialists.
> 
> Fact is, most of us are intelligent progressive liberals.
> 
> And if I were gay I'd tell your god that says I'll go to hell to suck my dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt most atheists are in the US, so using the label progressive liberals probably doesn't apply the way you seem to be using it.
Click to expand...


He should know. He's Black, a racist, an atheist, gay, and a Liberal. He's also an Obama lap-dog.


----------



## sealybobo

the_human_being said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists are gay or lesbian. They are cast-aways of normal society, pitied, scorned, and marveled at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last week we were communists or socialists.
> 
> Fact is, most of us are intelligent progressive liberals.
> 
> And if I were gay I'd tell your god that says I'll go to hell to suck my dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt most atheists are in the US, so using the label progressive liberals probably doesn't apply the way you seem to be using it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He should know. He's Black, a racist, an atheist, gay, and a Liberal. He's also an Obama lap-dog.
Click to expand...


You forgot commy or socialist.  I'm sorry if I'm not rich enough to think corporations should be running this country instead of a government that is elected and represents We the People.  You right wing fools actually think CEO's & Corporations should decide policy, even after the George Bush Great Recession of 07.


----------



## the_human_being

sealybobo said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists are gay or lesbian. They are cast-aways of normal society, pitied, scorned, and marveled at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last week we were communists or socialists.
> 
> Fact is, most of us are intelligent progressive liberals.
> 
> And if I were gay I'd tell your god that says I'll go to hell to suck my dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt most atheists are in the US, so using the label progressive liberals probably doesn't apply the way you seem to be using it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He should know. He's Black, a racist, an atheist, gay, and a Liberal. He's also an Obama lap-dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot commy or socialist.  I'm sorry if I'm not rich enough to think corporations should be running this country instead of a government that is elected and represents We the People.  You right wing fools actually think CEO's & Corporations should decide policy, even after the George Bush Great Recession of 07.
Click to expand...


You left out a word. It's you "RICH' right wing fools.


----------



## sealybobo

the_human_being said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists are gay or lesbian. They are cast-aways of normal society, pitied, scorned, and marveled at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last week we were communists or socialists.
> 
> Fact is, most of us are intelligent progressive liberals.
> 
> And if I were gay I'd tell your god that says I'll go to hell to suck my dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt most atheists are in the US, so using the label progressive liberals probably doesn't apply the way you seem to be using it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He should know. He's Black, a racist, an atheist, gay, and a Liberal. He's also an Obama lap-dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot commy or socialist.  I'm sorry if I'm not rich enough to think corporations should be running this country instead of a government that is elected and represents We the People.  You right wing fools actually think CEO's & Corporations should decide policy, even after the George Bush Great Recession of 07.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You left out a word. It's you "RICH' right wing fools.
Click to expand...


The rich right wingers aren't fools.  They are greedy.  It's the poor and middle class right wingers who are dumb.  They don't realize to the rich we are all n*#*rs.


----------



## the_human_being

sealybobo said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last week we were communists or socialists.
> 
> Fact is, most of us are intelligent progressive liberals.
> 
> And if I were gay I'd tell your god that says I'll go to hell to suck my dick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt most atheists are in the US, so using the label progressive liberals probably doesn't apply the way you seem to be using it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He should know. He's Black, a racist, an atheist, gay, and a Liberal. He's also an Obama lap-dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot commy or socialist.  I'm sorry if I'm not rich enough to think corporations should be running this country instead of a government that is elected and represents We the People.  You right wing fools actually think CEO's & Corporations should decide policy, even after the George Bush Great Recession of 07.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You left out a word. It's you "RICH' right wing fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rich right wingers aren't fools.  They are greedy.  It's the poor and middle class right wingers who are dumb.  They don't realize to the rich we are all n*#*rs.
Click to expand...


A man after my own heart --if I had one.


----------



## Montrovant




----------



## the_human_being

sealybobo said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists are gay or lesbian. They are cast-aways of normal society, pitied, scorned, and marveled at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last week we were communists or socialists.
> 
> Fact is, most of us are intelligent progressive liberals.
> 
> And if I were gay I'd tell your god that says I'll go to hell to suck my dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt most atheists are in the US, so using the label progressive liberals probably doesn't apply the way you seem to be using it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He should know. He's Black, a racist, an atheist, gay, and a Liberal. He's also an Obama lap-dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot commy or socialist.  I'm sorry if I'm not rich enough to think corporations should be running this country instead of a government that is elected and represents We the People.  You right wing fools actually think CEO's & Corporations should decide policy, even after the George Bush Great Recession of 07.
Click to expand...


Shhhhh. Corporations ARE running the country. Ever hear of LOBBYISTS?


----------



## sealybobo

the_human_being said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists are gay or lesbian. They are cast-aways of normal society, pitied, scorned, and marveled at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last week we were communists or socialists.
> 
> Fact is, most of us are intelligent progressive liberals.
> 
> And if I were gay I'd tell your god that says I'll go to hell to suck my dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt most atheists are in the US, so using the label progressive liberals probably doesn't apply the way you seem to be using it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He should know. He's Black, a racist, an atheist, gay, and a Liberal. He's also an Obama lap-dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot commy or socialist.  I'm sorry if I'm not rich enough to think corporations should be running this country instead of a government that is elected and represents We the People.  You right wing fools actually think CEO's & Corporations should decide policy, even after the George Bush Great Recession of 07.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shhhhh. Corporations ARE running the country. Ever hear of LOBBYISTS?
Click to expand...


Well just like the slave owners used religions to keep their slaves in line, I believe they use religion to keep us in line.  They use it as a wedge issue.  Someone earlier said they hate religious politics.  They gotta use it to divide us.  I have middle class friends who are going t count on SS and medicare but they vote for Paul Ryan and they go to tea bag and libetarian rallies.  Because they thought they'd be "grandfathered in" and they would only fuck the next generations, we see our grandparents and parents healthcare costs going up.  And they want to say it was Obama.  If it was only that simple.

But that's the problem.  That's who that kind of politics works on. The simple people.  Anyone who votes GOP because of abortion or gays is voting against them and me (middle class) because of bullshit that doesn't even matter.

Or it matters, when both parties are actually beneficial to all Americans.  The Democrats represent labor and clearly they are in the pockets of Corporations too.  That's another problem or conversation, but the fact is, the GOP only represent people who are either rich or at least comfortable enough in their station in life that they feel safe from GOP anomics.  The sad truth is their $ policies hurt the majority of us.  This isn't the Reagan party anymore.  This is radical Ayn Rand Libertarian every man for himself, no regulations are good, survival of the fittest, free market, no ss or medicares.  And they actually convince poor or middle class people their policies are a good idea.  And when we try them from 2000-2008 and they fail miserably, they say we didn't go far enough.  So the only way to try their fantasy is to go all in basically.  Meanwhile they now have 90% of the total sum of $ and they ain't job creatin with it if you know I mean.  Trickle down ain't happening.  

So until the middle class is restored, put god gays and guns on the back burner.  If you are a worker vote Democratic.  

PS.  There is no god.


----------



## asaratis

sealybobo said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I insist, for the thousandth time, that is reasonable to disbelieve in the existence of something for which there is no evidence of its existence,  whether it's God or Big Foot,
> 
> and one need not repeatedly inject the caveat that it's still 'possible' for something one doesn't believe in to actually exist.
> 
> Yes, we get it.  Theoretically ANYTHING is possible.  That doesn't make one's decision not to believe in something some sort of mystical exercise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I never said that your beliefs are unreasonable, I just keep pointing out that they are beliefs. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By your measure, everything is a belief.  Fine.
> 
> But common sense would tell us that every belief is not a religion.  If that were not so, then there would be no category of humans that could be labeled 'non-religious' or 'irreligious'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know why they want to lump us in together with all the other organized religions.
> 
> Notice liberal Christians don't mind when people of other faiths don't believe their bible stories?  Why?  They're basically saying the same thing us atheists are saying about their stories.  Only difference is they believe their own fairy tales, we don't.
> 
> So for example, a Christian doesn't mind if a Muslim believes his own stories of god.  Christians don't seem to mind Jews don't think Jesus was the Messiah either.  Us atheists aren't alone on that.  Traditional Christians don't care what Mormons think about their church being corrupt.  They don't care what Jehova's say about only they go to heaven.  Catholics don't care what born against say about having to be baptized as an adult to be saved.
> 
> So, they want to lump us in with all the other religions they just agree to disagree with.
> 
> Atheism is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding any claim.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Wrong, silly bozo.  Atheism, by definition is a belief that goes does not exist.  It's okay that you believe that (if you are indeed an Atheist.   If you have no belief regarding the question of existence, you're nothing but an agnostic.


----------



## Tuatara

asaratis said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.
> 
> Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disbelief.
> 
> Webster: the act of disbelieving *:*  mental rejection of something as untrue
> 
> Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:
> 
> In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.
> 
> Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's another trusted dictionary definition:
> 
> *disbelief*
> noun   /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/  us
> 
> › the refusal to believe that something is true:
> 
> disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
> 
> These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.
Click to expand...

Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.


----------



## asaratis

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guessed you would not post the link.  It does come ver batum from Wikipedia...a source that is open to editing by anyone.  Your boy editor in this case was *Kai Nielsen* (born 1926) is professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Calgary. Before moving to Canada, Nielsen taught at New York University (NYU). He specializes in metaphilosophy, ethics, and social and political philosophy. Nielsen has also written about philosophy of religion, and is *an advocate of contemporary atheism.*
> 
> He has redefined it for you.  The original definition comes from 1570 AD.  Google that! Redefining yourselves to keep from being called a religion doesn't work.  That's like the liberals redefining themselves to be progressives...instead of liberals because liberalism took on a bad name several years ago.  They are still nothing more than worthless fucking liberals....and an Atheist is still just one who believes that God does not exist.
> 
> Nice try, but no cigar!
> 
> *atheist*
> noun [C]  /ˈeɪ·θi·ɪst/  us
> 
> › someone who believes that God does not exist
> 
> 
> atheist - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a great argument if you accept the premise that humanity has not advanced one step since 1570.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The definition I quoted above came from a modern day dictionary.
> 
> Cambridge Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus
> 
> The etymology of the word indicates its origin being around 1570.
> 
> Online Etymology Dictionary
> 
> atheist (n.)
> 
> 
> 1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-)
> 
> There is no need to redefine the word just to make Atheists feel better about themselves.  If you simply have a lack of belief in God, you're simply agnostic.  It's really that simple, simpleton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agnostic is not sure either way.  Too wishy washy for me.  I'm an agnostic atheist.
> 
> I don't know if there is a god.  To know that I would have to be a god myself and be able to peek inside black holes.  But I'm certain enough that none of the organized religions are real so I call myself an atheist.
> 
> Lack of belief in your faith takes no faith just a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way they're trying to define atheism is based on a general 'principle' that anything is possible, therefore the atheist is committing an act of faith by not believing in God, because the possibility of God can't be ruled out.
> 
> lol, or something like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct, an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
> 
> 
> One cannot 'not' believe in something that never existed as perceived by theists to begin with.
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that 'god' as perceived by theists exists, therefore it requires faith to believe in something absent any evidence of its existence, where no 'faith' is required to simply acknowledge that lack of evidence.
Click to expand...

You are correct to say that no faith is required to acknowledge a lack of evidence.  I acknowledge that there is no evidence to prove that God exists AND that there is certainly no evidence to support the claim that He does not exist.  You are incorrect to say that believing that no deities exist is not based on faith.  Atheists believe that God does not exist.  Therefore, Atheists have faith that God does not exist.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a great argument if you accept the premise that humanity has not advanced one step since 1570.
> 
> 
> 
> The definition I quoted above came from a modern day dictionary.
> 
> Cambridge Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus
> 
> The etymology of the word indicates its origin being around 1570.
> 
> Online Etymology Dictionary
> 
> atheist (n.)
> 
> 
> 1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-)
> 
> There is no need to redefine the word just to make Atheists feel better about themselves.  If you simply have a lack of belief in God, you're simply agnostic.  It's really that simple, simpleton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agnostic is not sure either way.  Too wishy washy for me.  I'm an agnostic atheist.
> 
> I don't know if there is a god.  To know that I would have to be a god myself and be able to peek inside black holes.  But I'm certain enough that none of the organized religions are real so I call myself an atheist.
> 
> Lack of belief in your faith takes no faith just a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way they're trying to define atheism is based on a general 'principle' that anything is possible, therefore the atheist is committing an act of faith by not believing in God, because the possibility of God can't be ruled out.
> 
> lol, or something like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct, an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
> 
> 
> One cannot 'not' believe in something that never existed as perceived by theists to begin with.
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that 'god' as perceived by theists exists, therefore it requires faith to believe in something absent any evidence of its existence, where no 'faith' is required to simply acknowledge that lack of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct to say that no faith is required to acknowledge a lack of evidence.  I acknowledge that there is no evidence to prove that God exists AND that there is certainly no evidence to support the claim that He does not exist.  You are incorrect to say that believing that no deities exist is not based on faith.  Atheists believe that God does not exist.  Therefore, Atheists have faith that God does not exist.
Click to expand...

That's the typical pointless, nonsense you have been corrected on previously. Concluding supernatural don't exist is not a religious faith of a religious belief. 

How is it that you have such a difficult time with simple concepts?


----------



## asaratis

Tuatara said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.
> 
> Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disbelief.
> 
> Webster: the act of disbelieving *:*  mental rejection of something as untrue
> 
> Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:
> 
> In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.
> 
> Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's another trusted dictionary definition:
> 
> *disbelief*
> noun   /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/  us
> 
> › the refusal to believe that something is true:
> 
> disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
> 
> These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.
Click to expand...

Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack  of skepticism.

Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.

Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian

I agree with Vladimir...



			
				Vladimir said:
			
		

> Vladimir
> April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
> There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.
> 
> I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.
> 
> Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Agnostic is not sure either way.  Too wishy washy for me.  I'm an agnostic atheist.


does that make you a wishy-washy god-denier?.......


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.


then why not just say that you aren't an atheist, you're just an unconvinced?


----------



## Tuatara

asaratis said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.
> 
> Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disbelief.
> 
> Webster: the act of disbelieving *:*  mental rejection of something as untrue
> 
> Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:
> 
> In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.
> 
> Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's another trusted dictionary definition:
> 
> *disbelief*
> noun   /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/  us
> 
> › the refusal to believe that something is true:
> 
> disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
> 
> These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack  of skepticism.
> 
> Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian
> 
> I agree with Vladimir...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir
> April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
> There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.
> 
> I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.
> 
> Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.


----------



## PratchettFan

Montrovant said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think 90% of thread is guileless equivocation. "ism" is a suffix with a wide variety of uses. The suffix "-ism" doesn't make atheism a religion any more than it makes theism a religion. It just specifies whether someone believes in gods or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. *By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.
> 
> Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to use it then you use it all:
> 
> Merriam-Webster:
> 
> *Definition of ATHEISM*
> 1
> _archaic_ *:* ungodliness, wickedness
> 2
> _a_ *:*  a disbelief in the existence of deity
> _b_ *:*  the doctrine that there is no deity  .
> 
> 
> 
> See atheism defined for kids »
> *Origin of ATHEISM*
> Middle French _athéisme,_ from _athée_ atheist, from Greek _atheos_ godless, from _a-_ + _theos_ god
> First Known Use: 1546
> 
> Oxford Reference
> 
> atheism
> Subject:  Religion
> The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek _atheos_, from _a-_ ‘without’ + _theos_ ‘god’.
> 
> You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos".  It does not apply it to the suffix "ism".  "No god" not "no belief".
> The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
> *ism*
> _noun_ \ˈi-zəm\ .
> : a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix _-ism_
> *Full Definition of ISM*
> 1
> *:*  a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
> 
> While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god.  Which is why I don't like definitions that much.  It implies the word creates the thing.  It does not.  If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:
> 
> An Atheist has no god beliefs.
> I am an Atheist.
> Therefore, I have no god beliefs.
> 
> While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration.  I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god.  In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief.  So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong.  It can't be both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?
> 
> What we have seen, as usual, is that there are multiple definitions of atheism.
Click to expand...


No.  It wouldn't.  But yes, there are many different definitions and some contradict each other.  Which is why definitions should not be the basis for the argument.  Simply saying something is a particular way because that is way one defines it is just dogma.  It is what it is, regardless of definition.  If one claims they have no beliefs then they should have no beliefs.  So far, I haven't met that person.


----------



## PratchettFan

NYcarbineer said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should the Constitution ban not praying in school?  According to some here, that would be an atheist religious practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution does not ban not praying in school any more than it bans praying in school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Engel v. Vitale*, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that ruled it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools.
> 
> That being the case,  by prohibiting an official school prayer, the Court made not having an official school prayer mandatory, which,
> 
> if atheism is a religion, means that the Court  mandated that public schools practice the atheist religious belief on prayer.   That would be a 1st Amendment violation as well.
> 
> Some people get the point.  I'm not going to suffer at length agonizing over the fact that you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has suggested that Atheists get together to not pray.  Not allowing children to be forced to engage in prayer is not forcing them to not believe in God.  Now, if rather than a prayer the school was instead doing a quick recitation of why there was no God, then you might have an argument.  I believe the SC would have found that unacceptable as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't making my argument.  I was make the argument that logically follows one's belief that atheism is a religion.
Click to expand...


Whether or not it is a religion depends upon how people treat it.  Just believing there is no God does not make it a religion.


----------



## PratchettFan

Montrovant said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. *By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief*.
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.
> 
> Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to use it then you use it all:
> 
> Merriam-Webster:
> 
> *Definition of ATHEISM*
> 1
> _archaic_ *:* ungodliness, wickedness
> 2
> _a_ *:*  a disbelief in the existence of deity
> _b_ *:*  the doctrine that there is no deity  .
> 
> 
> 
> See atheism defined for kids »
> *Origin of ATHEISM*
> Middle French _athéisme,_ from _athée_ atheist, from Greek _atheos_ godless, from _a-_ + _theos_ god
> First Known Use: 1546
> 
> Oxford Reference
> 
> atheism
> Subject:  Religion
> The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek _atheos_, from _a-_ ‘without’ + _theos_ ‘god’.
> 
> You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos".  It does not apply it to the suffix "ism".  "No god" not "no belief".
> The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
> *ism*
> _noun_ \ˈi-zəm\ .
> : a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix _-ism_
> *Full Definition of ISM*
> 1
> *:*  a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
> 
> While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god.  Which is why I don't like definitions that much.  It implies the word creates the thing.  It does not.  If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:
> 
> An Atheist has no god beliefs.
> I am an Atheist.
> Therefore, I have no god beliefs.
> 
> While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration.  I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god.  In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief.  So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong.  It can't be both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?
Click to expand...


No, it wouldn't.  A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other.  This really is middle school English stuff.


----------



## dblack

PratchettFan said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think 90% of thread is guileless equivocation. "ism" is a suffix with a wide variety of uses. The suffix "-ism" doesn't make atheism a religion any more than it makes theism a religion. It just specifies whether someone believes in gods or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. *By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.
> 
> Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to use it then you use it all:
> 
> Merriam-Webster:
> 
> *Definition of ATHEISM*
> 1
> _archaic_ *:* ungodliness, wickedness
> 2
> _a_ *:*  a disbelief in the existence of deity
> _b_ *:*  the doctrine that there is no deity  .
> 
> 
> 
> See atheism defined for kids »
> *Origin of ATHEISM*
> Middle French _athéisme,_ from _athée_ atheist, from Greek _atheos_ godless, from _a-_ + _theos_ god
> First Known Use: 1546
> 
> Oxford Reference
> 
> atheism
> Subject:  Religion
> The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek _atheos_, from _a-_ ‘without’ + _theos_ ‘god’.
> 
> You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos".  It does not apply it to the suffix "ism".  "No god" not "no belief".
> The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
> *ism*
> _noun_ \ˈi-zəm\ .
> : a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix _-ism_
> *Full Definition of ISM*
> 1
> *:*  a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
> 
> While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god.  Which is why I don't like definitions that much.  It implies the word creates the thing.  It does not.  If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:
> 
> An Atheist has no god beliefs.
> I am an Atheist.
> Therefore, I have no god beliefs.
> 
> While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration.  I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god.  In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief.  So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong.  It can't be both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?
> 
> What we have seen, as usual, is that there are multiple definitions of atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It wouldn't.  But yes, there are many different definitions and some contradict each other.  Which is why definitions should not be the basis for the argument.  Simply saying something is a particular way because that is way one defines it is just dogma.  It is what it is, regardless of definition.  If one claims they have no beliefs then they should have no beliefs.  So far, I haven't met that person.
Click to expand...

Do atheists claim that they have no beliefs? My understanding is that they simply don't believe in gods. Not that they claim to have no beliefs.


----------



## Tuatara

dblack said:


> Do atheists claim that they have no beliefs? My understanding is that they simply don't believe in gods. Not that they claim to have no beliefs.


I'm an atheist and I belive in crocodiles, dragonflies, the sun and magnets. I don't belive in gods. It's really that simple.


----------



## asaratis

Tuatara said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.
> 
> Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disbelief.
> 
> Webster: the act of disbelieving *:*  mental rejection of something as untrue
> 
> Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:
> 
> In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.
> 
> Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's another trusted dictionary definition:
> 
> *disbelief*
> noun   /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/  us
> 
> › the refusal to believe that something is true:
> 
> disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
> 
> These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack  of skepticism.
> 
> Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian
> 
> I agree with Vladimir...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir
> April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
> There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.
> 
> I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.
> 
> Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.
Click to expand...

That would be Hawking, you idiot!


----------



## PratchettFan

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The way they're trying to define atheism is based on a general 'principle' that anything is possible, therefore the atheist is committing an act of faith by not believing in God, because the possibility of God can't be ruled out.
> 
> lol, or something like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you insist that atheist means agnostic, when it clearly does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I insist, for the thousandth time, that is reasonable to disbelieve in the existence of something for which there is no evidence of its existence,  whether it's God or Big Foot,
> 
> and one need not repeatedly inject the caveat that it's still 'possible' for something one doesn't believe in to actually exist.
> 
> Yes, we get it.  Theoretically ANYTHING is possible.  That doesn't make one's decision not to believe in something some sort of mystical exercise.
Click to expand...


Correct.  But it is still a belief because the decision is arrived at with no evidence to support it.  I'm not saying it is an unreasonable belief, but a belief it is. 

I really don't see why this is such an issue.  We all believe one way or the other.  I believe the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God is a complete myth.  There is no truth to it whatsoever.  I get other people do believe it, but I don't.  I don't have to couch that belief through strangled syntax to turn my belief in non-belief as if that somehow changes anything.  You believe there is no God.  I really don't get why accepting that is such a problem.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> Silly, yes. Still you cannot identify the rituals, customs, practices or shared worship of a supernatural entity that typically identifies a religious belief.



Believe it or not, I cannot identify any of that crap for lots of different religions. The fact that I cannot identify them does not in any way mean that Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other religion I am unfamiliar with does not exist.

In other words, if you want to prove that atheism cannot be a religion in any way, shape, or form, you have to go after it through someone else, I am not stupid enough to play your game



Hollie said:


> It seems your tactic of cutting and pasting from on-line dictionaries is of little help when the argument requires the act of thinking.



It seems you think knowing trivia involves thinking. It doesn't, it involves memory.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> You as a student can pray all you want.  We don't stop muslims from praying 5 times a day so why would we stop you?
> 
> But the teacher can't initiate it.



Then you agree with me, the Constitution does not ban prayer in public schools.


----------



## PratchettFan

NYcarbineer said:


> The sum total of hard evidence for the existence of supernatural beings is ZERO.
> 
> It is only because of humanity's vested interest in there actually being supernatural beings that we see so much shit thrown at atheists for their having reached a very sensible and reasonable conclusion based on the above truth.



The sum total of hard evidence for the non-existence of supernatural beings is ZERO.  So why is your conclusion sensible and reasonable and mine is not?  They both have exactly the same evidentiary support.


----------



## NYcarbineer

asaratis said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a great argument if you accept the premise that humanity has not advanced one step since 1570.
> 
> 
> 
> The definition I quoted above came from a modern day dictionary.
> 
> Cambridge Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus
> 
> The etymology of the word indicates its origin being around 1570.
> 
> Online Etymology Dictionary
> 
> atheist (n.)
> 
> 
> 1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-)
> 
> There is no need to redefine the word just to make Atheists feel better about themselves.  If you simply have a lack of belief in God, you're simply agnostic.  It's really that simple, simpleton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agnostic is not sure either way.  Too wishy washy for me.  I'm an agnostic atheist.
> 
> I don't know if there is a god.  To know that I would have to be a god myself and be able to peek inside black holes.  But I'm certain enough that none of the organized religions are real so I call myself an atheist.
> 
> Lack of belief in your faith takes no faith just a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way they're trying to define atheism is based on a general 'principle' that anything is possible, therefore the atheist is committing an act of faith by not believing in God, because the possibility of God can't be ruled out.
> 
> lol, or something like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct, an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
> 
> 
> One cannot 'not' believe in something that never existed as perceived by theists to begin with.
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that 'god' as perceived by theists exists, therefore it requires faith to believe in something absent any evidence of its existence, where no 'faith' is required to simply acknowledge that lack of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct to say that no faith is required to acknowledge a lack of evidence.  I acknowledge that there is no evidence to prove that God exists AND that there is certainly no evidence to support the claim that He does not exist.  You are incorrect to say that believing that no deities exist is not based on faith.  Atheists believe that God does not exist.  Therefore, Atheists have faith that God does not exist.
Click to expand...


It is not a belief that no deities exist, as if one has to make a leap of faith to get to such a belief.  It is the choice not to believe in the existence of something for which there is no evidence,

and furthermore, something for which there is no good argument that it does exist but we've just not discovered any evidence to support its existence.

It is the choice not to engage in an exercise in faith in order to manufacture the actual existence of something that is otherwise just imaginary.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I notice in the definition of atheist it says "rejection of belief in deities".
> 
> So most "atheists" will even admit that they can't say 100% for sure there isn't a "god" or "creator".  We understand this could be a computer simulation or we could be inside a giant snow globe for all we know.  Or our universe could be the product of some huge being that shit us out one day.
> 
> But you guys aren't talking about generic "god".  You're talking about a deity that came and spoke to your ancestors.  As far as that goes we are atheists because it sounds like a completely made up story.  But again I can't say 100% sure because I wasn't there.  But logic and reality tell me its all bullshit.
> 
> I'll say it again, you would have to be a god yourself to know 100% for sure that nothing made us.
> 
> BUT, as far as a deity who came and talked to Moses or sent Jesus, that's just hogwash.
> 
> No one cares which god you believe in buddy.  I'm sure it's dumb one.
> 
> And if you just believe in generic god, who cares what other people believe?  It doesn't matter, does it?  If god never came to earth and said if we don't believe in him we will go to hell, what does it matter if something created our universe?  Do you worship air, the sun and your parents?  Because without them you wouldn't exist either.  Those are your creators silly.



What guys are you talking to? I have repeatedly refused to define what I mean by god, yet you keep insisting that you know. Tell you what, prove you can read my mind by telling me about my beliefs.

Alternatively, you could shut the fuck up and stop trying to shove your beliefs down my throat.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Montrovant said:


> You completely ignored the post I was responding to.  But if it makes you feel better to think you destroyed something, have at it.



Did I? Can you prove that?

The fact is that you posted complete drivel.


----------



## percysunshine

.

Are people still arguing about this stuff?  It is impossible to prove, or disprove, the existence of a super-natural being....by definition.

Grow a logos for Christ's sake.

.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Montrovant said:


> What are you even talking about?
> 
> Good job ignoring the posts I was responding to once again, by the way.



This is the post you responded to:



> perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....



FYI, -ism is not a doctrine.

And keep pretending I am ignoring the post you are responding to, I know it is the only way you can convince yourself that you are actually making sense.


----------



## PratchettFan

Tuatara said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.
> 
> Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disbelief.
> 
> Webster: the act of disbelieving *:*  mental rejection of something as untrue
> 
> Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:
> 
> In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.
> 
> Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's another trusted dictionary definition:
> 
> *disbelief*
> noun   /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/  us
> 
> › the refusal to believe that something is true:
> 
> disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
> 
> These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.
Click to expand...




dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. *By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief*.
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.
> 
> Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to use it then you use it all:
> 
> Merriam-Webster:
> 
> *Definition of ATHEISM*
> 1
> _archaic_ *:* ungodliness, wickedness
> 2
> _a_ *:*  a disbelief in the existence of deity
> _b_ *:*  the doctrine that there is no deity  .
> 
> 
> 
> See atheism defined for kids »
> *Origin of ATHEISM*
> Middle French _athéisme,_ from _athée_ atheist, from Greek _atheos_ godless, from _a-_ + _theos_ god
> First Known Use: 1546
> 
> Oxford Reference
> 
> atheism
> Subject:  Religion
> The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek _atheos_, from _a-_ ‘without’ + _theos_ ‘god’.
> 
> You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos".  It does not apply it to the suffix "ism".  "No god" not "no belief".
> The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
> *ism*
> _noun_ \ˈi-zəm\ .
> : a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix _-ism_
> *Full Definition of ISM*
> 1
> *:*  a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
> 
> While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god.  Which is why I don't like definitions that much.  It implies the word creates the thing.  It does not.  If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:
> 
> An Atheist has no god beliefs.
> I am an Atheist.
> Therefore, I have no god beliefs.
> 
> While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration.  I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god.  In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief.  So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong.  It can't be both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?
> 
> What we have seen, as usual, is that there are multiple definitions of atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It wouldn't.  But yes, there are many different definitions and some contradict each other.  Which is why definitions should not be the basis for the argument.  Simply saying something is a particular way because that is way one defines it is just dogma.  It is what it is, regardless of definition.  If one claims they have no beliefs then they should have no beliefs.  So far, I haven't met that person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do atheists claim that they have no beliefs? My understanding is that they simply don't believe in gods. Not that they claim to have no beliefs.
Click to expand...


Do you want me to narrow it down to I haven't met the person who has no beliefs in gods?  No problem.  I haven't.  Certainly not here.  Any conclusion arrived at in the utter absence of supporting evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Montrovant said:


> Is there some reason you skipped right over 'or lack of belief'?
> 
> Maybe everyone should just admit atheism has more than one meaning and see if some agreement can be reached on which to use.



Did you notice that, in order to skip over the phrase "Lack of belief" I would have to read the definition backwards? In other words, I didn't skip over anything, oh he who thinks he can outsmart the village idiot. You can sit there and try to redefine atheists as being agnostic all day long, it won't change the fact that there is a difference between the two, If you don't have a belief you are not an atheist. If you believe in a generic god you are neither an agnostic or an atheist. I really do not understand why agnostics want to pretend they are atheists.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.



You cannot be an agnostic atheist and claim to be rational.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Last week we were communists or socialists.
> 
> Fact is, most of us are intelligent progressive liberals.
> 
> And if I were gay I'd tell your god that says I'll go to hell to suck my dick.



Claiming to be an intelligent progressive is an oxymoron.

Progressives believe in euthanasia, want people to die off at age 75, and believe in the magic of good intentions over results.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Watch and educate your sorry self



I don't learn from YouTube videos, or whatever the source of that one is. In fact, I block all videos on this site so that I don't have to listen to drivel. If you actually have something to say to me you think I need to know try typing it out, I can process it faster than you can type it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> By your measure, everything is a belief.  Fine.
> 
> But common sense would tell us that every belief is not a religion.  If that were not so, then there would be no category of humans that could be labeled 'non-religious' or 'irreligious'.



Not everything is a belief, and I never said it was. That does not change the fact that atheism is, by definition, a belief. I also never said that every belief is a religion.

But feel free to continue to argue with those straw men, we all know those are the only arguments you ever win.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> This explains everything



I very much doubt that any video explains everything.


----------



## percysunshine

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot be an agnostic atheist and claim to be rational.
Click to expand...


I can claim to be a winning Super Bowl quarterback.

.


----------



## Montrovant

Quantum Windbag said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you even talking about?
> 
> Good job ignoring the posts I was responding to once again, by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the post you responded to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FYI, -ism is not a doctrine.
> 
> And keep pretending I am ignoring the post you are responding to, I know it is the only way you can convince yourself that you are actually making sense.
Click to expand...


If you weren't ignoring the posts I've been responding to, you would have seen that it was not me who brought up -ism meaning a doctrine.  It was PratchettFan.  I responded to that.  You then inserted yourself into the conversation as though I were the one who started that.  I don't know if you didn't bother to read all the quoted text or what.

Feel free to look at post #1473.

PostmodernProf's adoctrinists response also seemed to ignore the fact that I was responding to PratchettFan's post in which an -ism is defined as a doctrine.


----------



## Montrovant

Quantum Windbag said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there some reason you skipped right over 'or lack of belief'?
> 
> Maybe everyone should just admit atheism has more than one meaning and see if some agreement can be reached on which to use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice that, in order to skip over the phrase "Lack of belief" I would have to read the definition backwards? In other words, I didn't skip over anything, oh he who thinks he can outsmart the village idiot. You can sit there and try to redefine atheists as being agnostic all day long, it won't change the fact that there is a difference between the two, If you don't have a belief you are not an atheist. If you believe in a generic god you are neither an agnostic or an atheist. I really do not understand why agnostics want to pretend they are atheists.
Click to expand...


You are too hard on yourself.  No need to call yourself the village idiot. 

I am not trying to redefine anything.  In fact, unlike you, I have been perfectly willing to admit that the word atheist has more than one meaning.  I'm also able to understand that when a definition involves an either/or, one cannot simply choose one option and declare it the only definition.

The definition of atheist you comment on was, "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.".  You then posted definitions of disbelief and used that to make your point, despite the fact that it says disbelief *or* lack of belief.  So, yes, you skipped over that phrase.  No, there is no reason you would have to read the definition backwards to skip it and I have no idea why you would imagine that to be the case.  Tuatara's source clearly stated a lack of belief as an option when defining atheist.  

So again, atheism is a word with multiple meanings, both in general use and in dictionary definitions.


----------



## Montrovant

PratchettFan said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.
> 
> Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to use it then you use it all:
> 
> Merriam-Webster:
> 
> *Definition of ATHEISM*
> 1
> _archaic_ *:* ungodliness, wickedness
> 2
> _a_ *:*  a disbelief in the existence of deity
> _b_ *:*  the doctrine that there is no deity  .
> 
> 
> 
> See atheism defined for kids »
> *Origin of ATHEISM*
> Middle French _athéisme,_ from _athée_ atheist, from Greek _atheos_ godless, from _a-_ + _theos_ god
> First Known Use: 1546
> 
> Oxford Reference
> 
> atheism
> Subject:  Religion
> The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek _atheos_, from _a-_ ‘without’ + _theos_ ‘god’.
> 
> You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos".  It does not apply it to the suffix "ism".  "No god" not "no belief".
> The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
> *ism*
> _noun_ \ˈi-zəm\ .
> : a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix _-ism_
> *Full Definition of ISM*
> 1
> *:*  a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
> 
> While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god.  Which is why I don't like definitions that much.  It implies the word creates the thing.  It does not.  If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:
> 
> An Atheist has no god beliefs.
> I am an Atheist.
> Therefore, I have no god beliefs.
> 
> While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration.  I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god.  In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief.  So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong.  It can't be both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it wouldn't.  A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other.  This really is middle school English stuff.
Click to expand...


So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?


----------



## asaratis

Montrovant said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to use it then you use it all:
> 
> Merriam-Webster:
> 
> *Definition of ATHEISM*
> 1
> _archaic_ *:* ungodliness, wickedness
> 2
> _a_ *:*  a disbelief in the existence of deity
> _b_ *:*  the doctrine that there is no deity  .
> 
> 
> 
> See atheism defined for kids »
> *Origin of ATHEISM*
> Middle French _athéisme,_ from _athée_ atheist, from Greek _atheos_ godless, from _a-_ + _theos_ god
> First Known Use: 1546
> 
> Oxford Reference
> 
> atheism
> Subject:  Religion
> The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek _atheos_, from _a-_ ‘without’ + _theos_ ‘god’.
> 
> You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos".  It does not apply it to the suffix "ism".  "No god" not "no belief".
> The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
> *ism*
> _noun_ \ˈi-zəm\ .
> : a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix _-ism_
> *Full Definition of ISM*
> 1
> *:*  a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
> 
> While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god.  Which is why I don't like definitions that much.  It implies the word creates the thing.  It does not.  If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:
> 
> An Atheist has no god beliefs.
> I am an Atheist.
> Therefore, I have no god beliefs.
> 
> While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration.  I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god.  In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief.  So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong.  It can't be both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it wouldn't.  A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other.  This really is middle school English stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?
Click to expand...

Exactly!  You're beginning to wake up!  It means "without god"....


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it wouldn't.  A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other.  This really is middle school English stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!  You're beginning to wake up!  It means "without god"....
Click to expand...

Which still doesn't add up to a religion.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it wouldn't.  A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other.  This really is middle school English stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!  You're beginning to wake up!  It means "without god"....
Click to expand...

It means "without gods". You're forgetting that your gods are only three of several thousand inventions of gods.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it wouldn't.  A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other.  This really is middle school English stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!  You're beginning to wake up!  It means "without god"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means "without gods". You're forgetting that your gods are only three of several thousand inventions of gods.
Click to expand...

Do some research, little girl.  Don't pay attention to the preachers of Atheism.

BTW, Mary is the only woman's name mentioned in the Quran.  Jesus is recognized as a prophet by Jews and Muslims...just not as a part of the Trinity as He is by Christians.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Tuatara said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.
> 
> Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disbelief.
> 
> Webster: the act of disbelieving *:*  mental rejection of something as untrue
> 
> Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:
> 
> In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.
> 
> Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's another trusted dictionary definition:
> 
> *disbelief*
> noun   /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/  us
> 
> › the refusal to believe that something is true:
> 
> disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
> 
> These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack  of skepticism.
> 
> Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian
> 
> I agree with Vladimir...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir
> April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
> There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.
> 
> I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.
> 
> Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.
Click to expand...

dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Montrovant said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. *By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief*.
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.
> 
> Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to use it then you use it all:
> 
> Merriam-Webster:
> 
> *Definition of ATHEISM*
> 1
> _archaic_ *:* ungodliness, wickedness
> 2
> _a_ *:*  a disbelief in the existence of deity
> _b_ *:*  the doctrine that there is no deity  .
> 
> 
> 
> See atheism defined for kids »
> *Origin of ATHEISM*
> Middle French _athéisme,_ from _athée_ atheist, from Greek _atheos_ godless, from _a-_ + _theos_ god
> First Known Use: 1546
> 
> Oxford Reference
> 
> atheism
> Subject:  Religion
> The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek _atheos_, from _a-_ ‘without’ + _theos_ ‘god’.
> 
> You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos".  It does not apply it to the suffix "ism".  "No god" not "no belief".
> The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
> *ism*
> _noun_ \ˈi-zəm\ .
> : a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix _-ism_
> *Full Definition of ISM*
> 1
> *:*  a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
> 
> While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god.  Which is why I don't like definitions that much.  It implies the word creates the thing.  It does not.  If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:
> 
> An Atheist has no god beliefs.
> I am an Atheist.
> Therefore, I have no god beliefs.
> 
> While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration.  I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god.  In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief.  So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong.  It can't be both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?
Click to expand...

in a word?.....no......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Montrovant said:


> So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?



more literally, the "ism" of "a" "theos".......the belief there is no god......


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disbelief.
> 
> Webster: the act of disbelieving *:*  mental rejection of something as untrue
> 
> Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:
> 
> In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.
> 
> Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another trusted dictionary definition:
> 
> *disbelief*
> noun   /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/  us
> 
> › the refusal to believe that something is true:
> 
> disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
> 
> These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack  of skepticism.
> 
> Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian
> 
> I agree with Vladimir...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir
> April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
> There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.
> 
> I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.
> 
> Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......
Click to expand...




asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wouldn't.  A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other.  This really is middle school English stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!  You're beginning to wake up!  It means "without god"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means "without gods". You're forgetting that your gods are only three of several thousand inventions of gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do some research, little girl.  Don't pay attention to the preachers of Atheism.
> 
> BTW, Mary is the only woman's name mentioned in the Quran.  Jesus is recognized as a prophet by Jews and Muslims...just not as a part of the Trinity as He is by Christians.
Click to expand...

Do you find anything unusual about the above? Much of islam was stolen from Christianity as much of Christianity was stolen from judaism.

Are you suffering from short man complex?


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more literally, the "ism" of "a" "theos".......the belief there is no god......
Click to expand...

Because belief has no requirement for religious customs, traditions, practices, etc., you have confirmed the failure of the religionist argument that atheism is a religion.

Thanks.


----------



## PratchettFan

Montrovant said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to use it then you use it all:
> 
> Merriam-Webster:
> 
> *Definition of ATHEISM*
> 1
> _archaic_ *:* ungodliness, wickedness
> 2
> _a_ *:*  a disbelief in the existence of deity
> _b_ *:*  the doctrine that there is no deity  .
> 
> 
> 
> See atheism defined for kids »
> *Origin of ATHEISM*
> Middle French _athéisme,_ from _athée_ atheist, from Greek _atheos_ godless, from _a-_ + _theos_ god
> First Known Use: 1546
> 
> Oxford Reference
> 
> atheism
> Subject:  Religion
> The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek _atheos_, from _a-_ ‘without’ + _theos_ ‘god’.
> 
> You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos".  It does not apply it to the suffix "ism".  "No god" not "no belief".
> The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
> *ism*
> _noun_ \ˈi-zəm\ .
> : a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix _-ism_
> *Full Definition of ISM*
> 1
> *:*  a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
> 
> While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god.  Which is why I don't like definitions that much.  It implies the word creates the thing.  It does not.  If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:
> 
> An Atheist has no god beliefs.
> I am an Atheist.
> Therefore, I have no god beliefs.
> 
> While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration.  I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god.  In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief.  So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong.  It can't be both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it wouldn't.  A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other.  This really is middle school English stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?
Click to expand...


Not if you want to strictly follow the rules of English.  Words change with usage and that might add new meanings to a definition, which is what is happening here.  That is why I don't think using a definition is worth spit.  Either a position is supported by objective evidence or it is not.  If it is not, then the only thing that position can be is a belief.  Thus, unless someone has some evidence somewhere they are not showing, any position on this question save neutrality is a belief.  Are you neutral?


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it wouldn't.  A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other.  This really is middle school English stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!  You're beginning to wake up!  It means "without god"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which still doesn't add up to a religion.
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't.  I originally suggested three attributes of religion and no one ever argued they were wrong or more were needed.  These are them:

A group to which members identify themselves.  "I am an Atheist along with my fellow Atheists"
Belief is the basis of the group.  As I have argued elsewhere, unless you have evidence to support your position it is a belief.
Dogma. 

It's that last bit where you all shoot yourselves in the foot.  Dogma is a doctrine which must be accepted without question.  You establish that Atheism is a lack of belief, or a non-belief, or a rejection of belief, but it most certainly can't be a belief.  Despite the fact that it is a belief.  The definition must be changed to meet this dogma.  Contradictions to it must be ignored.  I have pointed out that Dawkins list shows a strong Atheist as being certain there is no God (a most definite belief), but every time I have pointed this out it is just ignored because it is a contradiction to the dogma which cannot be reconciled.  It is the last attribute of dogma which makes Atheism a religion and the only people who can do that are the Atheists themselves. 

You can prove me wrong by showing it is not a belief.  The only way to do that is to show you have objective evidence to support your position.  Do you?


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disbelief.
> 
> Webster: the act of disbelieving *:*  mental rejection of something as untrue
> 
> Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:
> 
> In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.
> 
> Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another trusted dictionary definition:
> 
> *disbelief*
> noun   /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/  us
> 
> › the refusal to believe that something is true:
> 
> disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
> 
> These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack  of skepticism.
> 
> Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian
> 
> I agree with Vladimir...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir
> April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
> There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.
> 
> I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.
> 
> Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......
Click to expand...

Dude, you're certainly not. You don't even have the personal integrity to actually challenge Dawkin's writings on specific issues. All you have done is fall in with "herd mentality" of your co-religionists who have their personal biases to defend.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another trusted dictionary definition:
> 
> *disbelief*
> noun   /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/  us
> 
> › the refusal to believe that something is true:
> 
> disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
> 
> These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.
> 
> 
> 
> Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack  of skepticism.
> 
> Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian
> 
> I agree with Vladimir...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir
> April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
> There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.
> 
> I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.
> 
> Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, you're certainly not. You don't even have the personal integrity to actually challenge Dawkin's writings on specific issues. All you have done is fall in with "herd mentality" of your co-religionists who have their personal biases to defend.
Click to expand...

Try reading _Answering The New Atheism_ available at Amazon in paperback form.  Please read it entirely before your next post in this thread.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another trusted dictionary definition:
> 
> *disbelief*
> noun   /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/  us
> 
> › the refusal to believe that something is true:
> 
> disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
> 
> These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.
> 
> 
> 
> Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack  of skepticism.
> 
> Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian
> 
> I agree with Vladimir...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir
> April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
> There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.
> 
> I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.
> 
> Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wouldn't.  A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other.  This really is middle school English stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!  You're beginning to wake up!  It means "without god"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means "without gods". You're forgetting that your gods are only three of several thousand inventions of gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do some research, little girl.  Don't pay attention to the preachers of Atheism.
> 
> BTW, Mary is the only woman's name mentioned in the Quran.  Jesus is recognized as a prophet by Jews and Muslims...just not as a part of the Trinity as He is by Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you find anything unusual about the above? Much of islam was stolen from Christianity as much of Christianity was stolen from judaism.
> 
> Are you suffering from short man complex?
Click to expand...

Not at all.  But I do see that you're catching on to the fact that you are less educated than you claim to be.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack  of skepticism.
> 
> Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian
> 
> I agree with Vladimir...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir
> April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
> There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.
> 
> I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.
> 
> Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!  You're beginning to wake up!  It means "without god"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means "without gods". You're forgetting that your gods are only three of several thousand inventions of gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do some research, little girl.  Don't pay attention to the preachers of Atheism.
> 
> BTW, Mary is the only woman's name mentioned in the Quran.  Jesus is recognized as a prophet by Jews and Muslims...just not as a part of the Trinity as He is by Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you find anything unusual about the above? Much of islam was stolen from Christianity as much of Christianity was stolen from judaism.
> 
> Are you suffering from short man complex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  But I do see that you're catching on to the fact that you are less educated than you claim to be.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I've managed to refute your specious claims which has left you you to offer nothing more than childish attempts at insult. 

I've never made any claim to be more or less educated than any other poster. So yet again, your specious claims and juvenile sniping are false and are refuted.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack  of skepticism.
> 
> Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian
> 
> I agree with Vladimir...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir
> April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
> There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.
> 
> I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.
> 
> Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, you're certainly not. You don't even have the personal integrity to actually challenge Dawkin's writings on specific issues. All you have done is fall in with "herd mentality" of your co-religionists who have their personal biases to defend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try reading _Answering The New Atheism_ available at Amazon in paperback form.  Please read it entirely before your next post in this thread.
Click to expand...

You're suffering the same debilitating disease of _pointlessness_ that afflicts so many fundies. Consider taking some night courses in the basic earth sciences and an introduction to biology. You will discover that there is a world of knowledge outside of your madrassah.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another trusted dictionary definition:
> 
> *disbelief*
> noun   /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/  us
> 
> › the refusal to believe that something is true:
> 
> disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
> 
> These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.
> 
> 
> 
> Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack  of skepticism.
> 
> Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian
> 
> I agree with Vladimir...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir
> April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
> There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.
> 
> I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.
> 
> Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, you're certainly not. You don't even have the personal integrity to actually challenge Dawkin's writings on specific issues. All you have done is fall in with "herd mentality" of your co-religionists who have their personal biases to defend.
Click to expand...

(Envision loud laughter!!!!!)....and you Atheist sheep are not parroting one another with herd mentality in defense of your biases?


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack  of skepticism.
> 
> Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian
> 
> I agree with Vladimir...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir
> April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
> There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.
> 
> I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.
> 
> Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, you're certainly not. You don't even have the personal integrity to actually challenge Dawkin's writings on specific issues. All you have done is fall in with "herd mentality" of your co-religionists who have their personal biases to defend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (Envision loud laughter!!!!!)....and you Atheist sheep are not parroting one another with herd mentality in defense of your biases?
Click to expand...

What biases? It's been you fundies who have consistently made attempts to equate rejection of your multi-gods as a religion. You have been thoroughly refuted yet you insist on screeching that "atheism is religion" when it has been explained to you that atheism has none of the attributes of religion. In fact, all of atheism is nothing more than a conclusion that your religious claims to magic and supernaturalism are absent affirmative evidence. 

It hasn't gone unnoticed that you and others have hoped to avoid supporting your specious claims to gods, jinn, a Flat Earth and other absurdities of your religious belief with sidestepping and obfuscation.


----------



## Montrovant

PratchettFan said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it wouldn't.  A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other.  This really is middle school English stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if you want to strictly follow the rules of English.  Words change with usage and that might add new meanings to a definition, which is what is happening here.  That is why I don't think using a definition is worth spit.  Either a position is supported by objective evidence or it is not.  If it is not, then the only thing that position can be is a belief.  Thus, unless someone has some evidence somewhere they are not showing, any position on this question save neutrality is a belief.  Are you neutral?
Click to expand...


Except that you are, in effect, using your own definition here.  What is the question which you have decided inherently makes atheism a belief?  Words certainly do change with usage and there have been new meanings.  Because of that, the very question of what a person's position is will be different depending on what definition is being used.  So when you say atheism is a belief, it is based on the definition you are using of the word.  If someone defines atheism as a lack of belief in god, then it most certainly is not a belief.  It requires no objective evidence of anything.  It becomes more like the common usage of agnosticism.


----------



## Montrovant

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wouldn't.  A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other.  This really is middle school English stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!  You're beginning to wake up!  It means "without god"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which still doesn't add up to a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  I originally suggested three attributes of religion and no one ever argued they were wrong or more were needed.  These are them:
> 
> A group to which members identify themselves.  "I am an Atheist along with my fellow Atheists"
> Belief is the basis of the group.  As I have argued elsewhere, unless you have evidence to support your position it is a belief.
> Dogma.
> 
> It's that last bit where you all shoot yourselves in the foot.  Dogma is a doctrine which must be accepted without question.  You establish that Atheism is a lack of belief, or a non-belief, or a rejection of belief, but it most certainly can't be a belief.  Despite the fact that it is a belief.  The definition must be changed to meet this dogma.  Contradictions to it must be ignored.  I have pointed out that Dawkins list shows a strong Atheist as being certain there is no God (a most definite belief), but every time I have pointed this out it is just ignored because it is a contradiction to the dogma which cannot be reconciled.  It is the last attribute of dogma which makes Atheism a religion and the only people who can do that are the Atheists themselves.
> 
> You can prove me wrong by showing it is not a belief.  The only way to do that is to show you have objective evidence to support your position.  Do you?
Click to expand...


What is objective evidence for not believing in something?  Not believing is different from denying the possibility of something.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack  of skepticism.
> 
> Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian
> 
> I agree with Vladimir...
> 
> 
> 
> What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, you're certainly not. You don't even have the personal integrity to actually challenge Dawkin's writings on specific issues. All you have done is fall in with "herd mentality" of your co-religionists who have their personal biases to defend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (Envision loud laughter!!!!!)....and you Atheist sheep are not parroting one another with herd mentality in defense of your biases?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What biases? It's been you fundies who have consistently made attempts to equate rejection of your multi-gods as a religion. You have been thoroughly refuted yet you insist on screeching that "atheism is religion" when it has been explained to you that atheism has none of the attributes of religion. In fact, all of atheism is nothing more than a conclusion that your religious claims to magic and supernaturalism are absent affirmative evidence.
> 
> It hasn't gone unnoticed that you and others have hoped to avoid supporting your specious claims to gods, jinn, a Flat Earth and other absurdities of your religious belief with sidestepping and obfuscation.
Click to expand...

That you do not recognize that _belief that God does not exist_ is a bias, driven by your belief that the Atheists with whom you agree are correct, is quite understandable.  We have established that the existence of God cannot be cogently proved or disproved.  That makes those on either side of the "belief fence" biased.

Fundies have only one God.

I have not been refuted.

It has been explained to you that Atheism has many attributes of religion.  You just continue to deny the truth.

Your conclusion that gods do not exist also lacks affirmative evidence.  It is simply a belief that you hold.

And...if you still believe Dawkins is a genius, read what Thomas Nagel (another Atheist, but a true philosopher) thinks about the less-than-sophomoric Dawkins....that is if you can refrain from slobbering on your keyboard long enough to actually read a book or two.


----------



## PratchettFan

Montrovant said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it wouldn't.  A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other.  This really is middle school English stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if you want to strictly follow the rules of English.  Words change with usage and that might add new meanings to a definition, which is what is happening here.  That is why I don't think using a definition is worth spit.  Either a position is supported by objective evidence or it is not.  If it is not, then the only thing that position can be is a belief.  Thus, unless someone has some evidence somewhere they are not showing, any position on this question save neutrality is a belief.  Are you neutral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that you are, in effect, using your own definition here.  What is the question which you have decided inherently makes atheism a belief?  Words certainly do change with usage and there have been new meanings.  Because of that, the very question of what a person's position is will be different depending on what definition is being used.  So when you say atheism is a belief, it is based on the definition you are using of the word.  If someone defines atheism as a lack of belief in god, then it most certainly is not a belief.  It requires no objective evidence of anything.  It becomes more like the common usage of agnosticism.
Click to expand...


I am saying a belief is a belief.  Calling it something else does not make it something else.  The Atheists I have talked to here have consistently stated that it is more likely there are no gods than there are, but they have nothing other than that assertion to support this claim.  I am open to using another word, if that helps.  What would you call a conclusion arrived at in the total absence of supporting evidence?


----------



## PratchettFan

Montrovant said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wouldn't.  A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other.  This really is middle school English stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!  You're beginning to wake up!  It means "without god"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which still doesn't add up to a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  I originally suggested three attributes of religion and no one ever argued they were wrong or more were needed.  These are them:
> 
> A group to which members identify themselves.  "I am an Atheist along with my fellow Atheists"
> Belief is the basis of the group.  As I have argued elsewhere, unless you have evidence to support your position it is a belief.
> Dogma.
> 
> It's that last bit where you all shoot yourselves in the foot.  Dogma is a doctrine which must be accepted without question.  You establish that Atheism is a lack of belief, or a non-belief, or a rejection of belief, but it most certainly can't be a belief.  Despite the fact that it is a belief.  The definition must be changed to meet this dogma.  Contradictions to it must be ignored.  I have pointed out that Dawkins list shows a strong Atheist as being certain there is no God (a most definite belief), but every time I have pointed this out it is just ignored because it is a contradiction to the dogma which cannot be reconciled.  It is the last attribute of dogma which makes Atheism a religion and the only people who can do that are the Atheists themselves.
> 
> You can prove me wrong by showing it is not a belief.  The only way to do that is to show you have objective evidence to support your position.  Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is objective evidence for not believing in something?  Not believing is different from denying the possibility of something.
Click to expand...


I have no idea.  You see, this is a subject so completely unknown we can't even identify what evidence we would need to investigate. 

Do you consider the potential for there being gods to be equal to the potential there are no gods?


----------



## asaratis

Montrovant said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wouldn't.  A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other.  This really is middle school English stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!  You're beginning to wake up!  It means "without god"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which still doesn't add up to a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  I originally suggested three attributes of religion and no one ever argued they were wrong or more were needed.  These are them:
> 
> A group to which members identify themselves.  "I am an Atheist along with my fellow Atheists"
> Belief is the basis of the group.  As I have argued elsewhere, unless you have evidence to support your position it is a belief.
> Dogma.
> 
> It's that last bit where you all shoot yourselves in the foot.  Dogma is a doctrine which must be accepted without question.  You establish that Atheism is a lack of belief, or a non-belief, or a rejection of belief, but it most certainly can't be a belief.  Despite the fact that it is a belief.  The definition must be changed to meet this dogma.  Contradictions to it must be ignored.  I have pointed out that Dawkins list shows a strong Atheist as being certain there is no God (a most definite belief), but every time I have pointed this out it is just ignored because it is a contradiction to the dogma which cannot be reconciled.  It is the last attribute of dogma which makes Atheism a religion and the only people who can do that are the Atheists themselves.
> 
> You can prove me wrong by showing it is not a belief.  The only way to do that is to show you have objective evidence to support your position.  Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is objective evidence for not believing in something?  Not believing is different from denying the possibility of something.
Click to expand...

Not believing that something exists is truly not identical to believing that it does not exist.  The difference between them is akin to the difference between agnostic and Atheist.


----------



## asaratis

PratchettFan said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wouldn't.  A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other.  This really is middle school English stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if you want to strictly follow the rules of English.  Words change with usage and that might add new meanings to a definition, which is what is happening here.  That is why I don't think using a definition is worth spit.  Either a position is supported by objective evidence or it is not.  If it is not, then the only thing that position can be is a belief.  Thus, unless someone has some evidence somewhere they are not showing, any position on this question save neutrality is a belief.  Are you neutral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that you are, in effect, using your own definition here.  What is the question which you have decided inherently makes atheism a belief?  Words certainly do change with usage and there have been new meanings.  Because of that, the very question of what a person's position is will be different depending on what definition is being used.  So when you say atheism is a belief, it is based on the definition you are using of the word.  If someone defines atheism as a lack of belief in god, then it most certainly is not a belief.  It requires no objective evidence of anything.  It becomes more like the common usage of agnosticism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am saying a belief is a belief.  Calling it something else does not make it something else.  The Atheists I have talked to here have consistently stated that it is more likely there are no gods than there are, but they have nothing other than that assertion to support this claim.  I am open to using another word, if that helps.  What would you call a conclusion arrived at in the total absence of supporting evidence?
Click to expand...

conjecture?...defined by some among us as:

an opinion or judgment that is not based on proof; a guess:

Who knows how the Atheists will want to define it?


----------



## Tuatara

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disbelief.
> 
> Webster: the act of disbelieving *:*  mental rejection of something as untrue
> 
> Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:
> 
> In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.
> 
> Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another trusted dictionary definition:
> 
> *disbelief*
> noun   /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/  us
> 
> › the refusal to believe that something is true:
> 
> disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
> 
> These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack  of skepticism.
> 
> Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian
> 
> I agree with Vladimir...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir
> April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
> There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.
> 
> I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.
> 
> Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......
Click to expand...

Not one person in this forum is and certainly not you.


----------



## Tuatara

PratchettFan said:


> Do you want me to narrow it down to I haven't met the person who has no beliefs in gods?  No problem.  I haven't.  Certainly not here.  Any conclusion arrived at in the utter absence of supporting evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.


Anyone can make a claim about a certain god whether it is Allah, Zeus or the FSM. Is there supporting evidence that counters these beliefs? Of course there is but it still cannot be proven. Someone could claim their god created the universe and earth 400 years ago. The evidence to refute that claim is geology, biology, history, chemistry and thousands of other disciplines. But does it prove the non-existence of that god, the possibility of it? No. But it does disprove the probability of it.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, you're certainly not. You don't even have the personal integrity to actually challenge Dawkin's writings on specific issues. All you have done is fall in with "herd mentality" of your co-religionists who have their personal biases to defend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (Envision loud laughter!!!!!)....and you Atheist sheep are not parroting one another with herd mentality in defense of your biases?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What biases? It's been you fundies who have consistently made attempts to equate rejection of your multi-gods as a religion. You have been thoroughly refuted yet you insist on screeching that "atheism is religion" when it has been explained to you that atheism has none of the attributes of religion. In fact, all of atheism is nothing more than a conclusion that your religious claims to magic and supernaturalism are absent affirmative evidence.
> 
> It hasn't gone unnoticed that you and others have hoped to avoid supporting your specious claims to gods, jinn, a Flat Earth and other absurdities of your religious belief with sidestepping and obfuscation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you do not recognize that _belief that God does not exist_ is a bias, driven by your belief that the Atheists with whom you agree are correct, is quite understandable.  We have established that the existence of God cannot be cogently proved or disproved.  That makes those on either side of the "belief fence" biased.
> 
> Fundies have only one God.
> 
> I have not been refuted.
> 
> It has been explained to you that Atheism has many attributes of religion.  You just continue to deny the truth.
> 
> Your conclusion that gods do not exist also lacks affirmative evidence.  It is simply a belief that you hold.
> 
> And...if you still believe Dawkins is a genius, read what Thomas Nagel (another Atheist, but a true philosopher) thinks about the less-than-sophomoric Dawkins....that is if you can refrain from slobbering on your keyboard long enough to actually read a book or two.
Click to expand...

Concluding that your three gods do not exist requires no bias. The lack of evidence for your gods is precisely the same lack of evidence that plagues all the human conceptions of gods, angels, jinn, etc. That you are unable to present a cogent argument for your gods places you in the same position as all the other pedestrian and baseless claims for gods. While I think it's important to have mythology in literature; it's good to have stories of heroes and heroines for us to emulate. This doesn't mean we should suddenly worship these characters and claim that they are real. 

Invariably, those extremists who hurl the darkest invectives tend to be the most the most chaotic thinkers. There is definitely a strong link between people who believe fervently in their religions (to the point of wishing harm to any and all who disagree) and an appalling lack of even the most rudimentary levels of education. Having read the Bible cover to cover, I'm not surprised at this interlocking phenomenon-- the Bible advocates ignorance, and religions based on the Bible historically have stood in the way of education and literacy. What better way to convince the populace, if not to keep them illiterate? 

Secondly, your screeching about atheism having many attributes of religion has derailed many times before. I note with amusement that you still sidestep addressing how little atheism and religion have in common. Once again, you cannot address the practices, rituals, customs, traditions and belief system that defines religion and which are absent in the rational conclusion that your polytheistic beliefs are absent substantiation. Atheism has no customs, beliefs or “ideologies”. There is no atheist asserted philosophy. All of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic/religious assertions. Atheism is simply the rejection of the theistic model as undemonstrated, unsupported and bereft substantiation. 


What is truly remarkable is your fascination with Dawkins. I understand that for fundamentalists, he does represent an outspoken voice of contention with belief in the supernatural. And it’s obvious that you feel threatened. You should, BTW, since _Reason_ and _Rationality_ as an epistemological path does not account for the existence of gods, fairies, leprechauns, or the supernatural

Therefore, the supernaturalist/religionist is immediately placed into a dilemma from which there is no escape by using faith as a method or tool to gain knowledge. Simply put, faith and reason cannot exist side by side; they are mutually exclusive to one another. If something is believed to be true, and there is evidence for its reality, there is no need for faith; it is rationally a reality. But if something requires faith in order for it to be believed, then it is no longer rational, and if it is not rational, then what supports its reliability? Thus the theist is trapped into an impossible dilemma-- he cannot make an appeal to knowledge, since knowledge depends on reason for its existence. 

The first thing we must understand is that faith, in and of itself, is not a pathway to access knowledge. Since the criteria of evidence and proof is not necessary under the constructs of faith (i.e., things are to be believed in _spite_ of proof or evidence), there are no ways to apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance, from the gods of modern society. Each statement of belief carries the same level of validity, i.e., none.


----------



## Tuatara

I remember years ago watching this documentary on people who actually believed in fairies. These people have a belief in the existence of fairies. Most of us I'm sure do not believe in the existence of fairies. That is not a belief. It is really that simple.

I'm sure some other members here like asaratis, Pratchettfan and Quantum would assert that we have beliefs that fairies don't exist. They are simply inverting the definition by applying it to the negative.

eg. You believe such & such does *not* exist.


----------



## percysunshine

Tuatara said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want me to narrow it down to I haven't met the person who has no beliefs in gods?  No problem.  I haven't.  Certainly not here.  Any conclusion arrived at in the utter absence of supporting evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can make a claim about a certain god whether it is Allah, Zeus or the FSM. Is there supporting evidence that counters these beliefs? Of course there is but it still cannot be proven. Someone could claim their god created the universe and earth 400 years ago. The evidence to refute that claim is geology, biology, history, chemistry and thousands of other disciplines. But does it prove the non-existence of that god, the possibility of it? No. But it does disprove the probability of it.
Click to expand...


The epistemology of science limits science to the description and theory of the observable natural universe. Any possibility and probability calculations of science pertaining to the existence of any super-natural beings are irrelevant, by the definition of the word 'science'.

.


----------



## asaratis

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another trusted dictionary definition:
> 
> *disbelief*
> noun   /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/  us
> 
> › the refusal to believe that something is true:
> 
> disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
> 
> These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.
> 
> 
> 
> Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack  of skepticism.
> 
> Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian
> 
> I agree with Vladimir...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir
> April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
> There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.
> 
> I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.
> 
> Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not one person in this forum is and certainly not you.
Click to expand...

You cannot prove either of those claims.



Tuatara said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want me to narrow it down to I haven't met the person who has no beliefs in gods?  No problem.  I haven't.  Certainly not here.  Any conclusion arrived at in the utter absence of supporting evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can make a claim about a certain god whether it is Allah, Zeus or the FSM. Is there supporting evidence that counters these beliefs? Of course there is but it still cannot be proven. Someone could claim their god created the universe and earth 400 years ago. The evidence to refute that claim is geology, biology, history, chemistry and thousands of other disciplines. But does it prove the non-existence of that god, the possibility of it? No. But it does disprove the probability of it.
Click to expand...

Proving that some claims made by those that believe in God does not prove the non-existence of their God.  It merely proves that they do not completely understand how God works.  They explain the existence and origin of things in terms they can understand.  Most modern day Jews, Christians and some Muslims will agree that the earth is millions of years old.

You are simply full of yourself.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Montrovant said:


> If you weren't ignoring the posts I've been responding to, you would have seen that it was not me who brought up -ism meaning a doctrine.  It was PratchettFan.  I responded to that.  You then inserted yourself into the conversation as though I were the one who started that.  I don't know if you didn't bother to read all the quoted text or what.
> 
> Feel free to look at post #1473.
> 
> PostmodernProf's adoctrinists response also seemed to ignore the fact that I was responding to PratchettFan's post in which an -ism is defined as a doctrine.



I wasn't ignoring anything, I was pointing out that your interpretation of the word atheism as a lack of doctrine is stupid. I am not the only one that pointed it out, but since you seem to be able to ignore posts that contradict your lack of understanding of English, you cannot apply a prefix to a suffix and totally ignore the root word that they both apply to. If we apply the doctrine definition to ism the way you attempted to we would see that atheism is the doctrine that there is no god, not that there are no doctrines.

Want to tell me how smart you are again? Or point out that I am ignoring a post you responded to when I am not?


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly!  You're beginning to wake up!  It means "without god"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which still doesn't add up to a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  I originally suggested three attributes of religion and no one ever argued they were wrong or more were needed.  These are them:
> 
> A group to which members identify themselves.  "I am an Atheist along with my fellow Atheists"
> Belief is the basis of the group.  As I have argued elsewhere, unless you have evidence to support your position it is a belief.
> Dogma.
> 
> It's that last bit where you all shoot yourselves in the foot.  Dogma is a doctrine which must be accepted without question.  You establish that Atheism is a lack of belief, or a non-belief, or a rejection of belief, but it most certainly can't be a belief.  Despite the fact that it is a belief.  The definition must be changed to meet this dogma.  Contradictions to it must be ignored.  I have pointed out that Dawkins list shows a strong Atheist as being certain there is no God (a most definite belief), but every time I have pointed this out it is just ignored because it is a contradiction to the dogma which cannot be reconciled.  It is the last attribute of dogma which makes Atheism a religion and the only people who can do that are the Atheists themselves.
> 
> You can prove me wrong by showing it is not a belief.  The only way to do that is to show you have objective evidence to support your position.  Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is objective evidence for not believing in something?  Not believing is different from denying the possibility of something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not believing that something exists is truly not identical to believing that it does not exist.  The difference between them is akin to the difference between agnostic and Atheist.
Click to expand...

You actually were able to assemble words into coherent sentences this


asaratis said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack  of skepticism.
> 
> Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian
> 
> I agree with Vladimir...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir
> April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
> There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.
> 
> I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.
> 
> Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not one person in this forum is and certainly not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot prove either of those claims.
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want me to narrow it down to I haven't met the person who has no beliefs in gods?  No problem.  I haven't.  Certainly not here.  Any conclusion arrived at in the utter absence of supporting evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone can make a claim about a certain god whether it is Allah, Zeus or the FSM. Is there supporting evidence that counters these beliefs? Of course there is but it still cannot be proven. Someone could claim their god created the universe and earth 400 years ago. The evidence to refute that claim is geology, biology, history, chemistry and thousands of other disciplines. But does it prove the non-existence of that god, the possibility of it? No. But it does disprove the probability of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proving that some claims made by those that believe in God does not prove the non-existence of their God.  It merely proves that they do not completely understand how God works.  They explain the existence and origin of things in terms they can understand.  Most modern day Jews, Christians and some Muslims will agree that the earth is millions of years old.
> 
> You are simply full of yourself.
Click to expand...

and of course like many fundies, you will claim some special insight into how the gawds work. Such a burden you must bear. But, how really special you must be that the gawds have bestowed this special understanding to you. The Pat Robertson madrassah is looking for folks just like you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Montrovant said:


> You are too hard on yourself.  No need to call yourself the village idiot.
> 
> I am not trying to redefine anything.  In fact, unlike you, I have been perfectly willing to admit that the word atheist has more than one meaning.  I'm also able to understand that when a definition involves an either/or, one cannot simply choose one option and declare it the only definition.
> 
> The definition of atheist you comment on was, "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.".  You then posted definitions of disbelief and used that to make your point, despite the fact that it says disbelief *or* lack of belief.  So, yes, you skipped over that phrase.  No, there is no reason you would have to read the definition backwards to skip it and I have no idea why you would imagine that to be the case.  Tuatara's source clearly stated a lack of belief as an option when defining atheist.
> 
> So again, atheism is a word with multiple meanings, both in general use and in dictionary definitions.



Still trying to outsmart the village idiot.

And failing.

If we accept the premise that the internet gets to redefine words willy nilly, what, exactly, does lack of belief mean? To be deficient or missing belief? Deficient doesn't seem to make sense, so it is simply missing, which is absurd on the face of it because atheist argue that there is no god, not that they don't believe. Maybe there is another definition that works better. To be short of or have need of. Does that mean that atheists need to believe? I can accept that interpretation, but I doubt that you will.

Now, feel free to provide a definition of lack of belief that doesn't make people who claim that is an acceptable definition of atheist look silly.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> Dude, you're certainly not. You don't even have the personal integrity to actually challenge Dawkin's writings on specific issues.



have him stop by, I'll be happy to.....


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you're certainly not. You don't even have the personal integrity to actually challenge Dawkin's writings on specific issues. All you have done is fall in with "herd mentality" of your co-religionists who have their personal biases to defend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (Envision loud laughter!!!!!)....and you Atheist sheep are not parroting one another with herd mentality in defense of your biases?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What biases? It's been you fundies who have consistently made attempts to equate rejection of your multi-gods as a religion. You have been thoroughly refuted yet you insist on screeching that "atheism is religion" when it has been explained to you that atheism has none of the attributes of religion. In fact, all of atheism is nothing more than a conclusion that your religious claims to magic and supernaturalism are absent affirmative evidence.
> 
> It hasn't gone unnoticed that you and others have hoped to avoid supporting your specious claims to gods, jinn, a Flat Earth and other absurdities of your religious belief with sidestepping and obfuscation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you do not recognize that _belief that God does not exist_ is a bias, driven by your belief that the Atheists with whom you agree are correct, is quite understandable.  We have established that the existence of God cannot be cogently proved or disproved.  That makes those on either side of the "belief fence" biased.
> 
> Fundies have only one God.
> 
> I have not been refuted.
> 
> It has been explained to you that Atheism has many attributes of religion.  You just continue to deny the truth.
> 
> Your conclusion that gods do not exist also lacks affirmative evidence.  It is simply a belief that you hold.
> 
> And...if you still believe Dawkins is a genius, read what Thomas Nagel (another Atheist, but a true philosopher) thinks about the less-than-sophomoric Dawkins....that is if you can refrain from slobbering on your keyboard long enough to actually read a book or two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Concluding that your three gods do not exist requires no bias. The lack of evidence for your gods is precisely the same lack of evidence that plagues all the human conceptions of gods, angels, jinn, etc. That you are unable to present a cogent argument for your gods places you in the same position as all the other pedestrian and baseless claims for gods. While I think it's important to have mythology in literature; it's good to have stories of heroes and heroines for us to emulate. This doesn't mean we should suddenly worship these characters and claim that they are real.
> 
> Invariably, those extremists who hurl the darkest invectives tend to be the most the most chaotic thinkers. There is definitely a strong link between people who believe fervently in their religions (to the point of wishing harm to any and all who disagree) and an appalling lack of even the most rudimentary levels of education. Having read the Bible cover to cover, I'm not surprised at this interlocking phenomenon-- the Bible advocates ignorance, and religions based on the Bible historically have stood in the way of education and literacy. What better way to convince the populace, if not to keep them illiterate?
> 
> Secondly, your screeching about atheism having many attributes of religion has derailed many times before. I note with amusement that you still sidestep addressing how little atheism and religion have in common. Once again, you cannot address the practices, rituals, customs, traditions and belief system that defines religion and which are absent in the rational conclusion that your polytheistic beliefs are absent substantiation. Atheism has no customs, beliefs or “ideologies”. There is no atheist asserted philosophy. All of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic/religious assertions. Atheism is simply the rejection of the theistic model as undemonstrated, unsupported and bereft substantiation.
> 
> 
> What is truly remarkable is your fascination with Dawkins. I understand that for fundamentalists, he does represent an outspoken voice of contention with belief in the supernatural. And it’s obvious that you feel threatened. You should, BTW, since _Reason_ and _Rationality_ as an epistemological path does not account for the existence of gods, fairies, leprechauns, or the supernatural
> 
> Therefore, the supernaturalist/religionist is immediately placed into a dilemma from which there is no escape by using faith as a method or tool to gain knowledge. Simply put, faith and reason cannot exist side by side; they are mutually exclusive to one another. If something is believed to be true, and there is evidence for its reality, there is no need for faith; it is rationally a reality. But if something requires faith in order for it to be believed, then it is no longer rational, and if it is not rational, then what supports its reliability? Thus the theist is trapped into an impossible dilemma-- he cannot make an appeal to knowledge, since knowledge depends on reason for its existence.
> 
> The first thing we must understand is that faith, in and of itself, is not a pathway to access knowledge. Since the criteria of evidence and proof is not necessary under the constructs of faith (i.e., things are to be believed in _spite_ of proof or evidence), there are no ways to apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance, from the gods of modern society. Each statement of belief carries the same level of validity, i.e., none.
Click to expand...

As I expected, you stupidly insist that Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in separate gods.  There is one God.

Secondly, if you're going to quote the words of someone else, you should not stoop to plagiarism.

"...apply a standard to the _claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is_ nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance,...."

comes from:
http://bb.islamww.com/index.php?showtopic=3910

I can imagine that most of your post is nothing but plagiarism.  When you use the work of others, give us a link.

You are a disingenuous, pathetic little girl.

BTW, I am not at all fascinated by Dawkins.  I simply find him to be of mediocre intellect and dependent on flawed logic and childish analogies....much like the dummy, Bill Maher.



Check out Anthony Flew, the world's most notorious (former) Atheist.
Antony Flew Abandons Atheism - Former Atheist Believes in God on Basis of Argument to Design


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more literally, the "ism" of "a" "theos".......the belief there is no god......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because belief has no requirement for religious customs, traditions, practices, etc., you have confirmed the failure of the religionist argument that atheism is a religion.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...

you can become an atheists' bishop if you file a law suit to stop a high school football team from praying before a game.....a cardinal if the case makes it to the USSC.....


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more literally, the "ism" of "a" "theos".......the belief there is no god......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because belief has no requirement for religious customs, traditions, practices, etc., you have confirmed the failure of the religionist argument that atheism is a religion.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you can become an atheists' bishop if you file a law suit to stop a high school football team from praying before a game.....a cardinal if the case makes it to the USSC.....
Click to expand...

Typical pointless.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more literally, the "ism" of "a" "theos".......the belief there is no god......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because belief has no requirement for religious customs, traditions, practices, etc., you have confirmed the failure of the religionist argument that atheism is a religion.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you can become an atheists' bishop if you file a law suit to stop a high school football team from praying before a game.....a cardinal if the case makes it to the USSC.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical pointless.
Click to expand...

however, you're SOL if you want to be the pope......Dawkins has that sown up until he dies......


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> Not one person in this forum is and certainly not you.



Dawkins is widely viewed as a running joke. The fact that you are unaware of that shows why you are unqualified to judge his intelligence against that of anyone else.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> I remember years ago watching this documentary on people who actually believed in fairies. These people have a belief in the existence of fairies. Most of us I'm sure do not believe in the existence of fairies. That is not a belief. It is really that simple.
> 
> I'm sure some other members here like asaratis, Pratchettfan and Quantum would assert that we have beliefs that fairies don't exist. They are simply inverting the definition by applying it to the negative.
> 
> eg. You believe such & such does *not* exist.



I am not afraid to proclaim that I believe fairies do not exist, why are you afraid to admit to your beliefs?


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you're certainly not. You don't even have the personal integrity to actually challenge Dawkin's writings on specific issues. All you have done is fall in with "herd mentality" of your co-religionists who have their personal biases to defend.
> 
> 
> 
> (Envision loud laughter!!!!!)....and you Atheist sheep are not parroting one another with herd mentality in defense of your biases?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What biases? It's been you fundies who have consistently made attempts to equate rejection of your multi-gods as a religion. You have been thoroughly refuted yet you insist on screeching that "atheism is religion" when it has been explained to you that atheism has none of the attributes of religion. In fact, all of atheism is nothing more than a conclusion that your religious claims to magic and supernaturalism are absent affirmative evidence.
> 
> It hasn't gone unnoticed that you and others have hoped to avoid supporting your specious claims to gods, jinn, a Flat Earth and other absurdities of your religious belief with sidestepping and obfuscation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you do not recognize that _belief that God does not exist_ is a bias, driven by your belief that the Atheists with whom you agree are correct, is quite understandable.  We have established that the existence of God cannot be cogently proved or disproved.  That makes those on either side of the "belief fence" biased.
> 
> Fundies have only one God.
> 
> I have not been refuted.
> 
> It has been explained to you that Atheism has many attributes of religion.  You just continue to deny the truth.
> 
> Your conclusion that gods do not exist also lacks affirmative evidence.  It is simply a belief that you hold.
> 
> And...if you still believe Dawkins is a genius, read what Thomas Nagel (another Atheist, but a true philosopher) thinks about the less-than-sophomoric Dawkins....that is if you can refrain from slobbering on your keyboard long enough to actually read a book or two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Concluding that your three gods do not exist requires no bias. The lack of evidence for your gods is precisely the same lack of evidence that plagues all the human conceptions of gods, angels, jinn, etc. That you are unable to present a cogent argument for your gods places you in the same position as all the other pedestrian and baseless claims for gods. While I think it's important to have mythology in literature; it's good to have stories of heroes and heroines for us to emulate. This doesn't mean we should suddenly worship these characters and claim that they are real.
> 
> Invariably, those extremists who hurl the darkest invectives tend to be the most the most chaotic thinkers. There is definitely a strong link between people who believe fervently in their religions (to the point of wishing harm to any and all who disagree) and an appalling lack of even the most rudimentary levels of education. Having read the Bible cover to cover, I'm not surprised at this interlocking phenomenon-- the Bible advocates ignorance, and religions based on the Bible historically have stood in the way of education and literacy. What better way to convince the populace, if not to keep them illiterate?
> 
> Secondly, your screeching about atheism having many attributes of religion has derailed many times before. I note with amusement that you still sidestep addressing how little atheism and religion have in common. Once again, you cannot address the practices, rituals, customs, traditions and belief system that defines religion and which are absent in the rational conclusion that your polytheistic beliefs are absent substantiation. Atheism has no customs, beliefs or “ideologies”. There is no atheist asserted philosophy. All of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic/religious assertions. Atheism is simply the rejection of the theistic model as undemonstrated, unsupported and bereft substantiation.
> 
> 
> What is truly remarkable is your fascination with Dawkins. I understand that for fundamentalists, he does represent an outspoken voice of contention with belief in the supernatural. And it’s obvious that you feel threatened. You should, BTW, since _Reason_ and _Rationality_ as an epistemological path does not account for the existence of gods, fairies, leprechauns, or the supernatural
> 
> Therefore, the supernaturalist/religionist is immediately placed into a dilemma from which there is no escape by using faith as a method or tool to gain knowledge. Simply put, faith and reason cannot exist side by side; they are mutually exclusive to one another. If something is believed to be true, and there is evidence for its reality, there is no need for faith; it is rationally a reality. But if something requires faith in order for it to be believed, then it is no longer rational, and if it is not rational, then what supports its reliability? Thus the theist is trapped into an impossible dilemma-- he cannot make an appeal to knowledge, since knowledge depends on reason for its existence.
> 
> The first thing we must understand is that faith, in and of itself, is not a pathway to access knowledge. Since the criteria of evidence and proof is not necessary under the constructs of faith (i.e., things are to be believed in _spite_ of proof or evidence), there are no ways to apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance, from the gods of modern society. Each statement of belief carries the same level of validity, i.e., none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I expected, you stupidly insist that Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in separate gods.  There is one God.
> 
> Secondly, if you're going to quote the words of someone else, you should not stoop to plagiarism.
> 
> "...apply a standard to the _claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is_ nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance,...."
> 
> comes from:
> http://bb.islamww.com/index.php?showtopic=3910
> 
> I can imagine that most of your post is nothing but plagiarism.  When you use the work of others, give us a link.
> 
> You are a disingenuous, pathetic little girl.
> 
> BTW, I am not at all fascinated by Dawkins.  I simply find him to be of mediocre intellect and dependent on flawed logic and childish analogies....much like the dummy, Bill Maher.
> 
> 
> 
> Check out Anthony Flew, the world's most notorious (former) Atheist.
Click to expand...

Uh, sorry. There are many gods. Christianity alone has three. 

How strange that you claim not to be fascinated by Dawkins when you reference him so often. It's true that he is the boogeyman that haunts the world of you fundies. He strikes terror to your every waking minute, else, why spend so much time in abject fear of his challenges to your religious beliefs. 

The comments at the link were well written, no? I wrote that years ago. Would you like to provide additional links?


----------



## Tuatara

asaratis said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack  of skepticism.
> 
> Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian
> 
> I agree with Vladimir...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir
> April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
> There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.
> 
> I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.
> 
> Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not one person in this forum is and certainly not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot prove either of those claims.
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want me to narrow it down to I haven't met the person who has no beliefs in gods?  No problem.  I haven't.  Certainly not here.  Any conclusion arrived at in the utter absence of supporting evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone can make a claim about a certain god whether it is Allah, Zeus or the FSM. Is there supporting evidence that counters these beliefs? Of course there is but it still cannot be proven. Someone could claim their god created the universe and earth 400 years ago. The evidence to refute that claim is geology, biology, history, chemistry and thousands of other disciplines. But does it prove the non-existence of that god, the possibility of it? No. But it does disprove the probability of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proving that some claims made by those that believe in God does not prove the non-existence of their God.  It merely proves that they do not completely understand how God works.  They explain the existence and origin of things in terms they can understand.  Most modern day Jews, Christians and some Muslims will agree that the earth is millions of years old.
> 
> You are simply full of yourself.
Click to expand...

Did you actually read what I said. I said anyone can refute a certain claim about a god but it still doesn't disprove the existence of that god and that is *exactly* what you state in your first line. I should also state that this applies to every other god, fairies, and leprachauns. As to understand how god works I've even heard believers state that no one can understand him which would also counter any claim about him. Let's look at this from another perspective. You cannot disprove the existence of the Flying Sphagetti Monster even though you can refute some of the claims made about him. Does that mean you do not completely understand how the Flying Spagetti Monster works? According to your own logic it does. When it come to the FSM, any explanation of it's existence or origin by you will be only in terms we can understand. Did you see what I did just there. I took your exact argument and used it on another "god". I know most modern christians, jews & muslims believe the earth is millions of years old. I used an example of a different "god" to prove a point, but there are many examples in the bible that have been refuted and it is the only source one can use for the validation of this decribed god.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another trusted dictionary definition:
> 
> *disbelief*
> noun   /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/  us
> 
> › the refusal to believe that something is true:
> 
> disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
> 
> These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.
> 
> 
> 
> Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack  of skepticism.
> 
> Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian
> 
> I agree with Vladimir...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir
> April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
> There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.
> 
> I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.
> 
> Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, you're certainly not. You don't even have the personal integrity to actually challenge Dawkin's writings on specific issues. All you have done is fall in with "herd mentality" of your co-religionists who have their personal biases to defend.
Click to expand...

Scott Hahan and Benjamin Wiker do.  Check out their book, _Answering The New Atheism_.

...and speaking of herd mentality, Atheists appear not to be immune from it, despite their claim to be "free thinkers".  All you Atheists are doing is traveling mentally in packs like wolves, or in herds like cows.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person in this forum is and certainly not you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dawkins is widely viewed as a running joke. The fact that you are unaware of that shows why you are unqualified to judge his intelligence against that of anyone else.
Click to expand...

Certainly among the fundie crowd, he's seen as a vocal critic of claims to supernaturalism, also spelled gawds. It's interesting how it it the fundamentalist component of the board who are the ones feeling most threatened by Dawkins.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> (Envision loud laughter!!!!!)....and you Atheist sheep are not parroting one another with herd mentality in defense of your biases?
> 
> 
> 
> What biases? It's been you fundies who have consistently made attempts to equate rejection of your multi-gods as a religion. You have been thoroughly refuted yet you insist on screeching that "atheism is religion" when it has been explained to you that atheism has none of the attributes of religion. In fact, all of atheism is nothing more than a conclusion that your religious claims to magic and supernaturalism are absent affirmative evidence.
> 
> It hasn't gone unnoticed that you and others have hoped to avoid supporting your specious claims to gods, jinn, a Flat Earth and other absurdities of your religious belief with sidestepping and obfuscation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you do not recognize that _belief that God does not exist_ is a bias, driven by your belief that the Atheists with whom you agree are correct, is quite understandable.  We have established that the existence of God cannot be cogently proved or disproved.  That makes those on either side of the "belief fence" biased.
> 
> Fundies have only one God.
> 
> I have not been refuted.
> 
> It has been explained to you that Atheism has many attributes of religion.  You just continue to deny the truth.
> 
> Your conclusion that gods do not exist also lacks affirmative evidence.  It is simply a belief that you hold.
> 
> And...if you still believe Dawkins is a genius, read what Thomas Nagel (another Atheist, but a true philosopher) thinks about the less-than-sophomoric Dawkins....that is if you can refrain from slobbering on your keyboard long enough to actually read a book or two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Concluding that your three gods do not exist requires no bias. The lack of evidence for your gods is precisely the same lack of evidence that plagues all the human conceptions of gods, angels, jinn, etc. That you are unable to present a cogent argument for your gods places you in the same position as all the other pedestrian and baseless claims for gods. While I think it's important to have mythology in literature; it's good to have stories of heroes and heroines for us to emulate. This doesn't mean we should suddenly worship these characters and claim that they are real.
> 
> Invariably, those extremists who hurl the darkest invectives tend to be the most the most chaotic thinkers. There is definitely a strong link between people who believe fervently in their religions (to the point of wishing harm to any and all who disagree) and an appalling lack of even the most rudimentary levels of education. Having read the Bible cover to cover, I'm not surprised at this interlocking phenomenon-- the Bible advocates ignorance, and religions based on the Bible historically have stood in the way of education and literacy. What better way to convince the populace, if not to keep them illiterate?
> 
> Secondly, your screeching about atheism having many attributes of religion has derailed many times before. I note with amusement that you still sidestep addressing how little atheism and religion have in common. Once again, you cannot address the practices, rituals, customs, traditions and belief system that defines religion and which are absent in the rational conclusion that your polytheistic beliefs are absent substantiation. Atheism has no customs, beliefs or “ideologies”. There is no atheist asserted philosophy. All of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic/religious assertions. Atheism is simply the rejection of the theistic model as undemonstrated, unsupported and bereft substantiation.
> 
> 
> What is truly remarkable is your fascination with Dawkins. I understand that for fundamentalists, he does represent an outspoken voice of contention with belief in the supernatural. And it’s obvious that you feel threatened. You should, BTW, since _Reason_ and _Rationality_ as an epistemological path does not account for the existence of gods, fairies, leprechauns, or the supernatural
> 
> Therefore, the supernaturalist/religionist is immediately placed into a dilemma from which there is no escape by using faith as a method or tool to gain knowledge. Simply put, faith and reason cannot exist side by side; they are mutually exclusive to one another. If something is believed to be true, and there is evidence for its reality, there is no need for faith; it is rationally a reality. But if something requires faith in order for it to be believed, then it is no longer rational, and if it is not rational, then what supports its reliability? Thus the theist is trapped into an impossible dilemma-- he cannot make an appeal to knowledge, since knowledge depends on reason for its existence.
> 
> The first thing we must understand is that faith, in and of itself, is not a pathway to access knowledge. Since the criteria of evidence and proof is not necessary under the constructs of faith (i.e., things are to be believed in _spite_ of proof or evidence), there are no ways to apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance, from the gods of modern society. Each statement of belief carries the same level of validity, i.e., none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I expected, you stupidly insist that Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in separate gods.  There is one God.
> 
> Secondly, if you're going to quote the words of someone else, you should not stoop to plagiarism.
> 
> "...apply a standard to the _claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is_ nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance,...."
> 
> comes from:
> http://bb.islamww.com/index.php?showtopic=3910
> 
> I can imagine that most of your post is nothing but plagiarism.  When you use the work of others, give us a link.
> 
> You are a disingenuous, pathetic little girl.
> 
> BTW, I am not at all fascinated by Dawkins.  I simply find him to be of mediocre intellect and dependent on flawed logic and childish analogies....much like the dummy, Bill Maher.
> 
> 
> 
> Check out Anthony Flew, the world's most notorious (former) Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, sorry. There are many gods. Christianity alone has three.
> 
> How strange that you claim not to be fascinated by Dawkins when you reference him so often. It's true that he is the boogeyman that haunts the world of you fundies. He strikes terror to your every waking minute, else, why spend so much time in abject fear of his challenges to your religious beliefs.
> 
> The comments at the link were well written, no? I wrote that years ago. Would you like to provide additional links?
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> (Envision loud laughter!!!!!)....and you Atheist sheep are not parroting one another with herd mentality in defense of your biases?
> 
> 
> 
> What biases? It's been you fundies who have consistently made attempts to equate rejection of your multi-gods as a religion. You have been thoroughly refuted yet you insist on screeching that "atheism is religion" when it has been explained to you that atheism has none of the attributes of religion. In fact, all of atheism is nothing more than a conclusion that your religious claims to magic and supernaturalism are absent affirmative evidence.
> 
> It hasn't gone unnoticed that you and others have hoped to avoid supporting your specious claims to gods, jinn, a Flat Earth and other absurdities of your religious belief with sidestepping and obfuscation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you do not recognize that _belief that God does not exist_ is a bias, driven by your belief that the Atheists with whom you agree are correct, is quite understandable.  We have established that the existence of God cannot be cogently proved or disproved.  That makes those on either side of the "belief fence" biased.
> 
> Fundies have only one God.
> 
> I have not been refuted.
> 
> It has been explained to you that Atheism has many attributes of religion.  You just continue to deny the truth.
> 
> Your conclusion that gods do not exist also lacks affirmative evidence.  It is simply a belief that you hold.
> 
> And...if you still believe Dawkins is a genius, read what Thomas Nagel (another Atheist, but a true philosopher) thinks about the less-than-sophomoric Dawkins....that is if you can refrain from slobbering on your keyboard long enough to actually read a book or two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Concluding that your three gods do not exist requires no bias. The lack of evidence for your gods is precisely the same lack of evidence that plagues all the human conceptions of gods, angels, jinn, etc. That you are unable to present a cogent argument for your gods places you in the same position as all the other pedestrian and baseless claims for gods. While I think it's important to have mythology in literature; it's good to have stories of heroes and heroines for us to emulate. This doesn't mean we should suddenly worship these characters and claim that they are real.
> 
> Invariably, those extremists who hurl the darkest invectives tend to be the most the most chaotic thinkers. There is definitely a strong link between people who believe fervently in their religions (to the point of wishing harm to any and all who disagree) and an appalling lack of even the most rudimentary levels of education. Having read the Bible cover to cover, I'm not surprised at this interlocking phenomenon-- the Bible advocates ignorance, and religions based on the Bible historically have stood in the way of education and literacy. What better way to convince the populace, if not to keep them illiterate?
> 
> Secondly, your screeching about atheism having many attributes of religion has derailed many times before. I note with amusement that you still sidestep addressing how little atheism and religion have in common. Once again, you cannot address the practices, rituals, customs, traditions and belief system that defines religion and which are absent in the rational conclusion that your polytheistic beliefs are absent substantiation. Atheism has no customs, beliefs or “ideologies”. There is no atheist asserted philosophy. All of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic/religious assertions. Atheism is simply the rejection of the theistic model as undemonstrated, unsupported and bereft substantiation.
> 
> 
> What is truly remarkable is your fascination with Dawkins. I understand that for fundamentalists, he does represent an outspoken voice of contention with belief in the supernatural. And it’s obvious that you feel threatened. You should, BTW, since _Reason_ and _Rationality_ as an epistemological path does not account for the existence of gods, fairies, leprechauns, or the supernatural
> 
> Therefore, the supernaturalist/religionist is immediately placed into a dilemma from which there is no escape by using faith as a method or tool to gain knowledge. Simply put, faith and reason cannot exist side by side; they are mutually exclusive to one another. If something is believed to be true, and there is evidence for its reality, there is no need for faith; it is rationally a reality. But if something requires faith in order for it to be believed, then it is no longer rational, and if it is not rational, then what supports its reliability? Thus the theist is trapped into an impossible dilemma-- he cannot make an appeal to knowledge, since knowledge depends on reason for its existence.
> 
> The first thing we must understand is that faith, in and of itself, is not a pathway to access knowledge. Since the criteria of evidence and proof is not necessary under the constructs of faith (i.e., things are to be believed in _spite_ of proof or evidence), there are no ways to apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance, from the gods of modern society. Each statement of belief carries the same level of validity, i.e., none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I expected, you stupidly insist that Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in separate gods.  There is one God.
> 
> Secondly, if you're going to quote the words of someone else, you should not stoop to plagiarism.
> 
> "...apply a standard to the _claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is_ nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance,...."
> 
> comes from:
> http://bb.islamww.com/index.php?showtopic=3910
> 
> I can imagine that most of your post is nothing but plagiarism.  When you use the work of others, give us a link.
> 
> You are a disingenuous, pathetic little girl.
> 
> BTW, I am not at all fascinated by Dawkins.  I simply find him to be of mediocre intellect and dependent on flawed logic and childish analogies....much like the dummy, Bill Maher.
> 
> 
> 
> Check out Anthony Flew, the world's most notorious (former) Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, sorry. There are many gods. Christianity alone has three.
> 
> How strange that you claim not to be fascinated by Dawkins when you reference him so often. It's true that he is the boogeyman that haunts the world of you fundies. He strikes terror to your every waking minute, else, why spend so much time in abject fear of his challenges to your religious beliefs.
> 
> The comments at the link were well written, no? I wrote that years ago. Would you like to provide additional links?
Click to expand...

Wrong again.  Christians believe in a three-part God..the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.  Jews believed in the same God in slightly different form.  Muslims believe in the same God in slightly different form.  Still all believe in the same God that created all that we see.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Here is something Dawkins said that Hollie disagrees with......


> Yet scientists are required to back up their claims not with private feelings but with publicly checkable evidence. Their experiments must have rigorous controls to eliminate spurious effects. And statistical analysis eliminates the suspicion (or at least measures the likelihood) that the apparent effect might have happened by chance alone.


Hollie believes that we should all believe that humans evolved from single celled organisms despite the fact there is no publically checkable evidence, no experiments with rigorous controls or statistical analysis that eliminates the suspicion that the apparent effect may have happened by chance alone.....in fact she insists it happened by chance alone.....oddly and contradictorily, so does Dawkins......


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person in this forum is and certainly not you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dawkins is widely viewed as a running joke. The fact that you are unaware of that shows why you are unqualified to judge his intelligence against that of anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly among the fundie crowd, he's seen as a vocal critic of claims to supernaturalism, also spelled gawds. It's interesting how it it the fundamentalist component of the board who are the ones feeling most threatened by Dawkins.
Click to expand...

Threatened, my ass!  I laugh at the silly bastard daily.  He is a pseudo-intellectual, acrimonious twit.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Atheism is like Islam, there's a radical Fundamentalist part that is out to convert the entire world to their insane beliefs


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack  of skepticism.
> 
> Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian
> 
> I agree with Vladimir...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir
> April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
> There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.
> 
> I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.
> 
> Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, you're certainly not. You don't even have the personal integrity to actually challenge Dawkin's writings on specific issues. All you have done is fall in with "herd mentality" of your co-religionists who have their personal biases to defend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scott Hahan and Benjamin Wiker do.  Check out their book, _Answering The New Atheism_.
> 
> ...and speaking of herd mentality, Atheists appear not to be immune from it, despite their claim to be "free thinkers".  All you Atheists are doing is traveling mentally in packs like wolves, or in herds like cows.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you've been herded by "Listen America" by Jerry Falwell. 

You don't need to harbor such anger and frustration at those who reject your gods. While you Falwell groupies are little more than a laughable joke among even the Pat Robertson crowd, you're free to believe as you wish. What you can't do, however, is press your religious agenda where it doesn't belong.

Would the gods of your religion approve of your behavior?


----------



## Tuatara

percysunshine said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want me to narrow it down to I haven't met the person who has no beliefs in gods?  No problem.  I haven't.  Certainly not here.  Any conclusion arrived at in the utter absence of supporting evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can make a claim about a certain god whether it is Allah, Zeus or the FSM. Is there supporting evidence that counters these beliefs? Of course there is but it still cannot be proven. Someone could claim their god created the universe and earth 400 years ago. The evidence to refute that claim is geology, biology, history, chemistry and thousands of other disciplines. But does it prove the non-existence of that god, the possibility of it? No. But it does disprove the probability of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The epistemology of science limits science to the description and theory of the observable natural universe. Any possibility and probability calculations of science pertaining to the existence of any super-natural beings are irrelevant, by the definition of the word 'science'.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Well if any of these claims are not observable then how could anyone make claims about the validity of them in the first place. Unless they were told as a child that this was how it is and don't let anyone else tell you different. Also by your own definition you would have to accept every single supernatural phenomenom ever described.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Tuatara said:


> Also by your own definition you would have to accept every single supernatural phenomenom ever described.


why?......are you incapable of making choices about what you believe?......


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> Certainly among the fundie crowd, he's seen as a vocal critic of claims to supernaturalism, also spelled gawds. It's interesting how it it the fundamentalist component of the board who are the ones feeling most threatened by Dawkins.



I am actually talking about what atheists who are not idiots think about him.

Dawkins criticized again for arrogance and evangelical militancy Why Evolution Is True


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person in this forum is and certainly not you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dawkins is widely viewed as a running joke*. The fact that you are unaware of that shows why you are unqualified to judge his intelligence against that of anyone else.
Click to expand...

Only by those who believe in talking snakes, a 6000 year old earth and a worldwide flood.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also by your own definition you would have to accept every single supernatural phenomenom ever described.
> 
> 
> 
> why?......are you incapable of making choices about what you believe?......
Click to expand...

Interesting comment in terms of religious belief. It is almost exclusively a function of geography and familial circumstances. You christian fundies, had you been born in the Islamist Middle East, would be the suicide bombers and head choppers of ISIS. There is a certain personality type that is susceptible to mind control techniques that religions employ.


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember years ago watching this documentary on people who actually believed in fairies. These people have a belief in the existence of fairies. Most of us I'm sure do not believe in the existence of fairies. That is not a belief. It is really that simple.
> 
> I'm sure some other members here like asaratis, Pratchettfan and Quantum would assert that we have beliefs that fairies don't exist. They are simply inverting the definition by applying it to the negative.
> 
> eg. You believe such & such does *not* exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not afraid to proclaim that I believe fairies do not exist, why are you afraid to admit to your beliefs?
Click to expand...

Try this. When you state you believe in something do not use the words no, non or not.

Example, instead of saying I believe pigs do not fly, say I do not believe pigs can fly.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly among the fundie crowd, he's seen as a vocal critic of claims to supernaturalism, also spelled gawds. It's interesting how it it the fundamentalist component of the board who are the ones feeling most threatened by Dawkins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am actually talking about what atheists who are not idiots think about him.
> 
> Dawkins criticized again for arrogance and evangelical militancy Why Evolution Is True
Click to expand...

I have to think that evolution, which contradicts core elements of the bibles, makes it important for you folks to vilify Dawkins. 

If you converted to the religion of Muhammad, you could _do an Islam_ and go on your own personal jihad.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> Only by those who believe in talking snakes, a 6000 year old earth and a worldwide flood.



I can prove you wrong without even trying.

Richard Dawkins has lost meet the new new atheists The Spectator

But I am pretty sure facts won't affect your opinion.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also by your own definition you would have to accept every single supernatural phenomenom ever described.
> 
> 
> 
> why?......are you incapable of making choices about what you believe?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting comment in terms of religious belief. It is almost exclusively a function of geography and familial circumstances. You christian fundies, had you been born in the Islamist Middle East, would be the suicide bombers and head choppers of ISIS. There is a certain personality type that is susceptible to mind control techniques that religions employ.
Click to expand...

/shrugs.....and if you have been born in the ME you would already be dead.....be that as it may, we have examples in the form of frequent posters who have made choices, either for or against, the religion of their family......this merely proves that what you post is not true......we have to take it for granted that the things you post that we can't disprove are likewise untrue......


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> Try this. When you state you believe in something do not use the words no, non or not.
> 
> Example, instead of saying I believe pigs do not fly, say I do not believe pigs can fly.



Why the fuck would I say that? I know for a fact that pigs do not fly, there is no reason for me to pretend that I need room on that issue.

Maybe you should try not being afraid.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly among the fundie crowd, he's seen as a vocal critic of claims to supernaturalism, also spelled gawds. It's interesting how it it the fundamentalist component of the board who are the ones feeling most threatened by Dawkins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am actually talking about what atheists who are not idiots think about him.
> 
> Dawkins criticized again for arrogance and evangelical militancy Why Evolution Is True
Click to expand...

You are actually talking about those _evilutionist atheists_ and their blasphemous ideas of heliocentrism, an ancient universe and that gawd-awful Ark which you cannot produce.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Tuatara said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person in this forum is and certainly not you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dawkins is widely viewed as a running joke*. The fact that you are unaware of that shows why you are unqualified to judge his intelligence against that of anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only by those who believe in talking snakes, a 6000 year old earth and a worldwide flood.
Click to expand...


There's actual evidence for a worldwide flood


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> I have to think that evolution, which contradicts core elements of the bibles, makes it important for you folks to vilify Dawkins.
> 
> If you converted to the religion of Muhammad, you could _do an Islam_ and go on your own personal jihad.



There you go arguing with the voices in your head again.

I know evolution is real, therefore I have no need to vilify Dawkins for believing in it also. 

Want to try again?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> You are actually talking about those _evilutionist atheists_ and their blasphemous ideas of heliocentrism, an ancient universe and that gawd-awful Ark which you cannot produce.



Those voices are getting bad, seek help.


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly among the fundie crowd, he's seen as a vocal critic of claims to supernaturalism, also spelled gawds. It's interesting how it it the fundamentalist component of the board who are the ones feeling most threatened by Dawkins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am actually talking about what atheists who are not idiots think about him.
> 
> Dawkins criticized again for arrogance and evangelical militancy Why Evolution Is True
Click to expand...

From your own *Catholic* source

"
Meanwhile, Moore’s _Torygraph_ review,  “How dare God disagree with Richard Dawkins?” is mostly about Dawkins’s “self-centerdness.” That’s an odd way to criticize an autobiography, especially since, if you’ve read it, you’ll find _An Appetite for Wonder_ no more solipsistic than any other autobiography (less, in fact, since it dwells considerably on science):

Unlike [John Henry]Newman, however, [Dawkins] quickly discarded the idea of God. Which left only one absolute and luminously self-evident being – Richard Dawkins.

. . . Dawkins has a generous self-centredness. Everything associated with him is blessed – his parents for giving birth to him, Ali, the ”loyal’’ family servant in colonial Africa, and Balliol College, Oxford, which had the good fortune to admit several generations of Dawkins men. When he admires others, one is made to feel how lucky they are.

All I can say to this is, “read the damn book.”  I didn’t get that impression at all.  The nastiness that pervades this piece extends even to my beloved fruit flies:

At one point, when describing his researches on the self-grooming behaviour of flies, Dawkins writes: ”Flies are not normally seen as beautiful, but the way they wash their faces and their feet is rather dear.’’ There is something rather dear about the self-grooming behaviour of Richard Dawkins, too.

That’s simply a gratuitous slur. In fact, I found the passage about flies endearing, and I’ve often admired their grooming behavior, which is thorough and, yes, a bit like our own.  Why drag in another insult?

Finally comes the inevitable accusation that “Dawkins acts like a religious evangelical.” And again, there’s no sense of irony that these people are implicitly criticizing _religion_ at the same time. But you won’t see them arguing, say, that Pope is “acting like Richard Dawkins.” That’s because it’s _okay_ for the faithful to “know that they’re right.”


Doesn't look like a criticism.​


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also by your own definition you would have to accept every single supernatural phenomenom ever described.
> 
> 
> 
> why?......are you incapable of making choices about what you believe?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting comment in terms of religious belief. It is almost exclusively a function of geography and familial circumstances. You christian fundies, had you been born in the Islamist Middle East, would be the suicide bombers and head choppers of ISIS. There is a certain personality type that is susceptible to mind control techniques that religions employ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /shrugs.....and if you have been born in the ME you would already be dead.....be that as it may, we have examples in the form of frequent posters who have made choices, either for or against, the religion of their family......this merely proves that what you post is not true......we have to take it for granted that the things you post that we can't disprove are likewise untrue......
Click to expand...

/shrugs.... how lucky I am that in the Infidel West, I'm protected from people like you. 

This merely proves that you are a danger to yourselves and others. Society as a whole is protected by keeping you lovely cultists on a short choke collar.


----------



## Tuatara

CrusaderFrank said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person in this forum is and certainly not you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dawkins is widely viewed as a running joke*. The fact that you are unaware of that shows why you are unqualified to judge his intelligence against that of anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only by those who believe in talking snakes, a 6000 year old earth and a worldwide flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's actual evidence for a worldwide flood
Click to expand...

Move along. Adults are talking here.


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try this. When you state you believe in something do not use the words no, non or not.
> 
> Example, instead of saying I believe pigs do not fly, say I do not believe pigs can fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the fuck would I say that? I know for a fact that pigs do not fly, there is no reason for me to pretend that I need room on that issue.
> 
> Maybe you should try not being afraid.
Click to expand...

Did everyone read that? Please everyone read what he just wrote to my response.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are actually talking about those _evilutionist atheists_ and their blasphemous ideas of heliocentrism, an ancient universe and that gawd-awful Ark which you cannot produce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those voices are getting bad, seek help.
Click to expand...

You're the one who hears, sees Dawkins with every step you take.

It only takes the uttering of a mere slogan to join the Islam. Those Islamists know how to get the job done when it comes to silencing critics. Since the Inquisition, you Christians have lost your edge.


----------



## percysunshine

Tuatara said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want me to narrow it down to I haven't met the person who has no beliefs in gods?  No problem.  I haven't.  Certainly not here.  Any conclusion arrived at in the utter absence of supporting evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can make a claim about a certain god whether it is Allah, Zeus or the FSM. Is there supporting evidence that counters these beliefs? Of course there is but it still cannot be proven. Someone could claim their god created the universe and earth 400 years ago. The evidence to refute that claim is geology, biology, history, chemistry and thousands of other disciplines. But does it prove the non-existence of that god, the possibility of it? No. But it does disprove the probability of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The epistemology of science limits science to the description and theory of the observable natural universe. Any possibility and probability calculations of science pertaining to the existence of any super-natural beings are irrelevant, by the definition of the word 'science'.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if any of these claims are not observable then how could anyone make claims about the validity of them in the first place. Unless they were told as a child that this was how it is and don't let anyone else tell you different. Also by your own definition you would have to accept every single supernatural phenomenom ever described.
Click to expand...


People can claim anything they wish to claim. Science and religion are two separate epistemologies which are internally consistent. None of this bothers me one bit. I certainly do not, as a scientist, feel a need to accept  every single supernatural phenomenon ever described. Nor do I feel a need to deny every single supernatural phenomenon ever described.

Also, I did not come up with the definitions. The definitions predate me.

.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try this. When you state you believe in something do not use the words no, non or not.
> 
> Example, instead of saying I believe pigs do not fly, say I do not believe pigs can fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the fuck would I say that? I know for a fact that pigs do not fly, there is no reason for me to pretend that I need room on that issue.
> 
> Maybe you should try not being afraid.
Click to expand...




Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to think that evolution, which contradicts core elements of the bibles, makes it important for you folks to vilify Dawkins.
> 
> If you converted to the religion of Muhammad, you could _do an Islam_ and go on your own personal jihad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go arguing with the voices in your head again.
> 
> I know evolution is real, therefore I have no need to vilify Dawkins for believing in it also.
> 
> Want to try again?
Click to expand...

Just be honest. It's ok for you to vilify Dawkins. As much as he is a vocal opponent of religious fear and superstition, he's also a proponent of the many science disciplines that support _evilution_. How fortunate for you, you can expand your horizons of hate.


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person in this forum is and certainly not you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dawkins is widely viewed as a running joke*. The fact that you are unaware of that shows why you are unqualified to judge his intelligence against that of anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only by those who believe in talking snakes, a 6000 year old earth and a worldwide flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's actual evidence for a worldwide flood
Click to expand...

No. There is not.

Problems with a Global Flood 2nd edition


But if it's flood tales you want, everybody has one.

Flood Stories from Around the World


----------



## PratchettFan

Tuatara said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want me to narrow it down to I haven't met the person who has no beliefs in gods?  No problem.  I haven't.  Certainly not here.  Any conclusion arrived at in the utter absence of supporting evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can make a claim about a certain god whether it is Allah, Zeus or the FSM. Is there supporting evidence that counters these beliefs? Of course there is but it still cannot be proven. Someone could claim their god created the universe and earth 400 years ago. The evidence to refute that claim is geology, biology, history, chemistry and thousands of other disciplines. But does it prove the non-existence of that god, the possibility of it? No. But it does disprove the probability of it.
Click to expand...


I am not talking of proof, only of evidence which would support a position.  We can, if you like, start laying out every specific deity man has ever conceptualized, but it would take quite a bit of time. But you mentioned one and I am willing to go with it.  What evidence can you present which counters the belief in Allah?


----------



## PratchettFan

percysunshine said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want me to narrow it down to I haven't met the person who has no beliefs in gods?  No problem.  I haven't.  Certainly not here.  Any conclusion arrived at in the utter absence of supporting evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can make a claim about a certain god whether it is Allah, Zeus or the FSM. Is there supporting evidence that counters these beliefs? Of course there is but it still cannot be proven. Someone could claim their god created the universe and earth 400 years ago. The evidence to refute that claim is geology, biology, history, chemistry and thousands of other disciplines. But does it prove the non-existence of that god, the possibility of it? No. But it does disprove the probability of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The epistemology of science limits science to the description and theory of the observable natural universe. Any possibility and probability calculations of science pertaining to the existence of any super-natural beings are irrelevant, by the definition of the word 'science'.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Agreed.  I'm not sure how it is relevant to this discussion though.


----------



## PratchettFan

Tuatara said:


> I remember years ago watching this documentary on people who actually believed in fairies. These people have a belief in the existence of fairies. Most of us I'm sure do not believe in the existence of fairies. That is not a belief. It is really that simple.
> 
> I'm sure some other members here like asaratis, Pratchettfan and Quantum would assert that we have beliefs that fairies don't exist. They are simply inverting the definition by applying it to the negative.
> 
> eg. You believe such & such does *not* exist.



A non sequitur, but yes - if your position is based upon nothing but your assertion it be so then it is a belief.  What else could it be?


----------



## asaratis

Tuatara said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person in this forum is and certainly not you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dawkins is widely viewed as a running joke*. The fact that you are unaware of that shows why you are unqualified to judge his intelligence against that of anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only by those who believe in talking snakes, a 6000 year old earth and a worldwide flood.
Click to expand...

Quite not so.  He's ridiculed by several if not many intelligent Atheists.  Read more...type less...enlighten yourself.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack  of skepticism.
> 
> Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian
> 
> I agree with Vladimir...
> 
> 
> 
> What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, you're certainly not. You don't even have the personal integrity to actually challenge Dawkin's writings on specific issues. All you have done is fall in with "herd mentality" of your co-religionists who have their personal biases to defend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scott Hahan and Benjamin Wiker do.  Check out their book, _Answering The New Atheism_.
> 
> ...and speaking of herd mentality, Atheists appear not to be immune from it, despite their claim to be "free thinkers".  All you Atheists are doing is traveling mentally in packs like wolves, or in herds like cows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, you've been herded by "Listen America" by Jerry Falwell.
> 
> You don't need to harbor such anger and frustration at those who reject your gods. While you Falwell groupies are little more than a laughable joke among even the Pat Robertson crowd, you're free to believe as you wish. What you can't do, however, is press your religious agenda where it doesn't belong.
> 
> Would the gods of your religion approve of your behavior?
Click to expand...

I don't listen to either one of them.

..and you still delude yourself in thinking I'm angry in the least.   Amused, to say the least, but angry? Not a bit.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, you're certainly not. You don't even have the personal integrity to actually challenge Dawkin's writings on specific issues. All you have done is fall in with "herd mentality" of your co-religionists who have their personal biases to defend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scott Hahan and Benjamin Wiker do.  Check out their book, _Answering The New Atheism_.
> 
> ...and speaking of herd mentality, Atheists appear not to be immune from it, despite their claim to be "free thinkers".  All you Atheists are doing is traveling mentally in packs like wolves, or in herds like cows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, you've been herded by "Listen America" by Jerry Falwell.
> 
> You don't need to harbor such anger and frustration at those who reject your gods. While you Falwell groupies are little more than a laughable joke among even the Pat Robertson crowd, you're free to believe as you wish. What you can't do, however, is press your religious agenda where it doesn't belong.
> 
> Would the gods of your religion approve of your behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't listen to either one of them.
> 
> ..and you still delude yourself in thinking I'm angry in the least.   Amused, to say the least, but angry? Not a bit.
Click to expand...


Not angry?

That's odd as your posts are little more than slathering diatribes putting a world of hate (and a bizarre fascination), with Dawkins or anyone else who challenges you specious claims to gods, magic and supernaturalism.

Wallowing in self pity will not help your condition.. Try some introspection and that will help you understand why your cycle of hate causes you such angst.

You're under no requirement to maintain yourself as a slave to ignorance and retrogression.


----------



## Montrovant

Quantum Windbag said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you weren't ignoring the posts I've been responding to, you would have seen that it was not me who brought up -ism meaning a doctrine.  It was PratchettFan.  I responded to that.  You then inserted yourself into the conversation as though I were the one who started that.  I don't know if you didn't bother to read all the quoted text or what.
> 
> Feel free to look at post #1473.
> 
> PostmodernProf's adoctrinists response also seemed to ignore the fact that I was responding to PratchettFan's post in which an -ism is defined as a doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't ignoring anything, I was pointing out that your interpretation of the word atheism as a lack of doctrine is stupid. I am not the only one that pointed it out, but since you seem to be able to ignore posts that contradict your lack of understanding of English, you cannot apply a prefix to a suffix and totally ignore the root word that they both apply to. If we apply the doctrine definition to ism the way you attempted to we would see that atheism is the doctrine that there is no god, not that there are no doctrines.
> 
> Want to tell me how smart you are again? Or point out that I am ignoring a post you responded to when I am not?
Click to expand...




Quantum Windbag said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you weren't ignoring the posts I've been responding to, you would have seen that it was not me who brought up -ism meaning a doctrine.  It was PratchettFan.  I responded to that.  You then inserted yourself into the conversation as though I were the one who started that.  I don't know if you didn't bother to read all the quoted text or what.
> 
> Feel free to look at post #1473.
> 
> PostmodernProf's adoctrinists response also seemed to ignore the fact that I was responding to PratchettFan's post in which an -ism is defined as a doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't ignoring anything, I was pointing out that your interpretation of the word atheism as a lack of doctrine is stupid. I am not the only one that pointed it out, but since you seem to be able to ignore posts that contradict your lack of understanding of English, you cannot apply a prefix to a suffix and totally ignore the root word that they both apply to. If we apply the doctrine definition to ism the way you attempted to we would see that atheism is the doctrine that there is no god, not that there are no doctrines.
> 
> Want to tell me how smart you are again? Or point out that I am ignoring a post you responded to when I am not?
Click to expand...


I'll point out that you seem to be unable to understand the difference between saying that if theism is a doctrine, atheism would be without *that* doctrine, and saying atheism is without all doctrine.  In other words, I said that atheism is being without the doctrine of theism.

Want to point out how something I did not say is stupid again?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> From your own *Catholic* source
> 
> "
> Meanwhile, Moore’s _Torygraph_ review,  “How dare God disagree with Richard Dawkins?” is mostly about Dawkins’s “self-centerdness.” That’s an odd way to criticize an autobiography, especially since, if you’ve read it, you’ll find _An Appetite for Wonder_ no more solipsistic than any other autobiography (less, in fact, since it dwells considerably on science):
> 
> Unlike [John Henry]Newman, however, [Dawkins] quickly discarded the idea of God. Which left only one absolute and luminously self-evident being – Richard Dawkins.
> 
> . . . Dawkins has a generous self-centredness. Everything associated with him is blessed – his parents for giving birth to him, Ali, the ”loyal’’ family servant in colonial Africa, and Balliol College, Oxford, which had the good fortune to admit several generations of Dawkins men. When he admires others, one is made to feel how lucky they are.
> 
> All I can say to this is, “read the damn book.”  I didn’t get that impression at all.  The nastiness that pervades this piece extends even to my beloved fruit flies:
> 
> At one point, when describing his researches on the self-grooming behaviour of flies, Dawkins writes: ”Flies are not normally seen as beautiful, but the way they wash their faces and their feet is rather dear.’’ There is something rather dear about the self-grooming behaviour of Richard Dawkins, too.
> 
> That’s simply a gratuitous slur. In fact, I found the passage about flies endearing, and I’ve often admired their grooming behavior, which is thorough and, yes, a bit like our own.  Why drag in another insult?
> 
> Finally comes the inevitable accusation that “Dawkins acts like a religious evangelical.” And again, there’s no sense of irony that these people are implicitly criticizing _religion_ at the same time. But you won’t see them arguing, say, that Pope is “acting like Richard Dawkins.” That’s because it’s _okay_ for the faithful to “know that they’re right.”
> 
> 
> Doesn't look like a criticism.​



What does a criticism look like to you?


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you're certainly not. You don't even have the personal integrity to actually challenge Dawkin's writings on specific issues. All you have done is fall in with "herd mentality" of your co-religionists who have their personal biases to defend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scott Hahan and Benjamin Wiker do.  Check out their book, _Answering The New Atheism_.
> 
> ...and speaking of herd mentality, Atheists appear not to be immune from it, despite their claim to be "free thinkers".  All you Atheists are doing is traveling mentally in packs like wolves, or in herds like cows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, you've been herded by "Listen America" by Jerry Falwell.
> 
> You don't need to harbor such anger and frustration at those who reject your gods. While you Falwell groupies are little more than a laughable joke among even the Pat Robertson crowd, you're free to believe as you wish. What you can't do, however, is press your religious agenda where it doesn't belong.
> 
> Would the gods of your religion approve of your behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't listen to either one of them.
> 
> ..and you still delude yourself in thinking I'm angry in the least.   Amused, to say the least, but angry? Not a bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not angry?
> 
> That's odd as your posts are little more than slathering diatribes putting a world of hate (and a bizarre fascination), with Dawkins or anyone else who challenges you specious claims to gods, magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Wallowing in self pity will not help your condition.. Try some introspection and that will help you understand why your cycle of hate causes you such angst.
> 
> You're under no requirement to maintain yourself as a slave to ignorance and retrogression.
Click to expand...

Neither your opinion nor your evaluation of my general attitude affect me at all.  I have dealt with many a persistent twit as you appear to be...and have not felt the least bit of guilt or anger by it.  I expect you to repeat yourself incessantly as you seem to think it disturbs me...and you erroneously hold to the mistaken belief held by thousands of other idiots...that the last post wins!   Have at it, little girl...and don't forget to wash behind your ears.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> Did everyone read that? Please everyone read what he just wrote to my response.



I called you a fucking coward who is afraid to say he believes anything.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> You're the one who hears, sees Dawkins with every step you take.
> 
> It only takes the uttering of a mere slogan to join the Islam. Those Islamists know how to get the job done when it comes to silencing critics. Since the Inquisition, you Christians have lost your edge.



Do you see people?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> Just be honest. It's ok for you to vilify Dawkins. As much as he is a vocal opponent of religious fear and superstition, he's also a proponent of the many science disciplines that support _evilution_. How fortunate for you, you can expand your horizons of hate.



Dawkins vilifies himself, I see no need to assist him.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Montrovant said:


> I'll point out that you seem to be unable to understand the difference between saying that if theism is a doctrine, atheism would be without *that* doctrine, and saying atheism is without all doctrine.  In other words, I said that atheism is being without the doctrine of theism.
> 
> Want to point out how something I did not say is stupid again?



Except that is not what you said, is it?


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you're certainly not. You don't even have the personal integrity to actually challenge Dawkin's writings on specific issues. All you have done is fall in with "herd mentality" of your co-religionists who have their personal biases to defend.
> 
> 
> 
> Scott Hahan and Benjamin Wiker do.  Check out their book, _Answering The New Atheism_.
> 
> ...and speaking of herd mentality, Atheists appear not to be immune from it, despite their claim to be "free thinkers".  All you Atheists are doing is traveling mentally in packs like wolves, or in herds like cows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, you've been herded by "Listen America" by Jerry Falwell.
> 
> You don't need to harbor such anger and frustration at those who reject your gods. While you Falwell groupies are little more than a laughable joke among even the Pat Robertson crowd, you're free to believe as you wish. What you can't do, however, is press your religious agenda where it doesn't belong.
> 
> Would the gods of your religion approve of your behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't listen to either one of them.
> 
> ..and you still delude yourself in thinking I'm angry in the least.   Amused, to say the least, but angry? Not a bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not angry?
> 
> That's odd as your posts are little more than slathering diatribes putting a world of hate (and a bizarre fascination), with Dawkins or anyone else who challenges you specious claims to gods, magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Wallowing in self pity will not help your condition.. Try some introspection and that will help you understand why your cycle of hate causes you such angst.
> 
> You're under no requirement to maintain yourself as a slave to ignorance and retrogression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither your opinion nor your evaluation of my general attitude affect me at all.  I have dealt with many a persistent twit as you appear to be...and have not felt the least bit of guilt or anger by it.  I expect you to repeat yourself incessantly as you seem to think it disturbs me...and you erroneously hold to the mistaken belief held by thousands of other idiots...that the last post wins!   Have at it, little girl...and don't forget to wash behind your ears.
Click to expand...

Not angry? Here you are as usual, unable to defend your specious claims so you're left to childish name-calling.

You're not just angry, you're frantic.


----------



## dblack

PratchettFan said:


> I originally suggested three attributes of religion and no one ever argued they were wrong or more were needed.  These are them:
> 
> A group to which members identify themselves.  "I am an Atheist along with my fellow Atheists"



Then the idea that atheism is a religion fails on your first criteria. 'Atheists' doesn't describe a cohesive group, any more than 'pessimists' does. It just identifies people who share a single trait.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just be honest. It's ok for you to vilify Dawkins. As much as he is a vocal opponent of religious fear and superstition, he's also a proponent of the many science disciplines that support _evilution_. How fortunate for you, you can expand your horizons of hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dawkins vilifies himself, I see no need to assist him.
Click to expand...

Not at all. His basic premise is that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. For you fundies, It’s a matter of disliking the individual because he is an outspoken and vocal critic of religious belief. What you fundies object to is being held to a consistent standard. Within the natural, rational world, there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of gods as supernatural agents. It's actually comical to see you fundies vilify science and its processes of discovery.  You will want to hold science to a standard of demonstration while at the same time, requiring "belief" alone is the only standard for your claims to magic. From the fundie side, we're left with claims of the supernatural - for which there are none – as qualifying for consideration in the natural, rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us why your religious beliefs are held to a standard that is different from the one placed on science.


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack  of skepticism.
> 
> Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian
> 
> I agree with Vladimir...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir
> April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
> There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.
> 
> I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.
> 
> Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not one person in this forum is and certainly not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot prove either of those claims.
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want me to narrow it down to I haven't met the person who has no beliefs in gods?  No problem.  I haven't.  Certainly not here.  Any conclusion arrived at in the utter absence of supporting evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone can make a claim about a certain god whether it is Allah, Zeus or the FSM. Is there supporting evidence that counters these beliefs? Of course there is but it still cannot be proven. Someone could claim their god created the universe and earth 400 years ago. The evidence to refute that claim is geology, biology, history, chemistry and thousands of other disciplines. But does it prove the non-existence of that god, the possibility of it? No. But it does disprove the probability of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proving that some claims made by those that believe in God does not prove the non-existence of their God.  It merely proves that they do not completely understand how God works.  They explain the existence and origin of things in terms they can understand.  Most modern day Jews, Christians and some Muslims will agree that the earth is millions of years old.
Click to expand...


I actually agree with you here. And this is why I say that I'm not, technically, an atheist, even though I'm a naturalist and reject the idea of magic and the supernatural. It's obvious that gods exist. The only question is: what is their true nature? Are they physical entities who occupy a yet undiscovered dimension? Are they memes? Commonly held metaphors? Are they distributed 'minds', living in the networked brains of believers?


----------



## Montrovant

Quantum Windbag said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll point out that you seem to be unable to understand the difference between saying that if theism is a doctrine, atheism would be without *that* doctrine, and saying atheism is without all doctrine.  In other words, I said that atheism is being without the doctrine of theism.
> 
> Want to point out how something I did not say is stupid again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that is not what you said, is it?
Click to expand...


Actually, while it may have seemed I was saying atheism is being without any doctrine in post #1475 (I worded it quite poorly) I clarified with this in post #1486 :


Montrovant said:


> Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?



So, yes, that is in fact what I said.  You actually quoted that very post, for some reason thinking it makes me a religious fanatic.


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I originally suggested three attributes of religion and no one ever argued they were wrong or more were needed.  These are them:
> 
> A group to which members identify themselves.  "I am an Atheist along with my fellow Atheists"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the idea that atheism is a religion fails on your first criteria. 'Atheists' doesn't describe a cohesive group, any more than 'pessimists' does. It just identifies people who share a single trait.
Click to expand...


Of course Atheists identify as a group.  Atheists join in groups all of the time.  Here is just one web site of many that will tell you how you can join a group  How to Find an Atheist Support Group Atheist Revolution.  People put up billboards, organize holiday displays, etc.


----------



## asaratis

dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack  of skepticism.
> 
> Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.
> 
> Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian
> 
> I agree with Vladimir...
> 
> 
> 
> What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not one person in this forum is and certainly not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot prove either of those claims.
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want me to narrow it down to I haven't met the person who has no beliefs in gods?  No problem.  I haven't.  Certainly not here.  Any conclusion arrived at in the utter absence of supporting evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone can make a claim about a certain god whether it is Allah, Zeus or the FSM. Is there supporting evidence that counters these beliefs? Of course there is but it still cannot be proven. Someone could claim their god created the universe and earth 400 years ago. The evidence to refute that claim is geology, biology, history, chemistry and thousands of other disciplines. But does it prove the non-existence of that god, the possibility of it? No. But it does disprove the probability of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proving that some claims made by those that believe in God does not prove the non-existence of their God.  It merely proves that they do not completely understand how God works.  They explain the existence and origin of things in terms they can understand.  Most modern day Jews, Christians and some Muslims will agree that the earth is millions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually agree with you here. And this is why I say that I'm not, technically, an atheist, even though I'm a naturalist and reject the idea of magic and the supernatural. It's obvious that gods exist. The only question is: what is their true nature? Are they physical entities who occupy a yet undiscovered dimension? Are they memes? Commonly held metaphors? Are they distributed 'minds', living in the networked brains of believers?
Click to expand...

Thank you for being honest.  I meant to say:

"Proving that some claims made by those that believe in God _are false_ does not prove the non-existence of their God."

I returned too late to edit the post.  However, I think you figured that out.  

I'm not certain what shape (if any) God takes on.  I think God works in ways that we do not and likely never will understand.  I believe God existed prior to the Big Bang...and was the creator of all we see by His having set it in motion.  I believe that the intricacies and interdependency of certain flowers and insects are evidence of nature's design driven by something other than accidental happenings or chance.

One outstanding example is that of the bucket orchids and euglossine types of orchid bees.

This is a good read from top to bottom.

epiphytes varieties of orchids bucket orchids bucket orchid


----------



## dblack

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I originally suggested three attributes of religion and no one ever argued they were wrong or more were needed.  These are them:
> 
> A group to which members identify themselves.  "I am an Atheist along with my fellow Atheists"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the idea that atheism is a religion fails on your first criteria. 'Atheists' doesn't describe a cohesive group, any more than 'pessimists' does. It just identifies people who share a single trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Atheists identify as a group.  Atheists join in groups all of the time.  Here is just one web site of many that will tell you how you can join a group  How to Find an Atheist Support Group Atheist Revolution.  People put up billboards, organize holiday displays, etc.
Click to expand...


Yep. Some do. That's been addressed. If you want to point to some atheist groups, and show how they are operating as religions, go for it. I might agree with you. But that doesn't mean that the general concept of atheism represents a religion.


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> I'm not certain what shape (if any) God takes on.  I think God works in ways that we do not and likely never will understand.  I believe God existed prior to the Big Bang...and was the creator of all we see by His having set it in motion.  I believe that the intricacies and interdependency of certain flowers and insects are evidence of nature's design driven by something other than accidental happenings or chance.
> 
> One outstanding example is that of the bucket orchids and euglossine types of orchid bees.
> 
> This is a good read from top to bottom.
> 
> epiphytes varieties of orchids bucket orchids bucket orchid



That all seems pretty unlikely to me. I don't see any reason to believe the gods of human beings exist independent of, nor predating, human minds.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> Not at all. His basic premise is that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. For you fundies, It’s a matter of disliking the individual because he is an outspoken and vocal critic of religious belief. What you fundies object to is being held to a consistent standard. Within the natural, rational world, there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of gods as supernatural agents. It's actually comical to see you fundies vilify science and its processes of discovery.  You will want to hold science to a standard of demonstration while at the same time, requiring "belief" alone is the only standard for your claims to magic. From the fundie side, we're left with claims of the supernatural - for which there are none – as qualifying for consideration in the natural, rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us why your religious beliefs are held to a standard that is different from the one placed on science.



If all he did was defend his basic claim, as you call it, no one would pay any attention to him.

By the way, since I have made no claims myself, I am under no obligation to defend any claim you try to shove down my throat.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Montrovant said:


> Actually, while it may have seemed I was saying atheism is being without any doctrine in post #1475 (I worded it quite poorly) I clarified with this in post #1486 :
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, yes, that is in fact what I said.  You actually quoted that very post, for some reason thinking it makes me a religious fanatic.
Click to expand...


When I responded to that post you claimed I ignored the post you responded to. Even if I did, it does not make your post accurate because you are still tying to argue that the prefix a- cancels everything else.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. His basic premise is that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. For you fundies, It’s a matter of disliking the individual because he is an outspoken and vocal critic of religious belief. What you fundies object to is being held to a consistent standard. Within the natural, rational world, there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of gods as supernatural agents. It's actually comical to see you fundies vilify science and its processes of discovery.  You will want to hold science to a standard of demonstration while at the same time, requiring "belief" alone is the only standard for your claims to magic. From the fundie side, we're left with claims of the supernatural - for which there are none – as qualifying for consideration in the natural, rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us why your religious beliefs are held to a standard that is different from the one placed on science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all he did was defend his basic claim, as you call it, no one would pay any attention to him.
> 
> By the way, since I have made no claims myself, I am under no obligation to defend any claim you try to shove down my throat.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you fundies spend inordinate amounts of time scurrying around like lab rats in response to anything Dawkins says. Just look through thIs thread to see how many times he causes a panic among you fundies.


----------



## Tuatara

percysunshine said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want me to narrow it down to I haven't met the person who has no beliefs in gods?  No problem.  I haven't.  Certainly not here.  Any conclusion arrived at in the utter absence of supporting evidence is a belief.  It can't be anything but a belief.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can make a claim about a certain god whether it is Allah, Zeus or the FSM. Is there supporting evidence that counters these beliefs? Of course there is but it still cannot be proven. Someone could claim their god created the universe and earth 400 years ago. The evidence to refute that claim is geology, biology, history, chemistry and thousands of other disciplines. But does it prove the non-existence of that god, the possibility of it? No. But it does disprove the probability of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The epistemology of science limits science to the description and theory of the observable natural universe. Any possibility and probability calculations of science pertaining to the existence of any super-natural beings are irrelevant, by the definition of the word 'science'.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if any of these claims are not observable then how could anyone make claims about the validity of them in the first place. Unless they were told as a child that this was how it is and don't let anyone else tell you different. Also by your own definition you would have to accept every single supernatural phenomenom ever described.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People can claim anything they wish to claim. Science and religion are two separate epistemologies which are internally consistent. None of this bothers me one bit. I certainly do not, as a scientist, feel a need to accept  every single supernatural phenomenon ever described. Nor do I feel a need to deny every single supernatural phenomenon ever described.
> 
> Also, I did not come up with the definitions. The definitions predate me.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

How do you establish which supernatural phenomenoms you accept or deny? As for two seperate epistemologies, you are now creeping into a philosophical discussion which no longer encompasses fact from fiction.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly among the fundie crowd, he's seen as a vocal critic of claims to supernaturalism, also spelled gawds. It's interesting how it it the fundamentalist component of the board who are the ones feeling most threatened by Dawkins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am actually talking about what atheists who are not idiots think about him.
> 
> Dawkins criticized again for arrogance and evangelical militancy Why Evolution Is True
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are actually talking about those _evilutionist atheists_ and their blasphemous ideas of heliocentrism, an ancient universe and that gawd-awful Ark which you cannot produce.
Click to expand...

actually we aren't talking about evilutionist atheists, we're talking about the ignorant ones.....


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did everyone read that? Please everyone read what he just wrote to my response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I called you a fucking coward who is afraid to say he believes anything.
Click to expand...

Reread what I said. You are missing one word or you are the biggest idiot that ever was.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also by your own definition you would have to accept every single supernatural phenomenom ever described.
> 
> 
> 
> why?......are you incapable of making choices about what you believe?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting comment in terms of religious belief. It is almost exclusively a function of geography and familial circumstances. You christian fundies, had you been born in the Islamist Middle East, would be the suicide bombers and head choppers of ISIS. There is a certain personality type that is susceptible to mind control techniques that religions employ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /shrugs.....and if you have been born in the ME you would already be dead.....be that as it may, we have examples in the form of frequent posters who have made choices, either for or against, the religion of their family......this merely proves that what you post is not true......we have to take it for granted that the things you post that we can't disprove are likewise untrue......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /shrugs.... how lucky I am that in the Infidel West, I'm protected from people like you.
> 
> This merely proves that you are a danger to yourselves and others. Society as a whole is protected by keeping you lovely cultists on a short choke collar.
Click to expand...

lol.....people like me are the ones protecting you in the infidel west......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Tuatara said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try this. When you state you believe in something do not use the words no, non or not.
> 
> Example, instead of saying I believe pigs do not fly, say I do not believe pigs can fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the fuck would I say that? I know for a fact that pigs do not fly, there is no reason for me to pretend that I need room on that issue.
> 
> Maybe you should try not being afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did everyone read that? Please everyone read what he just wrote to my response.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting to read your answer.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one person in this forum is and certainly not you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dawkins is widely viewed as a running joke*. The fact that you are unaware of that shows why you are unqualified to judge his intelligence against that of anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only by those who believe in talking snakes, a 6000 year old earth and a worldwide flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's actual evidence for a worldwide flood
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But if it's flood tales you want, everybody has one.
> 
> Flood Stories from Around the World
Click to expand...

makes sense.....everybody is descended from the same survivors......


----------



## Tuatara

John Lennon's God reworded by some silly people here.


I believe in no magic
I believe in no I-ching
I  believe in no Bible
I believe in no Tarot
I believe in no Hitler
I believe in no Jesus
I believe in no Kennedy
I believe in  no Buddha
I believe in no Mantra
I believe in no Gita
I believe in  no Yoga
I believe in  no Kings
I believe in no Elvis
I believe in no Zimmerman
I believe in  no Beatles


----------



## Tuatara

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try this. When you state you believe in something do not use the words no, non or not.
> 
> Example, instead of saying I believe pigs do not fly, say I do not believe pigs can fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the fuck would I say that? I know for a fact that pigs do not fly, there is no reason for me to pretend that I need room on that issue.
> 
> Maybe you should try not being afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did everyone read that? Please everyone read what he just wrote to my response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting to read your answer.....
Click to expand...

Your comprehension skills are not working either.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. His basic premise is that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. For you fundies, It’s a matter of disliking the individual because he is an outspoken and vocal critic of religious belief. What you fundies object to is being held to a consistent standard. Within the natural, rational world, there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of gods as supernatural agents. It's actually comical to see you fundies vilify science and its processes of discovery.  You will want to hold science to a standard of demonstration while at the same time, requiring "belief" alone is the only standard for your claims to magic. From the fundie side, we're left with claims of the supernatural - for which there are none – as qualifying for consideration in the natural, rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us why your religious beliefs are held to a standard that is different from the one placed on science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all he did was defend his basic claim, as you call it, no one would pay any attention to him.
> 
> By the way, since I have made no claims myself, I am under no obligation to defend any claim you try to shove down my throat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but you fundies spend inordinate amounts of time scurrying around like lab rats in response to anything Dawkins says. Just look through thIs thread to see how many times he causes a panic among you fundies.
Click to expand...

why do you mistake criticism for panic?......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Tuatara said:


> How do you establish which supernatural phenomenoms you accept or deny?


 its called choice.....many people know how to do it......


----------



## Tuatara

PratchettFan said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember years ago watching this documentary on people who actually believed in fairies. These people have a belief in the existence of fairies. Most of us I'm sure do not believe in the existence of fairies. That is not a belief. It is really that simple.
> 
> I'm sure some other members here like asaratis, Pratchettfan and Quantum would assert that we have beliefs that fairies don't exist. They are simply inverting the definition by applying it to the negative.
> 
> eg. You believe such & such does *not* exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A non sequitur, but yes - if your position is based upon nothing but your assertion it be so then it is a belief.  What else could it be?
Click to expand...

My position is based on whether or not there are facts or evidence to support it. That is not an assertion.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try this. When you state you believe in something do not use the words no, non or not.
> 
> Example, instead of saying I believe pigs do not fly, say I do not believe pigs can fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the fuck would I say that? I know for a fact that pigs do not fly, there is no reason for me to pretend that I need room on that issue.
> 
> Maybe you should try not being afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did everyone read that? Please everyone read what he just wrote to my response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting to read your answer.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your comprehension skills are not working either.
Click to expand...

then spit it out.....why would he say it?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

Tuatara said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember years ago watching this documentary on people who actually believed in fairies. These people have a belief in the existence of fairies. Most of us I'm sure do not believe in the existence of fairies. That is not a belief. It is really that simple.
> 
> I'm sure some other members here like asaratis, Pratchettfan and Quantum would assert that we have beliefs that fairies don't exist. They are simply inverting the definition by applying it to the negative.
> 
> eg. You believe such & such does *not* exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A non sequitur, but yes - if your position is based upon nothing but your assertion it be so then it is a belief.  What else could it be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is based on whether or not there are facts or evidence to support it. That is not an assertion.
Click to expand...

do you have evidence or facts to support that these things do NOT exist?....if so, you should choose to believe they do not exist......

the question is whether you have chosen not to believe certain things where you do NOT have evidence or facts to support your choice.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

Montrovant said:


> I'll point out that you seem to be unable to understand the difference between saying that if theism is a doctrine, atheism would be without *that* doctrine, and saying atheism is without all doctrine.  In other words, I said that atheism is being without the doctrine of theism.
> 
> Want to point out how something I did not say is stupid again?


the only doctrine which all theisms would have in common is the existence of a deity......atheism is not simply "without" that doctrine.....agnosticism would be.....atheism would have a competing doctrine.....that there is NO deity.....


----------



## Tuatara

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you establish which supernatural phenomenoms you accept or deny?
> 
> 
> 
> its called choice.....many people know how to do it......
Click to expand...

Accepting or denying is a choice. You are rewording my question but you are not answering it. Did you miss where I asked *how?*


----------



## PostmodernProph

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I originally suggested three attributes of religion and no one ever argued they were wrong or more were needed.  These are them:
> 
> A group to which members identify themselves.  "I am an Atheist along with my fellow Atheists"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the idea that atheism is a religion fails on your first criteria. 'Atheists' doesn't describe a cohesive group, any more than 'pessimists' does. It just identifies people who share a single trait.
Click to expand...

I disagree.....I don't think it would be a challenge to identify the group of atheists who post in this forum, for example.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. His basic premise is that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. For you fundies, It’s a matter of disliking the individual because he is an outspoken and vocal critic of religious belief. What you fundies object to is being held to a consistent standard. Within the natural, rational world, there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of gods as supernatural agents. It's actually comical to see you fundies vilify science and its processes of discovery.  You will want to hold science to a standard of demonstration while at the same time, requiring "belief" alone is the only standard for your claims to magic. From the fundie side, we're left with claims of the supernatural - for which there are none – as qualifying for consideration in the natural, rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us why your religious beliefs are held to a standard that is different from the one placed on science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all he did was defend his basic claim, as you call it, no one would pay any attention to him.
Click to expand...

not to mention, his book would have been a lot shorter.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you establish which supernatural phenomenoms you accept or deny?
> 
> 
> 
> its called choice.....many people know how to do it......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Accepting or denying is a choice. You are rewording my question but you are not answering it. Did you miss where I asked *how?*
Click to expand...

inherent in the statement....by choosing to accept or reject what you consider to be evidence......I have accepted things which I have experienced or that people I have confidence in have experienced which you would never consider to be valid evidence......that, however, does not make me wrong and you right.....it merely means we have made different choices.....


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> Sorry, but you fundies spend inordinate amounts of time scurrying around like lab rats in response to anything Dawkins says. Just look through thIs thread to see how many times he causes a panic among you fundies.



Funny how you think you mentioning Dawkins somehow means I am obsessed with him.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> Reread what I said. You are missing one word or you are the biggest idiot that ever was.



I am not missing anything, I am refusing to use weasel words in order to make it easier for you to pretend that you have a point.


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your own *Catholic* source
> 
> "
> Meanwhile, Moore’s _Torygraph_ review,  “How dare God disagree with Richard Dawkins?” is mostly about Dawkins’s “self-centerdness.” That’s an odd way to criticize an autobiography, especially since, if you’ve read it, you’ll find _An Appetite for Wonder_ no more solipsistic than any other autobiography (less, in fact, since it dwells considerably on science):
> 
> Unlike [John Henry]Newman, however, [Dawkins] quickly discarded the idea of God. Which left only one absolute and luminously self-evident being – Richard Dawkins.
> 
> . . . Dawkins has a generous self-centredness. Everything associated with him is blessed – his parents for giving birth to him, Ali, the ”loyal’’ family servant in colonial Africa, and Balliol College, Oxford, which had the good fortune to admit several generations of Dawkins men. When he admires others, one is made to feel how lucky they are.
> 
> All I can say to this is, “read the damn book.”  I didn’t get that impression at all.  The nastiness that pervades this piece extends even to my beloved fruit flies:
> 
> At one point, when describing his researches on the self-grooming behaviour of flies, Dawkins writes: ”Flies are not normally seen as beautiful, but the way they wash their faces and their feet is rather dear.’’ There is something rather dear about the self-grooming behaviour of Richard Dawkins, too.
> 
> That’s simply a gratuitous slur. In fact, I found the passage about flies endearing, and I’ve often admired their grooming behavior, which is thorough and, yes, a bit like our own.  Why drag in another insult?
> 
> Finally comes the inevitable accusation that “Dawkins acts like a religious evangelical.” And again, there’s no sense of irony that these people are implicitly criticizing _religion_ at the same time. But you won’t see them arguing, say, that Pope is “acting like Richard Dawkins.” That’s because it’s _okay_ for the faithful to “know that they’re right.”
> 
> 
> Doesn't look like a criticism.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does a criticism look like to you?
Click to expand...

First of all the quote I put up was a criticism of John Moore's criticism of Dawkins. I was trying to find these atheists who were criticizing Dawkins as Moore is an Anglican.


----------



## Tuatara

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember years ago watching this documentary on people who actually believed in fairies. These people have a belief in the existence of fairies. Most of us I'm sure do not believe in the existence of fairies. That is not a belief. It is really that simple.
> 
> I'm sure some other members here like asaratis, Pratchettfan and Quantum would assert that we have beliefs that fairies don't exist. They are simply inverting the definition by applying it to the negative.
> 
> eg. You believe such & such does *not* exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A non sequitur, but yes - if your position is based upon nothing but your assertion it be so then it is a belief.  What else could it be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is based on whether or not there are facts or evidence to support it. That is not an assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you have evidence or facts to support that these things do NOT exist?....if so, you should choose to believe they do not exist......
> 
> the question is whether you have chosen not to believe certain things where you do NOT have evidence or facts to support your choice.....
Click to expand...

No one ever needs to prove a negative. If you don't believe in leprachauns how would you ever prove of their non-existence? As for the legitimacy of a god the facts and evidence favour it being non-existent.


----------



## asaratis

dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not certain what shape (if any) God takes on.  I think God works in ways that we do not and likely never will understand.  I believe God existed prior to the Big Bang...and was the creator of all we see by His having set it in motion.  I believe that the intricacies and interdependency of certain flowers and insects are evidence of nature's design driven by something other than accidental happenings or chance.
> 
> One outstanding example is that of the bucket orchids and euglossine types of orchid bees.
> 
> This is a good read from top to bottom.
> 
> epiphytes varieties of orchids bucket orchids bucket orchid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That all seems pretty unlikely to me. I don't see any reason to believe the gods of human beings exist independent of, nor predating, human minds.
Click to expand...

Then on that we differ.  I think God started evolution and all that was produced from it, including we homo sapiens.


PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. His basic premise is that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. For you fundies, It’s a matter of disliking the individual because he is an outspoken and vocal critic of religious belief. What you fundies object to is being held to a consistent standard. Within the natural, rational world, there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of gods as supernatural agents. It's actually comical to see you fundies vilify science and its processes of discovery.  You will want to hold science to a standard of demonstration while at the same time, requiring "belief" alone is the only standard for your claims to magic. From the fundie side, we're left with claims of the supernatural - for which there are none – as qualifying for consideration in the natural, rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us why your religious beliefs are held to a standard that is different from the one placed on science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all he did was defend his basic claim, as you call it, no one would pay any attention to him.
> 
> By the way, since I have made no claims myself, I am under no obligation to defend any claim you try to shove down my throat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but you fundies spend inordinate amounts of time scurrying around like lab rats in response to anything Dawkins says. Just look through thIs thread to see how many times he causes a panic among you fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you mistake criticism for panic?......
Click to expand...

Because she is a petty little girl, afraid that her hero, the pseudo-intellectual mentor she follows will be shown to be what he is....mediocre and full of flawed logic.  Even some greater Atheist philosophers are scoffing at him today concerning his childish attacks on religion.  It hurts little Hollie's feelings  so she claims detractors are frothing at the mouth when in actuality, it is she that is visibly moved...like a woman scorned.

She's has also exhibited a tendency to plagiarize.  If you see a post that actually makes sense, it's likely stolen from an adult.


----------



## Tuatara

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you establish which supernatural phenomenoms you accept or deny?
> 
> 
> 
> its called choice.....many people know how to do it......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Accepting or denying is a choice. You are rewording my question but you are not answering it. Did you miss where I asked *how?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> inherent in the statement....by choosing to accept or reject what you consider to be evidence......I have accepted things which I have experienced or that people I have confidence in have experienced which you would never consider to be valid evidence......that, however, does not make me wrong and you right.....it merely means we have made different choices.....
Click to expand...

First of all, thank you for answering the question although it was directed at PostmodernProph. You say you accept supernatural phenomenoms because you and people you trust have experienced them. Do I consider this valid evidence? No, I don't. Many people claim to experience supernatural phenomenoms from UFO abductions to predicting the future through Tarot cards. You are welcome to believe in what you believe but never tell me it's the truth without evidence. Once you have evidence it stops being a supernatural phenomenom.


----------



## asaratis

Tuatara said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your own *Catholic* source
> 
> "
> Meanwhile, Moore’s _Torygraph_ review,  “How dare God disagree with Richard Dawkins?” is mostly about Dawkins’s “self-centerdness.” That’s an odd way to criticize an autobiography, especially since, if you’ve read it, you’ll find _An Appetite for Wonder_ no more solipsistic than any other autobiography (less, in fact, since it dwells considerably on science):
> 
> Unlike [John Henry]Newman, however, [Dawkins] quickly discarded the idea of God. Which left only one absolute and luminously self-evident being – Richard Dawkins.
> 
> . . . Dawkins has a generous self-centredness. Everything associated with him is blessed – his parents for giving birth to him, Ali, the ”loyal’’ family servant in colonial Africa, and Balliol College, Oxford, which had the good fortune to admit several generations of Dawkins men. When he admires others, one is made to feel how lucky they are.
> 
> All I can say to this is, “read the damn book.”  I didn’t get that impression at all.  The nastiness that pervades this piece extends even to my beloved fruit flies:
> 
> At one point, when describing his researches on the self-grooming behaviour of flies, Dawkins writes: ”Flies are not normally seen as beautiful, but the way they wash their faces and their feet is rather dear.’’ There is something rather dear about the self-grooming behaviour of Richard Dawkins, too.
> 
> That’s simply a gratuitous slur. In fact, I found the passage about flies endearing, and I’ve often admired their grooming behavior, which is thorough and, yes, a bit like our own.  Why drag in another insult?
> 
> Finally comes the inevitable accusation that “Dawkins acts like a religious evangelical.” And again, there’s no sense of irony that these people are implicitly criticizing _religion_ at the same time. But you won’t see them arguing, say, that Pope is “acting like Richard Dawkins.” That’s because it’s _okay_ for the faithful to “know that they’re right.”
> 
> 
> Doesn't look like a criticism.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does a criticism look like to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all the quote I put up was a criticism of John Moore's criticism of Dawkins. *I was trying to find these atheists who were criticizing Dawkins* as Moore is an Anglican.
Click to expand...

Try these:
Richard Dawkins 8217 Reasonable and Proportionate Response to Criticism

Hello I 8217 m a staunch atheist and I hate Richard Dawkins. Generalissimo

Adam Lee





Atheist Criticisms of Richard Dawkins Thomistic Bent

Michael Ruse





Hello I 8217 m a staunch atheist and I hate Richard Dawkins. Generalissimo

Justin Michael



Antony Flew Reviews Dawkins 8217 8220 The God Delusion 8221 Uncommon Descent

Anthony Flew



Oxford Atheist Calls Richard Dawkins Coward for Not Debating William Lane Craig PopScreen

Dr Daniel Came



...and here is some spot-on criticism of the Pope of Atheism:
RICHARD DAWKINS REBUTTALS CRITICISM

"After reading a great deal of this bombast, I have come to the conclusion that Richard has never assumed the duties of a Professor of the Public Understanding of Science - a position he holds due to the patronage of a zillionaire from Microsoft.  He seems to lack the intellectual confidence to say anything of substance, so he sticks to the very safe path of appealing to materialist  prejudices." 

"To give an example:_The God Delusion_trumpets the fact that its author was recently voted one of the world's three leading intellectuals. This survey took place among the readers of_Prospect_magazine in November 2005. So what did this same_Prospect_magazine make of the book? Its reviewer was shocked at this "incurious, dogmatic, rambling, and self-contradictory" book. The title of the review? "Dawkins the dogmatist."

"This is the only context that can explain Dawkins's programme, a piece of intellectually lazy polemic which is not worthy of a great scientist. He uses his authority as a scientist to claim certainty where he himself knows, all too well, that there is none; for example, our sense of morality cannot simply be explained as a product of our genetic struggle for evolutionary advantage."


----------



## Tuatara

*Adam Lee - Atheist - Very dishonest in his approach and a hack. I personally doubt he is an atheist. Doesn't actually criticize Dawkins arguments, just calls him sexist.

Michael Ruse - Atheist - Criticizes Dawkins approach and style in his arguments.

Justin Michael - Atheist - but doesn't criticize Dawkin's position or work, just feels he is arrogant with a vitriolic attitude. 

Anthony Flew - Deist

Alister McGrath* - Angilcan

None of these criticisms are about Dawkins postion. Many atheists criticized Christopher Hitchens because of his position on the Iraq war but they were not critical of his atheist position. Sam Harris had many critics on his Israel stance by atheists, but not his atheist position. Atheist will not always agree with what another atheist is saying but you will be hard pressed to find criticism of their arguments and stance on atheism by atheists. Michael Ruse is the only one I feel that did this but he was really nitpicking and says Dawkins is being simplistic about his arguments.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not certain what shape (if any) God takes on.  I think God works in ways that we do not and likely never will understand.  I believe God existed prior to the Big Bang...and was the creator of all we see by His having set it in motion.  I believe that the intricacies and interdependency of certain flowers and insects are evidence of nature's design driven by something other than accidental happenings or chance.
> 
> One outstanding example is that of the bucket orchids and euglossine types of orchid bees.
> 
> This is a good read from top to bottom.
> 
> epiphytes varieties of orchids bucket orchids bucket orchid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That all seems pretty unlikely to me. I don't see any reason to believe the gods of human beings exist independent of, nor predating, human minds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then on that we differ.  I think God started evolution and all that was produced from it, including we homo sapiens.
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. His basic premise is that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. For you fundies, It’s a matter of disliking the individual because he is an outspoken and vocal critic of religious belief. What you fundies object to is being held to a consistent standard. Within the natural, rational world, there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of gods as supernatural agents. It's actually comical to see you fundies vilify science and its processes of discovery.  You will want to hold science to a standard of demonstration while at the same time, requiring "belief" alone is the only standard for your claims to magic. From the fundie side, we're left with claims of the supernatural - for which there are none – as qualifying for consideration in the natural, rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us why your religious beliefs are held to a standard that is different from the one placed on science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If all he did was defend his basic claim, as you call it, no one would pay any attention to him.
> 
> By the way, since I have made no claims myself, I am under no obligation to defend any claim you try to shove down my throat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but you fundies spend inordinate amounts of time scurrying around like lab rats in response to anything Dawkins says. Just look through thIs thread to see how many times he causes a panic among you fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you mistake criticism for panic?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because she is a petty little girl, afraid that her hero, the pseudo-intellectual mentor she follows will be shown to be what he is....mediocre and full of flawed logic.  Even some greater Atheist philosophers are scoffing at him today concerning his childish attacks on religion.  It hurts little Hollie's feelings  so she claims detractors are frothing at the mouth when in actuality, it is she that is visibly moved...like a woman scorned.
> 
> She's has also exhibited a tendency to plagiarize.  If you see a post that actually makes sense, it's likely stolen from an adult.
Click to expand...

Oh my, aren't you the angry fundie. Your lashing out is typical for extremists. You demand special dispensations for your appeals to supernaturalism and magic. When others dismiss your ravings, you do tend to become incensed. Its a childish pattern of behaviour but one that you exhibit in multiple posts, like this one.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. His basic premise is that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. For you fundies, It’s a matter of disliking the individual because he is an outspoken and vocal critic of religious belief. What you fundies object to is being held to a consistent standard. Within the natural, rational world, there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of gods as supernatural agents. It's actually comical to see you fundies vilify science and its processes of discovery.  You will want to hold science to a standard of demonstration while at the same time, requiring "belief" alone is the only standard for your claims to magic. From the fundie side, we're left with claims of the supernatural - for which there are none – as qualifying for consideration in the natural, rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us why your religious beliefs are held to a standard that is different from the one placed on science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all he did was defend his basic claim, as you call it, no one would pay any attention to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not to mention, his book would have been a lot shorter.....
Click to expand...

Not to mention, you're pointless.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly among the fundie crowd, he's seen as a vocal critic of claims to supernaturalism, also spelled gawds. It's interesting how it it the fundamentalist component of the board who are the ones feeling most threatened by Dawkins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am actually talking about what atheists who are not idiots think about him.
> 
> Dawkins criticized again for arrogance and evangelical militancy Why Evolution Is True
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are actually talking about those _evilutionist atheists_ and their blasphemous ideas of heliocentrism, an ancient universe and that gawd-awful Ark which you cannot produce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually we aren't talking about evilutionist atheists, we're talking about the ignorant ones.....
Click to expand...

Actually, you're just babbling.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. His basic premise is that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. For you fundies, It’s a matter of disliking the individual because he is an outspoken and vocal critic of religious belief. What you fundies object to is being held to a consistent standard. Within the natural, rational world, there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of gods as supernatural agents. It's actually comical to see you fundies vilify science and its processes of discovery.  You will want to hold science to a standard of demonstration while at the same time, requiring "belief" alone is the only standard for your claims to magic. From the fundie side, we're left with claims of the supernatural - for which there are none – as qualifying for consideration in the natural, rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us why your religious beliefs are held to a standard that is different from the one placed on science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all he did was defend his basic claim, as you call it, no one would pay any attention to him.
> 
> By the way, since I have made no claims myself, I am under no obligation to defend any claim you try to shove down my throat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but you fundies spend inordinate amounts of time scurrying around like lab rats in response to anything Dawkins says. Just look through thIs thread to see how many times he causes a panic among you fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you mistake criticism for panic?......
Click to expand...

Why do you mistake your babbling for coherent commentary?


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I originally suggested three attributes of religion and no one ever argued they were wrong or more were needed.  These are them:
> 
> A group to which members identify themselves.  "I am an Atheist along with my fellow Atheists"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the idea that atheism is a religion fails on your first criteria. 'Atheists' doesn't describe a cohesive group, any more than 'pessimists' does. It just identifies people who share a single trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Atheists identify as a group.  Atheists join in groups all of the time.  Here is just one web site of many that will tell you how you can join a group  How to Find an Atheist Support Group Atheist Revolution.  People put up billboards, organize holiday displays, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. Some do. That's been addressed. If you want to point to some atheist groups, and show how they are operating as religions, go for it. I might agree with you. But that doesn't mean that the general concept of atheism represents a religion.
Click to expand...

 
I have said that Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  I have already indicated how some Atheists are treating Atheism as a religion is through the application of dogma.  Without dogma, you don't have religion. 

Of course, if someone wants to disagree with the attributes of religion I have used I am certainly open to that discussion.  They just seem to be the three basics to me.  However, without determining what those attributes are in advance you really can't determine if something is or is not religion. 

For example, if I put an electric motor on a unicycle, is it an automobile?  We can't answer that without first identifying what the attributes of an automobile are and comparing that to the unicycle.  Does the number of wheels matter, does it require a particular power plant, does the method of steering matter, etc.?  Simply stating that it isn't by definition without that comparison is not an investigation, it's dogma.


----------



## PratchettFan

Tuatara said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember years ago watching this documentary on people who actually believed in fairies. These people have a belief in the existence of fairies. Most of us I'm sure do not believe in the existence of fairies. That is not a belief. It is really that simple.
> 
> I'm sure some other members here like asaratis, Pratchettfan and Quantum would assert that we have beliefs that fairies don't exist. They are simply inverting the definition by applying it to the negative.
> 
> eg. You believe such & such does *not* exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A non sequitur, but yes - if your position is based upon nothing but your assertion it be so then it is a belief.  What else could it be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is based on whether or not there are facts or evidence to support it. That is not an assertion.
Click to expand...

 
Are you neutral on this subject?  Do you consider that the probability of fairies existing is equal to the probability they do not?  Because that is what having no belief means, unless you have facts or evidence to support it.  If you consider the probability higher that they don't exist, what evidence or facts do you have to support that conclusion?


----------



## PratchettFan

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember years ago watching this documentary on people who actually believed in fairies. These people have a belief in the existence of fairies. Most of us I'm sure do not believe in the existence of fairies. That is not a belief. It is really that simple.
> 
> I'm sure some other members here like asaratis, Pratchettfan and Quantum would assert that we have beliefs that fairies don't exist. They are simply inverting the definition by applying it to the negative.
> 
> eg. You believe such & such does *not* exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A non sequitur, but yes - if your position is based upon nothing but your assertion it be so then it is a belief.  What else could it be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is based on whether or not there are facts or evidence to support it. That is not an assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you have evidence or facts to support that these things do NOT exist?....if so, you should choose to believe they do not exist......
> 
> the question is whether you have chosen not to believe certain things where you do NOT have evidence or facts to support your choice.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one ever needs to prove a negative. If you don't believe in leprachauns how would you ever prove of their non-existence? As for the legitimacy of a god the facts and evidence favour it being non-existent.
Click to expand...

 
The facts and evidence for a god not existing are also non-existent, or perhaps I should say unknown.  There is no evidence to support either pro or con, thus either position is equally supported.  0 = 0.  Therefore, any conclusion which favors either side has equal standing and can only be belief.  It cannot be anything else.


----------



## asaratis

Tuatara said:


> *Adam Lee - Atheist - Very dishonest in his approach and a hack. I personally doubt he is an atheist. Doesn't actually criticize Dawkins arguments, just calls him sexist.
> 
> Michael Ruse - Atheist - Criticizes Dawkins approach and style in his arguments.
> 
> Justin Michael - Atheist - but doesn't criticize Dawkin's position or work, just feels he is arrogant with a vitriolic attitude.
> 
> Anthony Flew - Deist
> 
> Alister McGrath* - Angilcan
> 
> None of these criticisms are about Dawkins postion. Many atheists criticized Christopher Hitchens because of his position on the Iraq war but they were not critical of his atheist position. Sam Harris had many critics on his Israel stance by atheists, but not his atheist position. Atheist will not always agree with what another atheist is saying but you will be hard pressed to find criticism of their arguments and stance on atheism by atheists. Michael Ruse is the only one I feel that did this but he was really nitpicking and says Dawkins is being simplistic about his arguments.


Changing midstream are you?

"*I was trying to find these atheists who were criticizing Dawkins..."  *

I gave you some and you dismiss them summarily.  What a dunce you are.  A sheep of the Chief Dunce, Dawkins!
..and, BTW Flew was a fine Atheist for most of his 87 year life.

You, like your idol, suffer from delusions of adequacy.   Dream on, sucker!

..keep on kissing your Pope's ass!


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not certain what shape (if any) God takes on.  I think God works in ways that we do not and likely never will understand.  I believe God existed prior to the Big Bang...and was the creator of all we see by His having set it in motion.  I believe that the intricacies and interdependency of certain flowers and insects are evidence of nature's design driven by something other than accidental happenings or chance.
> 
> One outstanding example is that of the bucket orchids and euglossine types of orchid bees.
> 
> This is a good read from top to bottom.
> 
> epiphytes varieties of orchids bucket orchids bucket orchid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That all seems pretty unlikely to me. I don't see any reason to believe the gods of human beings exist independent of, nor predating, human minds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then on that we differ.  I think God started evolution and all that was produced from it, including we homo sapiens.
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. His basic premise is that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. For you fundies, It’s a matter of disliking the individual because he is an outspoken and vocal critic of religious belief. What you fundies object to is being held to a consistent standard. Within the natural, rational world, there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of gods as supernatural agents. It's actually comical to see you fundies vilify science and its processes of discovery.  You will want to hold science to a standard of demonstration while at the same time, requiring "belief" alone is the only standard for your claims to magic. From the fundie side, we're left with claims of the supernatural - for which there are none – as qualifying for consideration in the natural, rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us why your religious beliefs are held to a standard that is different from the one placed on science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If all he did was defend his basic claim, as you call it, no one would pay any attention to him.
> 
> By the way, since I have made no claims myself, I am under no obligation to defend any claim you try to shove down my throat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but you fundies spend inordinate amounts of time scurrying around like lab rats in response to anything Dawkins says. Just look through thIs thread to see how many times he causes a panic among you fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you mistake criticism for panic?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because she is a petty little girl, afraid that her hero, the pseudo-intellectual mentor she follows will be shown to be what he is....mediocre and full of flawed logic.  Even some greater Atheist philosophers are scoffing at him today concerning his childish attacks on religion.  It hurts little Hollie's feelings  so she claims detractors are frothing at the mouth when in actuality, it is she that is visibly moved...like a woman scorned.
> 
> She's has also exhibited a tendency to plagiarize.  If you see a post that actually makes sense, it's likely stolen from an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my, aren't you the angry fundie. Your lashing out is typical for extremists. You demand special dispensations for your appeals to supernaturalism and magic. When others dismiss your ravings, you do tend to become incensed. Its a childish pattern of behaviour but one that you exhibit in multiple posts, like this one.
Click to expand...


----------



## PostmodernProph

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember years ago watching this documentary on people who actually believed in fairies. These people have a belief in the existence of fairies. Most of us I'm sure do not believe in the existence of fairies. That is not a belief. It is really that simple.
> 
> I'm sure some other members here like asaratis, Pratchettfan and Quantum would assert that we have beliefs that fairies don't exist. They are simply inverting the definition by applying it to the negative.
> 
> eg. You believe such & such does *not* exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A non sequitur, but yes - if your position is based upon nothing but your assertion it be so then it is a belief.  What else could it be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is based on whether or not there are facts or evidence to support it. That is not an assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you have evidence or facts to support that these things do NOT exist?....if so, you should choose to believe they do not exist......
> 
> the question is whether you have chosen not to believe certain things where you do NOT have evidence or facts to support your choice.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one ever needs to prove a negative. If you don't believe in leprachauns how would you ever prove of their non-existence? As for the legitimacy of a god the facts and evidence favour it being non-existent.
Click to expand...

I don't have to prove a negative....I merely need to make a choice about whether I believe or not.....that is the point......I only have to "prove" something if I need to convince someone else......trying to "prove" to someone what they should believe is a waste of time.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you establish which supernatural phenomenoms you accept or deny?
> 
> 
> 
> its called choice.....many people know how to do it......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Accepting or denying is a choice. You are rewording my question but you are not answering it. Did you miss where I asked *how?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> inherent in the statement....by choosing to accept or reject what you consider to be evidence......I have accepted things which I have experienced or that people I have confidence in have experienced which you would never consider to be valid evidence......that, however, does not make me wrong and you right.....it merely means we have made different choices.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, thank you for answering the question although it was directed at PostmodernProph.
Click to expand...

????.....okay.....thank you for thanking me even though I thought I was answering Tuatara......



> You say you accept supernatural phenomenoms because you and people you trust have experienced them. Do I consider this valid evidence? No, I don't.


proving my prediction to be accurate.....



> Many people claim to experience supernatural phenomenoms from UFO abductions to predicting the future through Tarot cards. You are welcome to believe in what you believe but never tell me it's the truth without evidence.


again, you have confused "proof" with "evidence".....I'm not telling you its the truth without evidence......I am telling you of the evidence.....you may choose to reject the evidence and not believe......that doesn't make it untrue.....



> Once you have evidence it stops being a supernatural phenomenom.


apparently your belief is that the supernatural could not possibly exist, as your requirement of "evidence" of the supernatural is a demonstration that it is really natural instead of supernatural....


----------



## PostmodernProph

Tuatara said:


> *Adam Lee - Atheist - Very dishonest in his approach and a hack. I personally doubt he is an atheist. Doesn't actually criticize Dawkins arguments, just calls him sexist.
> 
> Michael Ruse - Atheist - Criticizes Dawkins approach and style in his arguments.
> 
> Justin Michael - Atheist - but doesn't criticize Dawkin's position or work, just feels he is arrogant with a vitriolic attitude.
> 
> Anthony Flew - Deist
> 
> Alister McGrath* - Angilcan
> 
> None of these criticisms are about Dawkins postion. Many atheists criticized Christopher Hitchens because of his position on the Iraq war but they were not critical of his atheist position. Sam Harris had many critics on his Israel stance by atheists, but not his atheist position. Atheist will not always agree with what another atheist is saying but you will be hard pressed to find criticism of their arguments and stance on atheism by atheists. Michael Ruse is the only one I feel that did this but he was really nitpicking and says Dawkins is being simplistic about his arguments.


Oh my, aren't you the angry fundie. Your lashing out is typical for extremists. {playfully plagiarized}.......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. His basic premise is that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. For you fundies, It’s a matter of disliking the individual because he is an outspoken and vocal critic of religious belief. What you fundies object to is being held to a consistent standard. Within the natural, rational world, there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of gods as supernatural agents. It's actually comical to see you fundies vilify science and its processes of discovery.  You will want to hold science to a standard of demonstration while at the same time, requiring "belief" alone is the only standard for your claims to magic. From the fundie side, we're left with claims of the supernatural - for which there are none – as qualifying for consideration in the natural, rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us why your religious beliefs are held to a standard that is different from the one placed on science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all he did was defend his basic claim, as you call it, no one would pay any attention to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not to mention, his book would have been a lot shorter.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to mention, you're pointless.
Click to expand...

heavy, blunt objects are better suited to dealing with you than points.......


----------



## dblack

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I originally suggested three attributes of religion and no one ever argued they were wrong or more were needed.  These are them:
> 
> A group to which members identify themselves.  "I am an Atheist along with my fellow Atheists"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the idea that atheism is a religion fails on your first criteria. 'Atheists' doesn't describe a cohesive group, any more than 'pessimists' does. It just identifies people who share a single trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Atheists identify as a group.  Atheists join in groups all of the time.  Here is just one web site of many that will tell you how you can join a group  How to Find an Atheist Support Group Atheist Revolution.  People put up billboards, organize holiday displays, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. Some do. That's been addressed. If you want to point to some atheist groups, and show how they are operating as religions, go for it. I might agree with you. But that doesn't mean that the general concept of atheism represents a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have said that Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  I have already indicated how some Atheists are treating Atheism as a religion is through the application of dogma.  Without dogma, you don't have religion.
> 
> Of course, if someone wants to disagree with the attributes of religion I have used I am certainly open to that discussion.  They just seem to be the three basics to me.  *However, without determining what those attributes are in advance you really can't determine if something is or is not religion. *
> 
> For example, if I put an electric motor on a unicycle, is it an automobile?  We can't answer that without first identifying what the attributes of an automobile are and comparing that to the unicycle.  Does the number of wheels matter, does it require a particular power plant, does the method of steering matter, etc.?  Simply stating that it isn't by definition without that comparison is not an investigation, it's dogma.
Click to expand...


Agreed. And, from what I've seen in this thread, the only way to make the 'atheism is a religion' claim stick is to define one or both terms in deceptive ways. Like I said elsewhere,  arguing over definitions is tedious. What matters is the ideas we're trying to communicate. Those who claim that atheism is a religion are trying to sell the idea that atheism is the same sort of thing as Christianity, Hinduism or Judaism, and it simply isn't.

The far more interesting topic, in my view, is the motivations behind the campaign to rebrand atheism as a religion.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also by your own definition you would have to accept every single supernatural phenomenom ever described.
> 
> 
> 
> why?......are you incapable of making choices about what you believe?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting comment in terms of religious belief. It is almost exclusively a function of geography and familial circumstances. You christian fundies, had you been born in the Islamist Middle East, would be the suicide bombers and head choppers of ISIS. There is a certain personality type that is susceptible to mind control techniques that religions employ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /shrugs.....and if you have been born in the ME you would already be dead.....be that as it may, we have examples in the form of frequent posters who have made choices, either for or against, the religion of their family......this merely proves that what you post is not true......we have to take it for granted that the things you post that we can't disprove are likewise untrue......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /shrugs.... how lucky I am that in the Infidel West, I'm protected from people like you.
> 
> This merely proves that you are a danger to yourselves and others. Society as a whole is protected by keeping you lovely cultists on a short choke collar.
Click to expand...





LOL!  That's funny!


----------



## Carla_Danger

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did everyone read that? Please everyone read what he just wrote to my response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I called you a fucking coward who is afraid to say he believes anything.
Click to expand...


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I originally suggested three attributes of religion and no one ever argued they were wrong or more were needed.  These are them:
> 
> A group to which members identify themselves.  "I am an Atheist along with my fellow Atheists"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the idea that atheism is a religion fails on your first criteria. 'Atheists' doesn't describe a cohesive group, any more than 'pessimists' does. It just identifies people who share a single trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Atheists identify as a group.  Atheists join in groups all of the time.  Here is just one web site of many that will tell you how you can join a group  How to Find an Atheist Support Group Atheist Revolution.  People put up billboards, organize holiday displays, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. Some do. That's been addressed. If you want to point to some atheist groups, and show how they are operating as religions, go for it. I might agree with you. But that doesn't mean that the general concept of atheism represents a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have said that Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  I have already indicated how some Atheists are treating Atheism as a religion is through the application of dogma.  Without dogma, you don't have religion.
> 
> Of course, if someone wants to disagree with the attributes of religion I have used I am certainly open to that discussion.  They just seem to be the three basics to me.  *However, without determining what those attributes are in advance you really can't determine if something is or is not religion. *
> 
> For example, if I put an electric motor on a unicycle, is it an automobile?  We can't answer that without first identifying what the attributes of an automobile are and comparing that to the unicycle.  Does the number of wheels matter, does it require a particular power plant, does the method of steering matter, etc.?  Simply stating that it isn't by definition without that comparison is not an investigation, it's dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. And, from what I've seen in this thread, the only way to make the 'atheism is a religion' claim stick is to define one or both terms in deceptive ways. Like I said elsewhere,  arguing over definitions is tedious. What matters is the ideas we're trying to communicate. Those who claim that atheism is a religion are trying to sell the idea that atheism is the same sort of thing as Christianity, Hinduism or Judaism, and it simply isn't.
> 
> The far more interesting topic, in my view, is the motivations behind the campaign to rebrand atheism as a religion.
Click to expand...

 
Whether or not it is a religion is entirely in how it is being treated and that is on an individual basis.  I have known people who treated science as a religion, and I would certainly not call science a religion. 

What I find interesting is this need to redefine belief.  I truly don't get the issue with simply saying one believes there are no gods.  That is as reasonable a belief as any other.  I have come up with several explanations to this, but none with which I am yet satisfied.  It is a fascinating subject and while I may never figure it out it has never bored me.


----------



## asaratis

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I originally suggested three attributes of religion and no one ever argued they were wrong or more were needed.  These are them:
> 
> A group to which members identify themselves.  "I am an Atheist along with my fellow Atheists"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the idea that atheism is a religion fails on your first criteria. 'Atheists' doesn't describe a cohesive group, any more than 'pessimists' does. It just identifies people who share a single trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Atheists identify as a group.  Atheists join in groups all of the time.  Here is just one web site of many that will tell you how you can join a group  How to Find an Atheist Support Group Atheist Revolution.  People put up billboards, organize holiday displays, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. Some do. That's been addressed. If you want to point to some atheist groups, and show how they are operating as religions, go for it. I might agree with you. But that doesn't mean that the general concept of atheism represents a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have said that Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  I have already indicated how some Atheists are treating Atheism as a religion is through the application of dogma.  Without dogma, you don't have religion.
> 
> Of course, if someone wants to disagree with the attributes of religion I have used I am certainly open to that discussion.  They just seem to be the three basics to me.  *However, without determining what those attributes are in advance you really can't determine if something is or is not religion. *
> 
> For example, if I put an electric motor on a unicycle, is it an automobile?  We can't answer that without first identifying what the attributes of an automobile are and comparing that to the unicycle.  Does the number of wheels matter, does it require a particular power plant, does the method of steering matter, etc.?  Simply stating that it isn't by definition without that comparison is not an investigation, it's dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. And, from what I've seen in this thread, the only way to make the 'atheism is a religion' claim stick is to define one or both terms in deceptive ways. Like I said elsewhere,  arguing over definitions is tedious. What matters is the ideas we're trying to communicate. Those who claim that atheism is a religion are trying to sell the idea that atheism is the same sort of thing as Christianity, Hinduism or Judaism, and it simply isn't.
> 
> The far more interesting topic, in my view, is the motivations behind the campaign to rebrand atheism as a religion.
Click to expand...

I don't see it as the same sort of religion as the others you mention.  There is no god for them, there is no need for prayer, or worship services, albeit their mentors certainly have their attention...and the church jester, Bill Maher swells them with pride using his corny jokes and simplistic analogies (just as does his "Pope").  Those that are practicing "religiously" are the ones that continuously parrot the idiotic Dawkins and attack other religions as if they are destroying the world.  The doctrine of their religion appears to include ATTACK, RIDICULE and SCORN anyone that disagrees with the denial of the existence of deities.  They proselytize just like most theistic churches do, yet they claim to have no common goals and no directives from the hierarchy that leads them to believe as they do.  I suppose they figure if they can deny God, they can deny everything and claim to be acting alone in every regard.  This too is horse shit disguised as food for thought.

There is no motivation in my claiming it's a religion.  I'm simply disagreeing with the claim that it is not a religion.  I think there has been ample evidence shown in this thread that Atheism is a religion.  I would repeat the bullet item post I made several pages back, but I have tired of the childish comebacks and denial of known FACTS about Atheism, the courts and established Atheist Churches.


----------



## sealybobo

asaratis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I insist, for the thousandth time, that is reasonable to disbelieve in the existence of something for which there is no evidence of its existence,  whether it's God or Big Foot,
> 
> and one need not repeatedly inject the caveat that it's still 'possible' for something one doesn't believe in to actually exist.
> 
> Yes, we get it.  Theoretically ANYTHING is possible.  That doesn't make one's decision not to believe in something some sort of mystical exercise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I never said that your beliefs are unreasonable, I just keep pointing out that they are beliefs. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By your measure, everything is a belief.  Fine.
> 
> But common sense would tell us that every belief is not a religion.  If that were not so, then there would be no category of humans that could be labeled 'non-religious' or 'irreligious'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know why they want to lump us in together with all the other organized religions.
> 
> Notice liberal Christians don't mind when people of other faiths don't believe their bible stories?  Why?  They're basically saying the same thing us atheists are saying about their stories.  Only difference is they believe their own fairy tales, we don't.
> 
> So for example, a Christian doesn't mind if a Muslim believes his own stories of god.  Christians don't seem to mind Jews don't think Jesus was the Messiah either.  Us atheists aren't alone on that.  Traditional Christians don't care what Mormons think about their church being corrupt.  They don't care what Jehova's say about only they go to heaven.  Catholics don't care what born against say about having to be baptized as an adult to be saved.
> 
> So, they want to lump us in with all the other religions they just agree to disagree with.
> 
> Atheism is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding any claim.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, silly bozo.  Atheism, by definition is a belief that goes does not exist.  It's okay that you believe that (if you are indeed an Atheist.   If you have no belief regarding the question of existence, you're nothing but an agnostic.
Click to expand...


I really don't care anymore if you get it or not you big dummy.  This weekend I rented "angels and demons :are we alone" and I wanted to see what possible compelling facts they would give to prove that angels and demons exist.  They provide NOTHING.  All they did was tell the Christian stories and they explained how other religions also believe.  

They had people on explaining that if you see a dark mist then it's a Demon or a spirit...  OMG I couldn't fucking take it.  I watched for about a half hour and realized this dvd was meant for really stupid and superstitious people not me.

Mysteries of angels demons are we alone DVD video 2009 WorldCat.org 

Then I was watching Jesus TV and they had Kirk Cameron explaining why Evolution is not true.  I have to admit he made some compelling arguments if they are true.  For example, he says most scientists agree Lucy was not a human she was a monkey or a human with a deformity.  Is that true?


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the idea that atheism is a religion fails on your first criteria. 'Atheists' doesn't describe a cohesive group, any more than 'pessimists' does. It just identifies people who share a single trait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Atheists identify as a group.  Atheists join in groups all of the time.  Here is just one web site of many that will tell you how you can join a group  How to Find an Atheist Support Group Atheist Revolution.  People put up billboards, organize holiday displays, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. Some do. That's been addressed. If you want to point to some atheist groups, and show how they are operating as religions, go for it. I might agree with you. But that doesn't mean that the general concept of atheism represents a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have said that Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  I have already indicated how some Atheists are treating Atheism as a religion is through the application of dogma.  Without dogma, you don't have religion.
> 
> Of course, if someone wants to disagree with the attributes of religion I have used I am certainly open to that discussion.  They just seem to be the three basics to me.  *However, without determining what those attributes are in advance you really can't determine if something is or is not religion. *
> 
> For example, if I put an electric motor on a unicycle, is it an automobile?  We can't answer that without first identifying what the attributes of an automobile are and comparing that to the unicycle.  Does the number of wheels matter, does it require a particular power plant, does the method of steering matter, etc.?  Simply stating that it isn't by definition without that comparison is not an investigation, it's dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. And, from what I've seen in this thread, the only way to make the 'atheism is a religion' claim stick is to define one or both terms in deceptive ways. Like I said elsewhere,  arguing over definitions is tedious. What matters is the ideas we're trying to communicate. Those who claim that atheism is a religion are trying to sell the idea that atheism is the same sort of thing as Christianity, Hinduism or Judaism, and it simply isn't.
> 
> The far more interesting topic, in my view, is the motivations behind the campaign to rebrand atheism as a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see it as the same sort of religion as the others you mention.  There is no god for them, there is no need for prayer, or worship services, albeit their mentors certainly have their attention...and the church jester, Bill Maher swells them with pride using his corny jokes and simplistic analogies (just as does his "Pope").  Those that are practicing "religiously" are the ones that continuously parrot the idiotic Dawkins and attack other religions as if they are destroying the world.  The doctrine of their religion appears to include ATTACK, RIDICULE and SCORN anyone that disagrees with the denial of the existence of deities.  They proselytize just like most theistic churches do, yet they claim to have no common goals and no directives from the hierarchy that leads them to believe as they do.  I suppose they figure if they can deny God, they can deny everything and claim to be acting alone in every regard.  This too is horse shit disguised as food for thought.
> 
> There is no motivation in my claiming it's a religion.  I'm simply disagreeing with the claim that it is not a religion.  I think there has been ample evidence shown in this thread that Atheism is a religion.  I would repeat the bullet item post I made several pages back, but I have tired of the childish comebacks and denial of known FACTS about Atheism, the courts and established Atheist Churches.
Click to expand...


I can't know your true intentions, but calling atheism a religion is clearly a philosophical hack. It's a game to conflate definitions and blur boundaries deliberately. I suspect that part of the motive is to intimidate people, to promote the idea that not believing in god is the equivalent of joining a cult.


----------



## asaratis

sealybobo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I insist, for the thousandth time, that is reasonable to disbelieve in the existence of something for which there is no evidence of its existence,  whether it's God or Big Foot,
> 
> and one need not repeatedly inject the caveat that it's still 'possible' for something one doesn't believe in to actually exist.
> 
> Yes, we get it.  Theoretically ANYTHING is possible.  That doesn't make one's decision not to believe in something some sort of mystical exercise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I never said that your beliefs are unreasonable, I just keep pointing out that they are beliefs. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By your measure, everything is a belief.  Fine.
> 
> But common sense would tell us that every belief is not a religion.  If that were not so, then there would be no category of humans that could be labeled 'non-religious' or 'irreligious'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know why they want to lump us in together with all the other organized religions.
> 
> Notice liberal Christians don't mind when people of other faiths don't believe their bible stories?  Why?  They're basically saying the same thing us atheists are saying about their stories.  Only difference is they believe their own fairy tales, we don't.
> 
> So for example, a Christian doesn't mind if a Muslim believes his own stories of god.  Christians don't seem to mind Jews don't think Jesus was the Messiah either.  Us atheists aren't alone on that.  Traditional Christians don't care what Mormons think about their church being corrupt.  They don't care what Jehova's say about only they go to heaven.  Catholics don't care what born against say about having to be baptized as an adult to be saved.
> 
> So, they want to lump us in with all the other religions they just agree to disagree with.
> 
> Atheism is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding any claim.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, silly bozo.  Atheism, by definition is a belief that goes does not exist.  It's okay that you believe that (if you are indeed an Atheist.   If you have no belief regarding the question of existence, you're nothing but an agnostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really don't care anymore if you get it or not you big dummy.  This weekend I rented "angels and demons :are we alone" and I wanted to see what possible compelling facts they would give to prove that angels and demons exist.  They provide NOTHING.  All they did was tell the Christian stories and they explained how other religions also believe.
> 
> They had people on explaining that if you see a dark mist then it's a Demon or a spirit...  OMG I couldn't fucking take it.  I watched for about a half hour and realized this dvd was meant for really stupid and superstitious people not me.
> 
> Mysteries of angels demons are we alone DVD video 2009 WorldCat.org
> 
> Then I was watching Jesus TV and they had Kirk Cameron explaining why Evolution is not true.  I have to admit he made some compelling arguments if they are true.  For example, he says most scientists agree Lucy was not a human she was a monkey or a human with a deformity.  Is that true?
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting something that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.  I believe in evolution myself, and the billions of years it took to arrive where we are today.  That doesn't mean God didn't make it happen....and I don't care at all whether you get that or not.  I never did, you big dummy.


----------



## sealybobo

the_human_being said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists are gay or lesbian. They are cast-aways of normal society, pitied, scorned, and marveled at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last week we were communists or socialists.
> 
> Fact is, most of us are intelligent progressive liberals.
> 
> And if I were gay I'd tell your god that says I'll go to hell to suck my dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt most atheists are in the US, so using the label progressive liberals probably doesn't apply the way you seem to be using it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He should know. He's Black, a racist, an atheist, gay, and a Liberal. He's also an Obama lap-dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot commy or socialist.  I'm sorry if I'm not rich enough to think corporations should be running this country instead of a government that is elected and represents We the People.  You right wing fools actually think CEO's & Corporations should decide policy, even after the George Bush Great Recession of 07.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shhhhh. Corporations ARE running the country. Ever hear of LOBBYISTS?
Click to expand...


See, poor and middle class Republicans don't realize how stupid they sound when they complain about the economy.  They only prove when they complain that they don't realize they are in the wrong party.  The rich are doing great!  

And remember back when Bush ruined the economy they said if we were complaining then we needed to go back to school or start a business and that we are the only ones at fault for our economic situation?  Funny today they want to cry that Democrats have failed to bring wages up when they have no plan to increase wages.  

Their falures are not Obama's failure.  This is corporations cutting wages so they can increase their profits.  Middle class and poor Republican voters can't complain about this when they cried for years that the American workers are overpaid and hurting corporate profits.  

Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs Growth And Investing - Forbes


----------



## sealybobo

dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Atheists identify as a group.  Atheists join in groups all of the time.  Here is just one web site of many that will tell you how you can join a group  How to Find an Atheist Support Group Atheist Revolution.  People put up billboards, organize holiday displays, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Some do. That's been addressed. If you want to point to some atheist groups, and show how they are operating as religions, go for it. I might agree with you. But that doesn't mean that the general concept of atheism represents a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have said that Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  I have already indicated how some Atheists are treating Atheism as a religion is through the application of dogma.  Without dogma, you don't have religion.
> 
> Of course, if someone wants to disagree with the attributes of religion I have used I am certainly open to that discussion.  They just seem to be the three basics to me.  *However, without determining what those attributes are in advance you really can't determine if something is or is not religion. *
> 
> For example, if I put an electric motor on a unicycle, is it an automobile?  We can't answer that without first identifying what the attributes of an automobile are and comparing that to the unicycle.  Does the number of wheels matter, does it require a particular power plant, does the method of steering matter, etc.?  Simply stating that it isn't by definition without that comparison is not an investigation, it's dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. And, from what I've seen in this thread, the only way to make the 'atheism is a religion' claim stick is to define one or both terms in deceptive ways. Like I said elsewhere,  arguing over definitions is tedious. What matters is the ideas we're trying to communicate. Those who claim that atheism is a religion are trying to sell the idea that atheism is the same sort of thing as Christianity, Hinduism or Judaism, and it simply isn't.
> 
> The far more interesting topic, in my view, is the motivations behind the campaign to rebrand atheism as a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see it as the same sort of religion as the others you mention.  There is no god for them, there is no need for prayer, or worship services, albeit their mentors certainly have their attention...and the church jester, Bill Maher swells them with pride using his corny jokes and simplistic analogies (just as does his "Pope").  Those that are practicing "religiously" are the ones that continuously parrot the idiotic Dawkins and attack other religions as if they are destroying the world.  The doctrine of their religion appears to include ATTACK, RIDICULE and SCORN anyone that disagrees with the denial of the existence of deities.  They proselytize just like most theistic churches do, yet they claim to have no common goals and no directives from the hierarchy that leads them to believe as they do.  I suppose they figure if they can deny God, they can deny everything and claim to be acting alone in every regard.  This too is horse shit disguised as food for thought.
> 
> There is no motivation in my claiming it's a religion.  I'm simply disagreeing with the claim that it is not a religion.  I think there has been ample evidence shown in this thread that Atheism is a religion.  I would repeat the bullet item post I made several pages back, but I have tired of the childish comebacks and denial of known FACTS about Atheism, the courts and established Atheist Churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't know your true intentions, but calling atheism a religion is clearly a philosophical hack. It's a game to conflate definitions and blur boundaries deliberately. I suspect that part of the motive is to intimidate people, to promote the idea that not believing in god is the equivalent of joining a cult.
Click to expand...


That's what I said the other day.  They would love to lump us in with all the other religions they don't agree with.  That would be easier for them to just lump us in with the Muslims, Jehovas, Mormons & Jews who like us don't believe Jesus was the Messiah.  

The problem is, we don't believe.  You don't start a church or religion on a non faith.  Who do we pray to no one?


----------



## sealybobo

asaratis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I never said that your beliefs are unreasonable, I just keep pointing out that they are beliefs. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your measure, everything is a belief.  Fine.
> 
> But common sense would tell us that every belief is not a religion.  If that were not so, then there would be no category of humans that could be labeled 'non-religious' or 'irreligious'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know why they want to lump us in together with all the other organized religions.
> 
> Notice liberal Christians don't mind when people of other faiths don't believe their bible stories?  Why?  They're basically saying the same thing us atheists are saying about their stories.  Only difference is they believe their own fairy tales, we don't.
> 
> So for example, a Christian doesn't mind if a Muslim believes his own stories of god.  Christians don't seem to mind Jews don't think Jesus was the Messiah either.  Us atheists aren't alone on that.  Traditional Christians don't care what Mormons think about their church being corrupt.  They don't care what Jehova's say about only they go to heaven.  Catholics don't care what born against say about having to be baptized as an adult to be saved.
> 
> So, they want to lump us in with all the other religions they just agree to disagree with.
> 
> Atheism is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding any claim.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, silly bozo.  Atheism, by definition is a belief that goes does not exist.  It's okay that you believe that (if you are indeed an Atheist.   If you have no belief regarding the question of existence, you're nothing but an agnostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really don't care anymore if you get it or not you big dummy.  This weekend I rented "angels and demons :are we alone" and I wanted to see what possible compelling facts they would give to prove that angels and demons exist.  They provide NOTHING.  All they did was tell the Christian stories and they explained how other religions also believe.
> 
> They had people on explaining that if you see a dark mist then it's a Demon or a spirit...  OMG I couldn't fucking take it.  I watched for about a half hour and realized this dvd was meant for really stupid and superstitious people not me.
> 
> Mysteries of angels demons are we alone DVD video 2009 WorldCat.org
> 
> Then I was watching Jesus TV and they had Kirk Cameron explaining why Evolution is not true.  I have to admit he made some compelling arguments if they are true.  For example, he says most scientists agree Lucy was not a human she was a monkey or a human with a deformity.  Is that true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for posting something that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.  I believe in evolution myself, and the billions of years it took to arrive where we are today.  That doesn't mean God didn't make it happen....and I don't care at all whether you get that or not.  I never did, you big dummy.
Click to expand...


Thank you for agreeing with me that many theists like Kirk Cameron are stupid and wrong when they deny evolution.  

Way Of The Master Evolution - Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort - YouTube


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Some do. That's been addressed. If you want to point to some atheist groups, and show how they are operating as religions, go for it. I might agree with you. But that doesn't mean that the general concept of atheism represents a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have said that Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  I have already indicated how some Atheists are treating Atheism as a religion is through the application of dogma.  Without dogma, you don't have religion.
> 
> Of course, if someone wants to disagree with the attributes of religion I have used I am certainly open to that discussion.  They just seem to be the three basics to me.  *However, without determining what those attributes are in advance you really can't determine if something is or is not religion. *
> 
> For example, if I put an electric motor on a unicycle, is it an automobile?  We can't answer that without first identifying what the attributes of an automobile are and comparing that to the unicycle.  Does the number of wheels matter, does it require a particular power plant, does the method of steering matter, etc.?  Simply stating that it isn't by definition without that comparison is not an investigation, it's dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. And, from what I've seen in this thread, the only way to make the 'atheism is a religion' claim stick is to define one or both terms in deceptive ways. Like I said elsewhere,  arguing over definitions is tedious. What matters is the ideas we're trying to communicate. Those who claim that atheism is a religion are trying to sell the idea that atheism is the same sort of thing as Christianity, Hinduism or Judaism, and it simply isn't.
> 
> The far more interesting topic, in my view, is the motivations behind the campaign to rebrand atheism as a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see it as the same sort of religion as the others you mention.  There is no god for them, there is no need for prayer, or worship services, albeit their mentors certainly have their attention...and the church jester, Bill Maher swells them with pride using his corny jokes and simplistic analogies (just as does his "Pope").  Those that are practicing "religiously" are the ones that continuously parrot the idiotic Dawkins and attack other religions as if they are destroying the world.  The doctrine of their religion appears to include ATTACK, RIDICULE and SCORN anyone that disagrees with the denial of the existence of deities.  They proselytize just like most theistic churches do, yet they claim to have no common goals and no directives from the hierarchy that leads them to believe as they do.  I suppose they figure if they can deny God, they can deny everything and claim to be acting alone in every regard.  This too is horse shit disguised as food for thought.
> 
> There is no motivation in my claiming it's a religion.  I'm simply disagreeing with the claim that it is not a religion.  I think there has been ample evidence shown in this thread that Atheism is a religion.  I would repeat the bullet item post I made several pages back, but I have tired of the childish comebacks and denial of known FACTS about Atheism, the courts and established Atheist Churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't know your true intentions, but calling atheism a religion is clearly a philosophical hack. It's a game to conflate definitions and blur boundaries deliberately. I suspect that part of the motive is to intimidate people, to promote the idea that not believing in god is the equivalent of joining a cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I said the other day.  They would love to lump us in with all the other religions they don't agree with.  That would be easier for them to just lump us in with the Muslims, Jehovas, Mormons & Jews who like us don't believe Jesus was the Messiah.
> 
> The problem is, we don't believe.  You don't start a church or religion on a non faith.  Who do we pray to no one?
Click to expand...

 
As a side note to Dblack on our discussion about the group.  You will notice the reference here to "us".  Identification with the group.


----------



## asaratis

dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Atheists identify as a group.  Atheists join in groups all of the time.  Here is just one web site of many that will tell you how you can join a group  How to Find an Atheist Support Group Atheist Revolution.  People put up billboards, organize holiday displays, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Some do. That's been addressed. If you want to point to some atheist groups, and show how they are operating as religions, go for it. I might agree with you. But that doesn't mean that the general concept of atheism represents a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have said that Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  I have already indicated how some Atheists are treating Atheism as a religion is through the application of dogma.  Without dogma, you don't have religion.
> 
> Of course, if someone wants to disagree with the attributes of religion I have used I am certainly open to that discussion.  They just seem to be the three basics to me.  *However, without determining what those attributes are in advance you really can't determine if something is or is not religion. *
> 
> For example, if I put an electric motor on a unicycle, is it an automobile?  We can't answer that without first identifying what the attributes of an automobile are and comparing that to the unicycle.  Does the number of wheels matter, does it require a particular power plant, does the method of steering matter, etc.?  Simply stating that it isn't by definition without that comparison is not an investigation, it's dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. And, from what I've seen in this thread, the only way to make the 'atheism is a religion' claim stick is to define one or both terms in deceptive ways. Like I said elsewhere,  arguing over definitions is tedious. What matters is the ideas we're trying to communicate. Those who claim that atheism is a religion are trying to sell the idea that atheism is the same sort of thing as Christianity, Hinduism or Judaism, and it simply isn't.
> 
> The far more interesting topic, in my view, is the motivations behind the campaign to rebrand atheism as a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see it as the same sort of religion as the others you mention.  There is no god for them, there is no need for prayer, or worship services, albeit their mentors certainly have their attention...and the church jester, Bill Maher swells them with pride using his corny jokes and simplistic analogies (just as does his "Pope").  Those that are practicing "religiously" are the ones that continuously parrot the idiotic Dawkins and attack other religions as if they are destroying the world.  The doctrine of their religion appears to include ATTACK, RIDICULE and SCORN anyone that disagrees with the denial of the existence of deities.  They proselytize just like most theistic churches do, yet they claim to have no common goals and no directives from the hierarchy that leads them to believe as they do.  I suppose they figure if they can deny God, they can deny everything and claim to be acting alone in every regard.  This too is horse shit disguised as food for thought.
> 
> There is no motivation in my claiming it's a religion.  I'm simply disagreeing with the claim that it is not a religion.  I think there has been ample evidence shown in this thread that Atheism is a religion.  I would repeat the bullet item post I made several pages back, but I have tired of the childish comebacks and denial of known FACTS about Atheism, the courts and established Atheist Churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't know your true intentions, but calling atheism a religion is clearly a philosophical hack. It's a game to conflate definitions and blur boundaries deliberately. I suspect that part of the motive is to intimidate people, to promote the idea that not believing in god is the equivalent of joining a cult.
Click to expand...

Hey, I didn't start this thread.  I do not care who does or does not believe in God.  I am a live-and-let-live person.  Just don't try to push your beliefs on me with no factual evidence to support them...and don't belittle me for having whatever beliefs I do.   I don't push my beliefs on others except maybe in scientific matters where I try to teach them proven facts about science, nature or how to craft physical things from steel shapes, wood, building materials and hardware.  When it comes to believing in God, not believing in God or believing that God does not exist, you are totally on your on.  The modern day Atheists have turned Atheism into a religion, with human idols and an agenda juxtaposed to long established religions.  But you do make a good point.  I suppose it does have some attributes of a cult.


----------



## asaratis

sealybobo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your measure, everything is a belief.  Fine.
> 
> But common sense would tell us that every belief is not a religion.  If that were not so, then there would be no category of humans that could be labeled 'non-religious' or 'irreligious'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know why they want to lump us in together with all the other organized religions.
> 
> Notice liberal Christians don't mind when people of other faiths don't believe their bible stories?  Why?  They're basically saying the same thing us atheists are saying about their stories.  Only difference is they believe their own fairy tales, we don't.
> 
> So for example, a Christian doesn't mind if a Muslim believes his own stories of god.  Christians don't seem to mind Jews don't think Jesus was the Messiah either.  Us atheists aren't alone on that.  Traditional Christians don't care what Mormons think about their church being corrupt.  They don't care what Jehova's say about only they go to heaven.  Catholics don't care what born against say about having to be baptized as an adult to be saved.
> 
> So, they want to lump us in with all the other religions they just agree to disagree with.
> 
> Atheism is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding any claim.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, silly bozo.  Atheism, by definition is a belief that goes does not exist.  It's okay that you believe that (if you are indeed an Atheist.   If you have no belief regarding the question of existence, you're nothing but an agnostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really don't care anymore if you get it or not you big dummy.  This weekend I rented "angels and demons :are we alone" and I wanted to see what possible compelling facts they would give to prove that angels and demons exist.  They provide NOTHING.  All they did was tell the Christian stories and they explained how other religions also believe.
> 
> They had people on explaining that if you see a dark mist then it's a Demon or a spirit...  OMG I couldn't fucking take it.  I watched for about a half hour and realized this dvd was meant for really stupid and superstitious people not me.
> 
> Mysteries of angels demons are we alone DVD video 2009 WorldCat.org
> 
> Then I was watching Jesus TV and they had Kirk Cameron explaining why Evolution is not true.  I have to admit he made some compelling arguments if they are true.  For example, he says most scientists agree Lucy was not a human she was a monkey or a human with a deformity.  Is that true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for posting something that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.  I believe in evolution myself, and the billions of years it took to arrive where we are today.  That doesn't mean God didn't make it happen....and I don't care at all whether you get that or not.  I never did, you big dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for agreeing with me that many theists like Kirk Cameron are stupid and wrong when they deny evolution.
> 
> Way Of The Master Evolution - Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort - YouTube
Click to expand...

You're welcome.  I think anyone that claims the earth is only 6000 years old is either extremely unaware of the science of nature and geological time or is incorrectly taking the Bible literally.  Many Christians and Jews have come to accept that Genesis cannot be taken literally in terms of our definition of a day.  The term "day" is a human construct and did not exist until man became aware of the periodic going and coming of sunlight.  The term cannot logically be applied to the "days" before the sun was created.

Glad to see that we agree on something.  I suspect there are other things that fall in that category.


----------



## sealybobo

asaratis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Some do. That's been addressed. If you want to point to some atheist groups, and show how they are operating as religions, go for it. I might agree with you. But that doesn't mean that the general concept of atheism represents a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have said that Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  I have already indicated how some Atheists are treating Atheism as a religion is through the application of dogma.  Without dogma, you don't have religion.
> 
> Of course, if someone wants to disagree with the attributes of religion I have used I am certainly open to that discussion.  They just seem to be the three basics to me.  *However, without determining what those attributes are in advance you really can't determine if something is or is not religion. *
> 
> For example, if I put an electric motor on a unicycle, is it an automobile?  We can't answer that without first identifying what the attributes of an automobile are and comparing that to the unicycle.  Does the number of wheels matter, does it require a particular power plant, does the method of steering matter, etc.?  Simply stating that it isn't by definition without that comparison is not an investigation, it's dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. And, from what I've seen in this thread, the only way to make the 'atheism is a religion' claim stick is to define one or both terms in deceptive ways. Like I said elsewhere,  arguing over definitions is tedious. What matters is the ideas we're trying to communicate. Those who claim that atheism is a religion are trying to sell the idea that atheism is the same sort of thing as Christianity, Hinduism or Judaism, and it simply isn't.
> 
> The far more interesting topic, in my view, is the motivations behind the campaign to rebrand atheism as a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see it as the same sort of religion as the others you mention.  There is no god for them, there is no need for prayer, or worship services, albeit their mentors certainly have their attention...and the church jester, Bill Maher swells them with pride using his corny jokes and simplistic analogies (just as does his "Pope").  Those that are practicing "religiously" are the ones that continuously parrot the idiotic Dawkins and attack other religions as if they are destroying the world.  The doctrine of their religion appears to include ATTACK, RIDICULE and SCORN anyone that disagrees with the denial of the existence of deities.  They proselytize just like most theistic churches do, yet they claim to have no common goals and no directives from the hierarchy that leads them to believe as they do.  I suppose they figure if they can deny God, they can deny everything and claim to be acting alone in every regard.  This too is horse shit disguised as food for thought.
> 
> There is no motivation in my claiming it's a religion.  I'm simply disagreeing with the claim that it is not a religion.  I think there has been ample evidence shown in this thread that Atheism is a religion.  I would repeat the bullet item post I made several pages back, but I have tired of the childish comebacks and denial of known FACTS about Atheism, the courts and established Atheist Churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The modern day Atheists have turned Atheism into a religion, with human idols and an agenda juxtaposed to long established religions.  But you do make a good point.  I suppose it does have some attributes of a cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice how you tried to slip this in right at the end.  Again, atheism is not a religion YET anyways.  I would love it if there was a atheist church near me.  I'd love to get together with those people and see what we can do about theists.
> 
> For example, I was watching Religion TV yesterday and this Chaldean Christian was bashing Barrack Hussain Obama, questioning the birth certificate and his alliance with terrorists.  This guy kept bringing up god but it was clearly political with him.  I would love to become  a "religion" just like that guy and get a tv show on that channel so at least we can present our side of the issues.
> 
> No fair religion gets those local channels and no atheist shows even get a half hour once a week?  I'm going to look into it.  I think we should get some free air time too.  If it takes becoming a "religion" to get the tax breaks, I'm all for it.
Click to expand...


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Some do. That's been addressed. If you want to point to some atheist groups, and show how they are operating as religions, go for it. I might agree with you. But that doesn't mean that the general concept of atheism represents a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have said that Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  I have already indicated how some Atheists are treating Atheism as a religion is through the application of dogma.  Without dogma, you don't have religion.
> 
> Of course, if someone wants to disagree with the attributes of religion I have used I am certainly open to that discussion.  They just seem to be the three basics to me.  *However, without determining what those attributes are in advance you really can't determine if something is or is not religion. *
> 
> For example, if I put an electric motor on a unicycle, is it an automobile?  We can't answer that without first identifying what the attributes of an automobile are and comparing that to the unicycle.  Does the number of wheels matter, does it require a particular power plant, does the method of steering matter, etc.?  Simply stating that it isn't by definition without that comparison is not an investigation, it's dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. And, from what I've seen in this thread, the only way to make the 'atheism is a religion' claim stick is to define one or both terms in deceptive ways. Like I said elsewhere,  arguing over definitions is tedious. What matters is the ideas we're trying to communicate. Those who claim that atheism is a religion are trying to sell the idea that atheism is the same sort of thing as Christianity, Hinduism or Judaism, and it simply isn't.
> 
> The far more interesting topic, in my view, is the motivations behind the campaign to rebrand atheism as a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see it as the same sort of religion as the others you mention.  There is no god for them, there is no need for prayer, or worship services, albeit their mentors certainly have their attention...and the church jester, Bill Maher swells them with pride using his corny jokes and simplistic analogies (just as does his "Pope").  Those that are practicing "religiously" are the ones that continuously parrot the idiotic Dawkins and attack other religions as if they are destroying the world.  The doctrine of their religion appears to include ATTACK, RIDICULE and SCORN anyone that disagrees with the denial of the existence of deities.  They proselytize just like most theistic churches do, yet they claim to have no common goals and no directives from the hierarchy that leads them to believe as they do.  I suppose they figure if they can deny God, they can deny everything and claim to be acting alone in every regard.  This too is horse shit disguised as food for thought.
> 
> There is no motivation in my claiming it's a religion.  I'm simply disagreeing with the claim that it is not a religion.  I think there has been ample evidence shown in this thread that Atheism is a religion.  I would repeat the bullet item post I made several pages back, but I have tired of the childish comebacks and denial of known FACTS about Atheism, the courts and established Atheist Churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't know your true intentions, but calling atheism a religion is clearly a philosophical hack. It's a game to conflate definitions and blur boundaries deliberately. I suspect that part of the motive is to intimidate people, to promote the idea that not believing in god is the equivalent of joining a cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, I didn't start this thread.  I do not care who does or does not believe in God.  I am a live-and-let-live person.  Just don't try to push your beliefs on me with no factual evidence to support them...and don't belittle me for having whatever beliefs I do.   I don't push my beliefs on others except maybe in scientific matters where I try to teach them proven facts about science, nature or how to craft physical things from steel shapes, wood, building materials and hardware.  When it comes to believing in God, not believing in God or believing that God does not exist, you are totally on your on.  The modern day Atheists have turned Atheism into a religion, with human idols and an agenda juxtaposed to long established religions.  But you do make a good point.  I suppose it does have some attributes of a cult.
Click to expand...


That's not my point and you know it. And your dishonesty isn't appreciated. All you've succeeded in doing in this thread is to prove that _some_ people treat atheism like a religion - something I don't think anyone here disagrees with. But instead of saying that atheism can be approached as a religion (as can just about any other belief), you've repeatedly claimed that atheism IS a religion, that calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism. And that is just a chickenshit lie that you've provided exactly no justification for.


----------



## sealybobo

asaratis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know why they want to lump us in together with all the other organized religions.
> 
> Notice liberal Christians don't mind when people of other faiths don't believe their bible stories?  Why?  They're basically saying the same thing us atheists are saying about their stories.  Only difference is they believe their own fairy tales, we don't.
> 
> So for example, a Christian doesn't mind if a Muslim believes his own stories of god.  Christians don't seem to mind Jews don't think Jesus was the Messiah either.  Us atheists aren't alone on that.  Traditional Christians don't care what Mormons think about their church being corrupt.  They don't care what Jehova's say about only they go to heaven.  Catholics don't care what born against say about having to be baptized as an adult to be saved.
> 
> So, they want to lump us in with all the other religions they just agree to disagree with.
> 
> Atheism is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding any claim.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, silly bozo.  Atheism, by definition is a belief that goes does not exist.  It's okay that you believe that (if you are indeed an Atheist.   If you have no belief regarding the question of existence, you're nothing but an agnostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really don't care anymore if you get it or not you big dummy.  This weekend I rented "angels and demons :are we alone" and I wanted to see what possible compelling facts they would give to prove that angels and demons exist.  They provide NOTHING.  All they did was tell the Christian stories and they explained how other religions also believe.
> 
> They had people on explaining that if you see a dark mist then it's a Demon or a spirit...  OMG I couldn't fucking take it.  I watched for about a half hour and realized this dvd was meant for really stupid and superstitious people not me.
> 
> Mysteries of angels demons are we alone DVD video 2009 WorldCat.org
> 
> Then I was watching Jesus TV and they had Kirk Cameron explaining why Evolution is not true.  I have to admit he made some compelling arguments if they are true.  For example, he says most scientists agree Lucy was not a human she was a monkey or a human with a deformity.  Is that true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for posting something that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.  I believe in evolution myself, and the billions of years it took to arrive where we are today.  That doesn't mean God didn't make it happen....and I don't care at all whether you get that or not.  I never did, you big dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for agreeing with me that many theists like Kirk Cameron are stupid and wrong when they deny evolution.
> 
> Way Of The Master Evolution - Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort - YouTube
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're welcome.  I think anyone that claims the earth is only 6000 years old is either extremely unaware of the science of nature and geological time or is incorrectly taking the Bible literally.  Many Christians and Jews have come to accept that Genesis cannot be taken literally in terms of our definition of a day.  The term "day" is a human construct and did not exist until man became aware of the periodic going and coming of sunlight.  The term cannot logically be applied to the "days" before the sun was created.
> 
> Glad to see that we agree on something.  I suspect there are other things that fall in that category.
Click to expand...


Kirk Cameron was basically saying the "science" is flimbsy.  

Do you also agree that the Adam & Eve, Moses, Noah & Jonah stories are all just allegories or do you believe in talking snakes, bushes, noah living 350 years or Jonah living inside a whale for 3 days?


----------



## Carla_Danger

Hollie said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just be honest. It's ok for you to vilify Dawkins. As much as he is a vocal opponent of religious fear and superstition, he's also a proponent of the many science disciplines that support _evilution_. How fortunate for you, you can expand your horizons of hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dawkins vilifies himself, I see no need to assist him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. His basic premise is that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. For you fundies, It’s a matter of disliking the individual because he is an outspoken and vocal critic of religious belief. What you fundies object to is being held to a consistent standard. Within the natural, rational world, there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of gods as supernatural agents. It's actually comical to see you fundies vilify science and its processes of discovery.  You will want to hold science to a standard of demonstration while at the same time, requiring "belief" alone is the only standard for your claims to magic. From the fundie side, we're left with claims of the supernatural - for which there are none – as qualifying for consideration in the natural, rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us why your religious beliefs are held to a standard that is different from the one placed on science.
Click to expand...




Tuatara said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did everyone read that? Please everyone read what he just wrote to my response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I called you a fucking coward who is afraid to say he believes anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reread what I said. You are missing one word or you are the biggest idiot that ever was.
Click to expand...




I'm going with biggest idiot...


----------



## Carla_Danger

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also by your own definition you would have to accept every single supernatural phenomenom ever described.
> 
> 
> 
> why?......are you incapable of making choices about what you believe?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting comment in terms of religious belief. It is almost exclusively a function of geography and familial circumstances. You christian fundies, had you been born in the Islamist Middle East, would be the suicide bombers and head choppers of ISIS. There is a certain personality type that is susceptible to mind control techniques that religions employ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /shrugs.....and if you have been born in the ME you would already be dead.....be that as it may, we have examples in the form of frequent posters who have made choices, either for or against, the religion of their family......this merely proves that what you post is not true......we have to take it for granted that the things you post that we can't disprove are likewise untrue......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /shrugs.... how lucky I am that in the Infidel West, I'm protected from people like you.
> 
> This merely proves that you are a danger to yourselves and others. Society as a whole is protected by keeping you lovely cultists on a short choke collar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.....people like me are the ones protecting you in the infidel west......
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agnostic is not sure either way.  Too wishy washy for me.  I'm an agnostic atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> does that make you a wishy-washy god-denier?.......
Click to expand...


No.  Agnostic only means I'm not a god myself and can't everything.  You would have to be all knowing to say for sure 100% there is no god.

I'm an atheist when it comes to arguing with humans about if there is a god.  A christian tells me I'm going to hell, I don't believe in that kind of god.  A muslim tells me the same thing.  I don't believe that person.  A Jehova says only 150,000 people will make it to heaven.  I don't believe them.  A jew says what a jew says.  I don't believe them.  A mormom says what they say.  I don't believe them.

There could be a generic god that created our universe that doesn't know you exist.  That I'm agnostic atheist.  As for Jesus I'm an atheist.  

Still it is not a religion just because I don't believe in Jesus.  You Christians give yourselves too much credit, power and prestige.


----------



## asaratis

dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said that Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  I have already indicated how some Atheists are treating Atheism as a religion is through the application of dogma.  Without dogma, you don't have religion.
> 
> Of course, if someone wants to disagree with the attributes of religion I have used I am certainly open to that discussion.  They just seem to be the three basics to me.  *However, without determining what those attributes are in advance you really can't determine if something is or is not religion. *
> 
> For example, if I put an electric motor on a unicycle, is it an automobile?  We can't answer that without first identifying what the attributes of an automobile are and comparing that to the unicycle.  Does the number of wheels matter, does it require a particular power plant, does the method of steering matter, etc.?  Simply stating that it isn't by definition without that comparison is not an investigation, it's dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. And, from what I've seen in this thread, the only way to make the 'atheism is a religion' claim stick is to define one or both terms in deceptive ways. Like I said elsewhere,  arguing over definitions is tedious. What matters is the ideas we're trying to communicate. Those who claim that atheism is a religion are trying to sell the idea that atheism is the same sort of thing as Christianity, Hinduism or Judaism, and it simply isn't.
> 
> The far more interesting topic, in my view, is the motivations behind the campaign to rebrand atheism as a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see it as the same sort of religion as the others you mention.  There is no god for them, there is no need for prayer, or worship services, albeit their mentors certainly have their attention...and the church jester, Bill Maher swells them with pride using his corny jokes and simplistic analogies (just as does his "Pope").  Those that are practicing "religiously" are the ones that continuously parrot the idiotic Dawkins and attack other religions as if they are destroying the world.  The doctrine of their religion appears to include ATTACK, RIDICULE and SCORN anyone that disagrees with the denial of the existence of deities.  They proselytize just like most theistic churches do, yet they claim to have no common goals and no directives from the hierarchy that leads them to believe as they do.  I suppose they figure if they can deny God, they can deny everything and claim to be acting alone in every regard.  This too is horse shit disguised as food for thought.
> 
> There is no motivation in my claiming it's a religion.  I'm simply disagreeing with the claim that it is not a religion.  I think there has been ample evidence shown in this thread that Atheism is a religion.  I would repeat the bullet item post I made several pages back, but I have tired of the childish comebacks and denial of known FACTS about Atheism, the courts and established Atheist Churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't know your true intentions, but calling atheism a religion is clearly a philosophical hack. It's a game to conflate definitions and blur boundaries deliberately. I suspect that part of the motive is to intimidate people, to promote the idea that not believing in god is the equivalent of joining a cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, I didn't start this thread.  I do not care who does or does not believe in God.  I am a live-and-let-live person.  Just don't try to push your beliefs on me with no factual evidence to support them...and don't belittle me for having whatever beliefs I do.   I don't push my beliefs on others except maybe in scientific matters where I try to teach them proven facts about science, nature or how to craft physical things from steel shapes, wood, building materials and hardware.  When it comes to believing in God, not believing in God or believing that God does not exist, you are totally on your on.  The modern day Atheists have turned Atheism into a religion, with human idols and an agenda juxtaposed to long established religions.  But you do make a good point.  I suppose it does have some attributes of a cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not my point and you know it. And your dishonesty isn't appreciated. All you've succeeded in doing in this thread is to prove that _some_ people treat atheism like a religion - something I don't think anyone here disagrees with. But instead of saying that atheism can be approached as a religion (as can just about any other belief), you've repeatedly claimed that atheism IS a religion, that calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism. And that is just a chickenshit lie that you've provided exactly no justification for.
Click to expand...

You have misstated my claims.  Just as Christians and Jews don't have to be members of churches, neither do Atheist.  That doesn't mean that churches for them do not exist.  That Atheism is a religion is a justified claim. That's why I made it. That calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism is not.  That is why I haven't made the claim.


----------



## sealybobo

dblack said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. *By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief*.
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.
> 
> Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to use it then you use it all:
> 
> Merriam-Webster:
> 
> *Definition of ATHEISM*
> 1
> _archaic_ *:* ungodliness, wickedness
> 2
> _a_ *:*  a disbelief in the existence of deity
> _b_ *:*  the doctrine that there is no deity  .
> 
> 
> 
> See atheism defined for kids »
> *Origin of ATHEISM*
> Middle French _athéisme,_ from _athée_ atheist, from Greek _atheos_ godless, from _a-_ + _theos_ god
> First Known Use: 1546
> 
> Oxford Reference
> 
> atheism
> Subject:  Religion
> The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek _atheos_, from _a-_ ‘without’ + _theos_ ‘god’.
> 
> You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos".  It does not apply it to the suffix "ism".  "No god" not "no belief".
> The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
> *ism*
> _noun_ \ˈi-zəm\ .
> : a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix _-ism_
> *Full Definition of ISM*
> 1
> *:*  a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
> 
> While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god.  Which is why I don't like definitions that much.  It implies the word creates the thing.  It does not.  If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:
> 
> An Atheist has no god beliefs.
> I am an Atheist.
> Therefore, I have no god beliefs.
> 
> While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration.  I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god.  In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief.  So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong.  It can't be both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?
> 
> What we have seen, as usual, is that there are multiple definitions of atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It wouldn't.  But yes, there are many different definitions and some contradict each other.  Which is why definitions should not be the basis for the argument.  Simply saying something is a particular way because that is way one defines it is just dogma.  It is what it is, regardless of definition.  If one claims they have no beliefs then they should have no beliefs.  So far, I haven't met that person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do atheists claim that they have no beliefs? My understanding is that they simply don't believe in gods. Not that they claim to have no beliefs.
Click to expand...


Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. 

For example, I believe in Karma.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> No one ever needs to prove a negative. If you don't believe in leprachauns how would you ever prove of their non-existence? As for the legitimacy of a god the facts and evidence favour it being non-existent.



What the fuck makes a negative statement immune from your claim that it is the responsibility of everyone to back up their statements? Are their other hidden exceptions to you rules?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> First of all the quote I put up was a criticism of John Moore's criticism of Dawkins. I was trying to find these atheists who were criticizing Dawkins as Moore is an Anglican.



And I posted a detailed criticism of Dawkin' reliance on logical fallacies in his work from an atheist website, what's your point?


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> ]You have misstated my claims.  Just as Christians and Jews don't have to be members of churches, neither do Atheist.  That doesn't mean that churches for them do not exist.  That Atheism is a religion is a justified claim. That's why I made it. That calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism is not.  That is why I haven't made the claim.




Those are community centers.  There's no religion or worship going on inside.


----------



## sealybobo

percysunshine said:


> .
> 
> Are people still arguing about this stuff?  It is impossible to prove, or disprove, the existence of a super-natural being....by definition.
> 
> Grow a logos for Christ's sake.
> 
> .



Didn't god at one time in history supposedly visit us in the most remote & primitive parts of the world?  If those stories are true then it isn't impossible.  Are you saying you don't believe god visited?


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This explains everything
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I very much doubt that any video explains everything.
Click to expand...


it explains the problem with your arguments.  Watch and then maybe you will know the truth.  

Until you watch it you are just being close minded and only accepting one side of the argument.


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. And, from what I've seen in this thread, the only way to make the 'atheism is a religion' claim stick is to define one or both terms in deceptive ways. Like I said elsewhere,  arguing over definitions is tedious. What matters is the ideas we're trying to communicate. Those who claim that atheism is a religion are trying to sell the idea that atheism is the same sort of thing as Christianity, Hinduism or Judaism, and it simply isn't.
> 
> The far more interesting topic, in my view, is the motivations behind the campaign to rebrand atheism as a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it as the same sort of religion as the others you mention.  There is no god for them, there is no need for prayer, or worship services, albeit their mentors certainly have their attention...and the church jester, Bill Maher swells them with pride using his corny jokes and simplistic analogies (just as does his "Pope").  Those that are practicing "religiously" are the ones that continuously parrot the idiotic Dawkins and attack other religions as if they are destroying the world.  The doctrine of their religion appears to include ATTACK, RIDICULE and SCORN anyone that disagrees with the denial of the existence of deities.  They proselytize just like most theistic churches do, yet they claim to have no common goals and no directives from the hierarchy that leads them to believe as they do.  I suppose they figure if they can deny God, they can deny everything and claim to be acting alone in every regard.  This too is horse shit disguised as food for thought.
> 
> There is no motivation in my claiming it's a religion.  I'm simply disagreeing with the claim that it is not a religion.  I think there has been ample evidence shown in this thread that Atheism is a religion.  I would repeat the bullet item post I made several pages back, but I have tired of the childish comebacks and denial of known FACTS about Atheism, the courts and established Atheist Churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't know your true intentions, but calling atheism a religion is clearly a philosophical hack. It's a game to conflate definitions and blur boundaries deliberately. I suspect that part of the motive is to intimidate people, to promote the idea that not believing in god is the equivalent of joining a cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, I didn't start this thread.  I do not care who does or does not believe in God.  I am a live-and-let-live person.  Just don't try to push your beliefs on me with no factual evidence to support them...and don't belittle me for having whatever beliefs I do.   I don't push my beliefs on others except maybe in scientific matters where I try to teach them proven facts about science, nature or how to craft physical things from steel shapes, wood, building materials and hardware.  When it comes to believing in God, not believing in God or believing that God does not exist, you are totally on your on.  The modern day Atheists have turned Atheism into a religion, with human idols and an agenda juxtaposed to long established religions.  But you do make a good point.  I suppose it does have some attributes of a cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not my point and you know it. And your dishonesty isn't appreciated. All you've succeeded in doing in this thread is to prove that _some_ people treat atheism like a religion - something I don't think anyone here disagrees with. But instead of saying that atheism can be approached as a religion (as can just about any other belief), you've repeatedly claimed that atheism IS a religion, that calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism. And that is just a chickenshit lie that you've provided exactly no justification for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have misstated my claims.  Just as Christians and Jews don't have to be members of churches, neither do Atheist.  That doesn't mean that churches for them do not exist.  That Atheism is a religion is a justified claim. That's why I made it. That calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism is not.  That is why I haven't made the claim.
Click to expand...


Sure you have, in so many words. Your whole game here is equivocation, banking on blurred meanings and sophistry. Dodging valid criticisms with little diversions, etc, etc...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god.
> 
> *For example, I believe in Karma.*



It takes an incredible amount of stupidity to believe that the universe is going to keep track of how you behave and punish you if you don't follow a set of rules no one has explained.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> it explains the problem with your arguments.  Watch and then maybe you will know the truth.
> 
> Until you watch it you are just being close minded and only accepting one side of the argument.



The problem with my arguments?

The only arguments I have made in this thread is that some people treat atheism as a religion, and that it is a belief. Does that video address either of those issues, or is it another attempt on your part to define my beliefs about god so that you can claim to prove they are wrong?


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> it explains the problem with your arguments.  Watch and then maybe you will know the truth.
> 
> Until you watch it you are just being close minded and only accepting one side of the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with my arguments?
> 
> The only arguments I have made in this thread is that some people treat atheism as a religion, and that it is a belief. Does that video address either of those issues, or is it another attempt on your part to define my beliefs about god so that you can claim to prove they are wrong?
Click to expand...


It explains exactly why you are wrong.  10 minutes.


----------



## asaratis

dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it as the same sort of religion as the others you mention.  There is no god for them, there is no need for prayer, or worship services, albeit their mentors certainly have their attention...and the church jester, Bill Maher swells them with pride using his corny jokes and simplistic analogies (just as does his "Pope").  Those that are practicing "religiously" are the ones that continuously parrot the idiotic Dawkins and attack other religions as if they are destroying the world.  The doctrine of their religion appears to include ATTACK, RIDICULE and SCORN anyone that disagrees with the denial of the existence of deities.  They proselytize just like most theistic churches do, yet they claim to have no common goals and no directives from the hierarchy that leads them to believe as they do.  I suppose they figure if they can deny God, they can deny everything and claim to be acting alone in every regard.  This too is horse shit disguised as food for thought.
> 
> There is no motivation in my claiming it's a religion.  I'm simply disagreeing with the claim that it is not a religion.  I think there has been ample evidence shown in this thread that Atheism is a religion.  I would repeat the bullet item post I made several pages back, but I have tired of the childish comebacks and denial of known FACTS about Atheism, the courts and established Atheist Churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't know your true intentions, but calling atheism a religion is clearly a philosophical hack. It's a game to conflate definitions and blur boundaries deliberately. I suspect that part of the motive is to intimidate people, to promote the idea that not believing in god is the equivalent of joining a cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, I didn't start this thread.  I do not care who does or does not believe in God.  I am a live-and-let-live person.  Just don't try to push your beliefs on me with no factual evidence to support them...and don't belittle me for having whatever beliefs I do.   I don't push my beliefs on others except maybe in scientific matters where I try to teach them proven facts about science, nature or how to craft physical things from steel shapes, wood, building materials and hardware.  When it comes to believing in God, not believing in God or believing that God does not exist, you are totally on your on.  The modern day Atheists have turned Atheism into a religion, with human idols and an agenda juxtaposed to long established religions.  But you do make a good point.  I suppose it does have some attributes of a cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not my point and you know it. And your dishonesty isn't appreciated. All you've succeeded in doing in this thread is to prove that _some_ people treat atheism like a religion - something I don't think anyone here disagrees with. But instead of saying that atheism can be approached as a religion (as can just about any other belief), you've repeatedly claimed that atheism IS a religion, that calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism. And that is just a chickenshit lie that you've provided exactly no justification for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have misstated my claims.  Just as Christians and Jews don't have to be members of churches, neither do Atheist.  That doesn't mean that churches for them do not exist.  That Atheism is a religion is a justified claim. That's why I made it. That calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism is not.  That is why I haven't made the claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you have, in so many words. Your whole game here is equivocation, banking on blurred meanings and sophistry. Dodging valid criticisms with little diversions, etc, etc...
Click to expand...

Blurred meanings?  That I rely on established, well respected dictionaries instead of the idiotic Dawkins' scale to define _Atheist_ as one that believes God does not exist is not blurring.  That I believe that to believe either way takes faith is not blurring.  That I believe that faith regarding a deity (whether it exists or not) could be classified  as a religious belief is not blurring.  That I believe any person belonging to any religion does not have to be considered religious is not blurring.  That I believe that any person acting on the doctrine of his/her religion _is_ being religious is not blurring.  That I believe Atheists have their own set of "church elders" in Dawkins, Hitchens and others is not blurring.  That I believe the Atheists leaders are proselytizing is not blurring.  That I believe there are Atheist churches available for you to join is not blurring.  That I believe the courts have defined Atheism as a religion is not blurring.

I leave the sophistry to your idol, Richard.  Even his own brethren have accused him of simplistic, less-than-sophomoric argument.

I will say that for a classification of people that claim to be totally independent of each other, the Atheists sure do stick together, patting each other on the back for emulating Bill Maher with the true sophistry of meaningless analogies and stories of teapots and spaghetti monsters.  Makes a grown man want to piss down his own leg!


----------



## Carla_Danger

sealybobo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.
> 
> Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity
> 
> Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
> 
> 
> Thanks for coming out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to use it then you use it all:
> 
> Merriam-Webster:
> 
> *Definition of ATHEISM*
> 1
> _archaic_ *:* ungodliness, wickedness
> 2
> _a_ *:*  a disbelief in the existence of deity
> _b_ *:*  the doctrine that there is no deity  .
> 
> 
> 
> See atheism defined for kids »
> *Origin of ATHEISM*
> Middle French _athéisme,_ from _athée_ atheist, from Greek _atheos_ godless, from _a-_ + _theos_ god
> First Known Use: 1546
> 
> Oxford Reference
> 
> atheism
> Subject:  Religion
> The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek _atheos_, from _a-_ ‘without’ + _theos_ ‘god’.
> 
> You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos".  It does not apply it to the suffix "ism".  "No god" not "no belief".
> The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
> *ism*
> _noun_ \ˈi-zəm\ .
> : a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix _-ism_
> *Full Definition of ISM*
> 1
> *:*  a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
> 
> While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god.  Which is why I don't like definitions that much.  It implies the word creates the thing.  It does not.  If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:
> 
> An Atheist has no god beliefs.
> I am an Atheist.
> Therefore, I have no god beliefs.
> 
> While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration.  I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god.  In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief.  So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong.  It can't be both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?
> 
> What we have seen, as usual, is that there are multiple definitions of atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It wouldn't.  But yes, there are many different definitions and some contradict each other.  Which is why definitions should not be the basis for the argument.  Simply saying something is a particular way because that is way one defines it is just dogma.  It is what it is, regardless of definition.  If one claims they have no beliefs then they should have no beliefs.  So far, I haven't met that person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do atheists claim that they have no beliefs? My understanding is that they simply don't believe in gods. Not that they claim to have no beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god.
> 
> For example, I believe in Karma.
Click to expand...




I don't believe in karma.  Sometimes bad things happen for no reason, and they happen to good people.  Also, try telling the parent of a handicapped child, that their child must of done something really bad in the past.     That probably wouldn't go over well...


----------



## sealybobo

Carla_Danger said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to use it then you use it all:
> 
> Merriam-Webster:
> 
> *Definition of ATHEISM*
> 1
> _archaic_ *:* ungodliness, wickedness
> 2
> _a_ *:*  a disbelief in the existence of deity
> _b_ *:*  the doctrine that there is no deity  .
> 
> 
> 
> See atheism defined for kids »
> *Origin of ATHEISM*
> Middle French _athéisme,_ from _athée_ atheist, from Greek _atheos_ godless, from _a-_ + _theos_ god
> First Known Use: 1546
> 
> Oxford Reference
> 
> atheism
> Subject:  Religion
> The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek _atheos_, from _a-_ ‘without’ + _theos_ ‘god’.
> 
> You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos".  It does not apply it to the suffix "ism".  "No god" not "no belief".
> The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
> *ism*
> _noun_ \ˈi-zəm\ .
> : a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix _-ism_
> *Full Definition of ISM*
> 1
> *:*  a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
> 
> While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god.  Which is why I don't like definitions that much.  It implies the word creates the thing.  It does not.  If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:
> 
> An Atheist has no god beliefs.
> I am an Atheist.
> Therefore, I have no god beliefs.
> 
> While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration.  I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god.  In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief.  So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong.  It can't be both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?
> 
> What we have seen, as usual, is that there are multiple definitions of atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It wouldn't.  But yes, there are many different definitions and some contradict each other.  Which is why definitions should not be the basis for the argument.  Simply saying something is a particular way because that is way one defines it is just dogma.  It is what it is, regardless of definition.  If one claims they have no beliefs then they should have no beliefs.  So far, I haven't met that person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do atheists claim that they have no beliefs? My understanding is that they simply don't believe in gods. Not that they claim to have no beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god.
> 
> For example, I believe in Karma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in karma.  Sometimes bad things happen for no reason, and they happen to good people.  Also, try telling the parent of a handicapped child, that their child must of done something really bad in the past.     That probably wouldn't go over well...
Click to expand...


I agree with you.  That's why I don't have "faith" in Karma.  I can't even say I "believe" in Karma.  At least not 100%.

Lets put it this way though.  If I did something bad, I would think I'm going to get paid back for it sometime in the future.  And I think I have a sweet life because I'm a good person.  But I do admit bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.  

Or, I have a hard time believing that Hitler just died and got away with everything he did while he was here on earth.  I want to believe that bad people like this pay for it when they die.

Even though I don't believe in god and I should realize this is all just in my head, I have a hard time believing bad people get away with being bad.  Either their personal life sucks or they get sick and suffer and die or they go to hell or they come back as a goat.  Know what I mean?

I'm not saying I "beleive" in Karma, but I think there is something to it.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?
> 
> What we have seen, as usual, is that there are multiple definitions of atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It wouldn't.  But yes, there are many different definitions and some contradict each other.  Which is why definitions should not be the basis for the argument.  Simply saying something is a particular way because that is way one defines it is just dogma.  It is what it is, regardless of definition.  If one claims they have no beliefs then they should have no beliefs.  So far, I haven't met that person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do atheists claim that they have no beliefs? My understanding is that they simply don't believe in gods. Not that they claim to have no beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god.
> 
> For example, I believe in Karma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in karma.  Sometimes bad things happen for no reason, and they happen to good people.  Also, try telling the parent of a handicapped child, that their child must of done something really bad in the past.     That probably wouldn't go over well...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you.  That's why I don't have "faith" in Karma.  I can't even say I "believe" in Karma.  At least not 100%.
> 
> Lets put it this way though.  If I did something bad, I would think I'm going to get paid back for it sometime in the future.  And I think I have a sweet life because I'm a good person.  But I do admit bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.
> 
> Or, I have a hard time believing that Hitler just died and got away with everything he did while he was here on earth.  I want to believe that bad people like this pay for it when they die.
> 
> Even though I don't believe in god and I should realize this is all just in my head, I have a hard time believing bad people get away with being bad.  Either their personal life sucks or they get sick and suffer and die or they go to hell or they come back as a goat.  Know what I mean?
> 
> I'm not saying I "beleive" in Karma, but I think there is something to it.
Click to expand...


With the proviso we are now into the realm of pure belief, Karma is not about punishment.  It is about balance.  If a rich man uses his wealth badly, living in luxury while keeping others down for his own self interest, then Karma would tend to have him poor in the next life to obtain understanding of what that means.  Not as a punishment but as a learning experience.  But Karma, at least in Buddhist tradition, is not the only factor in how one's life progresses, nor is it all about past lives.  Of course, you do have to buy into the concept of rebirth for any of this to matter.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It wouldn't.  But yes, there are many different definitions and some contradict each other.  Which is why definitions should not be the basis for the argument.  Simply saying something is a particular way because that is way one defines it is just dogma.  It is what it is, regardless of definition.  If one claims they have no beliefs then they should have no beliefs.  So far, I haven't met that person.
> 
> 
> 
> Do atheists claim that they have no beliefs? My understanding is that they simply don't believe in gods. Not that they claim to have no beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god.
> 
> For example, I believe in Karma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in karma.  Sometimes bad things happen for no reason, and they happen to good people.  Also, try telling the parent of a handicapped child, that their child must of done something really bad in the past.     That probably wouldn't go over well...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you.  That's why I don't have "faith" in Karma.  I can't even say I "believe" in Karma.  At least not 100%.
> 
> Lets put it this way though.  If I did something bad, I would think I'm going to get paid back for it sometime in the future.  And I think I have a sweet life because I'm a good person.  But I do admit bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.
> 
> Or, I have a hard time believing that Hitler just died and got away with everything he did while he was here on earth.  I want to believe that bad people like this pay for it when they die.
> 
> Even though I don't believe in god and I should realize this is all just in my head, I have a hard time believing bad people get away with being bad.  Either their personal life sucks or they get sick and suffer and die or they go to hell or they come back as a goat.  Know what I mean?
> 
> I'm not saying I "beleive" in Karma, but I think there is something to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the proviso we are now into the realm of pure belief, Karma is not about punishment.  It is about balance.  If a rich man uses his wealth badly, living in luxury while keeping others down for his own self interest, then Karma would tend to have him poor in the next life to obtain understanding of what that means.  Not as a punishment but as a learning experience.  But Karma, at least in Buddhist tradition, is not the only factor in how one's life progresses, nor is it all about past lives.  Of course, you do have to buy into the concept of rebirth for any of this to matter.
Click to expand...


My atheist friend says, "come on stupid, you think that if I do something bad that something bad is going to happen to me?".  While I don't believe there is someone or something keeping track and paying him back every time he does something wrong, I do believe that if you are a shitty person then your life is probably going to turn out shitty.  

My parents say, "you always pay" when you do something wrong.  I don't think people "always" pay, but I do believe if you suck your life probably does too.  Look at that racist Clipper owner Sterling.  You would have thought he got away his whole life with being an ass but the reality is he's in a loveless marriage, his kids probably want him dead, he got cancer and alzheimers and he had to sell his team.

Granted he sold for 2 billion but you can't take that with you so bfd.


----------



## Montrovant

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god.
> 
> *For example, I believe in Karma.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes an incredible amount of stupidity to believe that the universe is going to keep track of how you behave and punish you if you don't follow a set of rules no one has explained.
Click to expand...


Does it take more stupidity to believe that than most other religious or spiritual beliefs?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> It explains exactly why you are wrong.  10 minutes.



It is a video, it only explains how idiots watch videos. If the argument was actually any good you would have it in writing for the intelligent people.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I agree with you.  That's why I don't have "faith" in Karma.  I can't even say I "believe" in Karma.  At least not 100%.
> 
> Lets put it this way though.  If I did something bad, I would think I'm going to get paid back for it sometime in the future.  And I think I have a sweet life because I'm a good person.  But I do admit bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.
> 
> Or, I have a hard time believing that Hitler just died and got away with everything he did while he was here on earth.  I want to believe that bad people like this pay for it when they die.
> 
> Even though I don't believe in god and I should realize this is all just in my head, I have a hard time believing bad people get away with being bad.  Either their personal life sucks or they get sick and suffer and die or they go to hell or they come back as a goat.  Know what I mean?
> 
> I'm not saying I "beleive" in Karma, but I think there is something to it.



What a surprise, first you say you believe in karma, and then, after people point out how stupid it is to believe in karma, you say you don't.

Yet you wonder why no one takes anything you say seriously.


----------



## Carla_Danger

sealybobo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?
> 
> What we have seen, as usual, is that there are multiple definitions of atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It wouldn't.  But yes, there are many different definitions and some contradict each other.  Which is why definitions should not be the basis for the argument.  Simply saying something is a particular way because that is way one defines it is just dogma.  It is what it is, regardless of definition.  If one claims they have no beliefs then they should have no beliefs.  So far, I haven't met that person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do atheists claim that they have no beliefs? My understanding is that they simply don't believe in gods. Not that they claim to have no beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god.
> 
> For example, I believe in Karma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in karma.  Sometimes bad things happen for no reason, and they happen to good people.  Also, try telling the parent of a handicapped child, that their child must of done something really bad in the past.     That probably wouldn't go over well...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you.  That's why I don't have "faith" in Karma.  I can't even say I "believe" in Karma.  At least not 100%.
> 
> Lets put it this way though.  If I did something bad, I would think I'm going to get paid back for it sometime in the future.  And I think I have a sweet life because I'm a good person.  But I do admit bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.
> 
> Or, I have a hard time believing that Hitler just died and got away with everything he did while he was here on earth.  I want to believe that bad people like this pay for it when they die.
> 
> Even though I don't believe in god and I should realize this is all just in my head, I have a hard time believing bad people get away with being bad.  Either their personal life sucks or they get sick and suffer and die or they go to hell or they come back as a goat.  Know what I mean?
> 
> I'm not saying I "beleive" in Karma, but I think there is something to it.
Click to expand...




I have a hard time with Hitler getting away with murder too.  And that's why we must stop Hitler types before they murder millions.  And all those innocent people in prison, who are praying to no one.....we must get them out!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Montrovant said:


> Does it take more stupidity to believe that than most other religious or spiritual beliefs?



That was what is known in the academic world as a stupid question.

FYI, karma is not a religion. 

Now, to address your lack of a point, can you point out any other religions or set of spiritual beliefs have a set of rules that are not actually spelled out? Given the fact that karma appears to be totally arbitrary, are you willing to put it on the same level as Jainism?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> I have a hard time with Hitler getting away with murder too.  And that's why we must stop Hitler types before they murder millions.  And all those innocent people in prison, who are praying to no one.....we must get them out!



Only the ones that aren't praying?

Hate to burst your bubble, but every innocent innocent prison in prison is praying to someone.


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't know your true intentions, but calling atheism a religion is clearly a philosophical hack. It's a game to conflate definitions and blur boundaries deliberately. I suspect that part of the motive is to intimidate people, to promote the idea that not believing in god is the equivalent of joining a cult.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I didn't start this thread.  I do not care who does or does not believe in God.  I am a live-and-let-live person.  Just don't try to push your beliefs on me with no factual evidence to support them...and don't belittle me for having whatever beliefs I do.   I don't push my beliefs on others except maybe in scientific matters where I try to teach them proven facts about science, nature or how to craft physical things from steel shapes, wood, building materials and hardware.  When it comes to believing in God, not believing in God or believing that God does not exist, you are totally on your on.  The modern day Atheists have turned Atheism into a religion, with human idols and an agenda juxtaposed to long established religions.  But you do make a good point.  I suppose it does have some attributes of a cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not my point and you know it. And your dishonesty isn't appreciated. All you've succeeded in doing in this thread is to prove that _some_ people treat atheism like a religion - something I don't think anyone here disagrees with. But instead of saying that atheism can be approached as a religion (as can just about any other belief), you've repeatedly claimed that atheism IS a religion, that calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism. And that is just a chickenshit lie that you've provided exactly no justification for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have misstated my claims.  Just as Christians and Jews don't have to be members of churches, neither do Atheist.  That doesn't mean that churches for them do not exist.  That Atheism is a religion is a justified claim. That's why I made it. That calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism is not.  That is why I haven't made the claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you have, in so many words. Your whole game here is equivocation, banking on blurred meanings and sophistry. Dodging valid criticisms with little diversions, etc, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blurred meanings?  That I rely on established, well respected dictionaries instead of the idiotic Dawkins' scale to define _Atheist_ as one that believes God does not exist is not blurring.  That I believe that to believe either way takes faith is not blurring.  That I believe that faith regarding a deity (whether it exists or not) could be classified  as a religious belief is not blurring.  That I believe any person belonging to any religion does not have to be considered religious is not blurring.  That I believe that any person acting on the doctrine of his/her religion _is_ being religious is not blurring.  That I believe Atheists have their own set of "church elders" in Dawkins, Hitchens and others is not blurring.  That I believe the Atheists leaders are proselytizing is not blurring.  That I believe there are Atheist churches available for you to join is not blurring.  That I believe the courts have defined Atheism as a religion is not blurring.
> 
> I leave the sophistry to your idol, Richard.  Even his own brethren have accused him of simplistic, less-than-sophomoric argument.
Click to expand...


I don't have any use for Dawkins or Hitchens. And I've given you know reason to insinuate I do. This is really all you're here for, isn't it?


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you.  That's why I don't have "faith" in Karma.  I can't even say I "believe" in Karma.  At least not 100%.
> 
> Lets put it this way though.  If I did something bad, I would think I'm going to get paid back for it sometime in the future.  And I think I have a sweet life because I'm a good person.  But I do admit bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.
> 
> Or, I have a hard time believing that Hitler just died and got away with everything he did while he was here on earth.  I want to believe that bad people like this pay for it when they die.
> 
> Even though I don't believe in god and I should realize this is all just in my head, I have a hard time believing bad people get away with being bad.  Either their personal life sucks or they get sick and suffer and die or they go to hell or they come back as a goat.  Know what I mean?
> 
> I'm not saying I "beleive" in Karma, but I think there is something to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a surprise, first you say you believe in karma, and then, after people point out how stupid it is to believe in karma, you say you don't.
> 
> Yet you wonder why no one takes anything you say seriously.
Click to expand...


At least I'm open minded about it and I don't believe in it 100% like for example you guys believe that whore Mary was a virgin when she got knocked up.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It explains exactly why you are wrong.  10 minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a video, it only explains how idiots watch videos. If the argument was actually any good you would have it in writing for the intelligent people.
Click to expand...


It takes about 10 minutes to fully explain all the reasons why you are fos.  Watch it or just admit you are engaging in willful ignorance.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Quantum Windbag said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a hard time with Hitler getting away with murder too.  And that's why we must stop Hitler types before they murder millions.  And all those innocent people in prison, who are praying to no one.....we must get them out!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the ones that aren't praying?
> 
> Hate to burst your bubble, but every innocent innocent prison in prison is praying to someone.
Click to expand...




Are you trying to form a sentence?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> At least I'm open minded about it and I don't believe in it 100% like for example you guys believe that whore Mary was a virgin when she got knocked up.



There you go telling me what I believe again.

By the way, just so you know how stupid it is for you to insist that only someone who has sexual intercourse in order to get pregnant, I present to you the evidence that you are wrong.



> It’s possible for you to get pregnant without having sexual intercourse (penetration) if, for example:
> 
> 
> sperm get into your vagina – for example, if you or your partner have semen or pre-ejaculate on your fingers and touch your vagina
> your partner ejaculates near your vagina
> your partner’s erect penis comes into contact with your body near your vagina


Can I get pregnant if I have sex without penetration - Health questions - NHS Choices



> Pregnancy can happen when sperm (from cum or pre-cum) gets in the vagina or on the vulva. This usually happens when two people have vaginal (penis-in-vagina) sex.
> 
> If sperm comes in contact with the vagina or vulva during body rubbing/dry humping without clothes, there’s a small chance of pregnancy (even if you don't actually have his penis in your vagina).



How Pregnancy Happens Planned Parenthood

In other words, if I do actually believe that Mary was a virgin, which you have no evidence of, at least I would have science on my side admitting that it can happen.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> It takes about 10 minutes to fully explain all the reasons why you are fos.  Watch it or just admit you are engaging in willful ignorance.



I told you before, videos are for idiots. I much prefer to get my information from reading, which is why I currently have a personal library that has more books than you have read in your entire life.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. His basic premise is that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. For you fundies, It’s a matter of disliking the individual because he is an outspoken and vocal critic of religious belief. What you fundies object to is being held to a consistent standard. Within the natural, rational world, there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of gods as supernatural agents. It's actually comical to see you fundies vilify science and its processes of discovery.  You will want to hold science to a standard of demonstration while at the same time, requiring "belief" alone is the only standard for your claims to magic. From the fundie side, we're left with claims of the supernatural - for which there are none – as qualifying for consideration in the natural, rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us why your religious beliefs are held to a standard that is different from the one placed on science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all he did was defend his basic claim, as you call it, no one would pay any attention to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not to mention, his book would have been a lot shorter.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to mention, you're pointless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> heavy, blunt objects are better suited to dealing with you than points.......
Click to expand...

Isn't that what use your bibles for?


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. And, from what I've seen in this thread, the only way to make the 'atheism is a religion' claim stick is to define one or both terms in deceptive ways. Like I said elsewhere,  arguing over definitions is tedious. What matters is the ideas we're trying to communicate. Those who claim that atheism is a religion are trying to sell the idea that atheism is the same sort of thing as Christianity, Hinduism or Judaism, and it simply isn't.
> 
> The far more interesting topic, in my view, is the motivations behind the campaign to rebrand atheism as a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it as the same sort of religion as the others you mention.  There is no god for them, there is no need for prayer, or worship services, albeit their mentors certainly have their attention...and the church jester, Bill Maher swells them with pride using his corny jokes and simplistic analogies (just as does his "Pope").  Those that are practicing "religiously" are the ones that continuously parrot the idiotic Dawkins and attack other religions as if they are destroying the world.  The doctrine of their religion appears to include ATTACK, RIDICULE and SCORN anyone that disagrees with the denial of the existence of deities.  They proselytize just like most theistic churches do, yet they claim to have no common goals and no directives from the hierarchy that leads them to believe as they do.  I suppose they figure if they can deny God, they can deny everything and claim to be acting alone in every regard.  This too is horse shit disguised as food for thought.
> 
> There is no motivation in my claiming it's a religion.  I'm simply disagreeing with the claim that it is not a religion.  I think there has been ample evidence shown in this thread that Atheism is a religion.  I would repeat the bullet item post I made several pages back, but I have tired of the childish comebacks and denial of known FACTS about Atheism, the courts and established Atheist Churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't know your true intentions, but calling atheism a religion is clearly a philosophical hack. It's a game to conflate definitions and blur boundaries deliberately. I suspect that part of the motive is to intimidate people, to promote the idea that not believing in god is the equivalent of joining a cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, I didn't start this thread.  I do not care who does or does not believe in God.  I am a live-and-let-live person.  Just don't try to push your beliefs on me with no factual evidence to support them...and don't belittle me for having whatever beliefs I do.   I don't push my beliefs on others except maybe in scientific matters where I try to teach them proven facts about science, nature or how to craft physical things from steel shapes, wood, building materials and hardware.  When it comes to believing in God, not believing in God or believing that God does not exist, you are totally on your on.  The modern day Atheists have turned Atheism into a religion, with human idols and an agenda juxtaposed to long established religions.  But you do make a good point.  I suppose it does have some attributes of a cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not my point and you know it. And your dishonesty isn't appreciated. All you've succeeded in doing in this thread is to prove that _some_ people treat atheism like a religion - something I don't think anyone here disagrees with. But instead of saying that atheism can be approached as a religion (as can just about any other belief), you've repeatedly claimed that atheism IS a religion, that calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism. And that is just a chickenshit lie that you've provided exactly no justification for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have misstated my claims.  Just as Christians and Jews don't have to be members of churches, neither do Atheist.  That doesn't mean that churches for them do not exist.  That Atheism is a religion is a justified claim. That's why I made it. That calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism is not.  That is why I haven't made the claim.
Click to expand...

It's comical that you would attempt to dismiss your obsessive hate for non-believers with such sidestepping and obfuscation. For someone who claims to be ambivalent towards atheists, you've made it your mission in life to vilify those who reject your gods. 

Secondly, it's a nonsensical claim to compare conclusions of atheism with adherents to religious entities with an entire infrastructure of institutions and formal systems of customs, rituals, traditions and a hierarchy of individuals leading the religions. None of those components exist within the segment of the population that defines itself as having concluded your gods are of myth and legend. 

Why is it that you extremists have such difficulty with honestly and integrity?


----------



## Montrovant

Quantum Windbag said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it take more stupidity to believe that than most other religious or spiritual beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was what is known in the academic world as a stupid question.
> 
> FYI, karma is not a religion.
> 
> Now, to address your lack of a point, can you point out any other religions or set of spiritual beliefs have a set of rules that are not actually spelled out? Given the fact that karma appears to be totally arbitrary, are you willing to put it on the same level as Jainism?
Click to expand...


I didn't claim karma is a religion.

I also didn't make a point, I asked a question.  I'm sorry you cannot tell the difference.


----------



## PratchettFan

Montrovant said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it take more stupidity to believe that than most other religious or spiritual beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was what is known in the academic world as a stupid question.
> 
> FYI, karma is not a religion.
> 
> Now, to address your lack of a point, can you point out any other religions or set of spiritual beliefs have a set of rules that are not actually spelled out? Given the fact that karma appears to be totally arbitrary, are you willing to put it on the same level as Jainism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't claim karma is a religion.
> 
> I also didn't make a point, I asked a question.  I'm sorry you cannot tell the difference.
Click to expand...


In answer, no it doesn't take more stupidity.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you.  That's why I don't have "faith" in Karma.  I can't even say I "believe" in Karma.  At least not 100%.
> 
> Lets put it this way though.  If I did something bad, I would think I'm going to get paid back for it sometime in the future.  And I think I have a sweet life because I'm a good person.  But I do admit bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.
> 
> Or, I have a hard time believing that Hitler just died and got away with everything he did while he was here on earth.  I want to believe that bad people like this pay for it when they die.
> 
> Even though I don't believe in god and I should realize this is all just in my head, I have a hard time believing bad people get away with being bad.  Either their personal life sucks or they get sick and suffer and die or they go to hell or they come back as a goat.  Know what I mean?
> 
> I'm not saying I "beleive" in Karma, but I think there is something to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a surprise, first you say you believe in karma, and then, after people point out how stupid it is to believe in karma, you say you don't.
> 
> Yet you wonder why no one takes anything you say seriously.
Click to expand...


I'm


Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least I'm open minded about it and I don't believe in it 100% like for example you guys believe that whore Mary was a virgin when she got knocked up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go telling me what I believe again.
> 
> By the way, just so you know how stupid it is for you to insist that only someone who has sexual intercourse in order to get pregnant, I present to you the evidence that you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s possible for you to get pregnant without having sexual intercourse (penetration) if, for example:
> 
> 
> sperm get into your vagina – for example, if you or your partner have semen or pre-ejaculate on your fingers and touch your vagina
> your partner ejaculates near your vagina
> your partner’s erect penis comes into contact with your body near your vagina
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can I get pregnant if I have sex without penetration - Health questions - NHS Choices
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pregnancy can happen when sperm (from cum or pre-cum) gets in the vagina or on the vulva. This usually happens when two people have vaginal (penis-in-vagina) sex.
> 
> If sperm comes in contact with the vagina or vulva during body rubbing/dry humping without clothes, there’s a small chance of pregnancy (even if you don't actually have his penis in your vagina).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How Pregnancy Happens Planned Parenthood
> 
> In other words, if I do actually believe that Mary was a virgin, which you have no evidence of, at least I would have science on my side admitting that it can happen.
Click to expand...


Who rubbed their gizzy cock on Mary's vag?


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes about 10 minutes to fully explain all the reasons why you are fos.  Watch it or just admit you are engaging in willful ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you before, videos are for idiots. I much prefer to get my information from reading, which is why I currently have a personal library that has more books than you have read in your entire life.
Click to expand...


Well I've seen a million post from people like Hollie trying to explain to you the things they say in that video so I thought rather than hearing a little bit about why you are wrong and then you reply with some bullshit and then we explain another reason and another reason and so on as to all the reasons why you are wrong, and you keep coming back with more and more bullshit.  So I thought a nice well done 10 minute video on why you are wrong might help.  We're certainly getting no where.  So listen to it and it'll explain in great detail why you are wrong.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. His basic premise is that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. For you fundies, It’s a matter of disliking the individual because he is an outspoken and vocal critic of religious belief. What you fundies object to is being held to a consistent standard. Within the natural, rational world, there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of gods as supernatural agents. It's actually comical to see you fundies vilify science and its processes of discovery.  You will want to hold science to a standard of demonstration while at the same time, requiring "belief" alone is the only standard for your claims to magic. From the fundie side, we're left with claims of the supernatural - for which there are none – as qualifying for consideration in the natural, rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us why your religious beliefs are held to a standard that is different from the one placed on science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all he did was defend his basic claim, as you call it, no one would pay any attention to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not to mention, his book would have been a lot shorter.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to mention, you're pointless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> heavy, blunt objects are better suited to dealing with you than points.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't that what use your bibles for?
Click to expand...

not at all.....I use arguments that you can't respond to......you know the ones I mean.....the ones that make you go back to pretending I'm a young earther......


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes about 10 minutes to fully explain all the reasons why you are fos.  Watch it or just admit you are engaging in willful ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you before, videos are for idiots. I much prefer to get my information from reading, which is why I currently have a personal library that has more books than you have read in your entire life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I've seen a million post from people like Hollie trying to explain to you the things they say in that video so I thought rather than hearing a little bit about why you are wrong and then you reply with some bullshit and then we explain another reason and another reason and so on as to all the reasons why you are wrong, and you keep coming back with more and more bullshit.  So I thought a nice well done 10 minute video on why you are wrong might help.  We're certainly getting no where.  So listen to it and it'll explain in great detail why you are wrong.
Click to expand...

if you want to convince someone you'll have take the time to do better than Hollie.....she sucks at it.....


----------



## Tuatara

asaratis said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Adam Lee - Atheist - Very dishonest in his approach and a hack. I personally doubt he is an atheist. Doesn't actually criticize Dawkins arguments, just calls him sexist.
> 
> Michael Ruse - Atheist - Criticizes Dawkins approach and style in his arguments.
> 
> Justin Michael - Atheist - but doesn't criticize Dawkin's position or work, just feels he is arrogant with a vitriolic attitude.
> 
> Anthony Flew - Deist
> 
> Alister McGrath* - Angilcan
> 
> None of these criticisms are about Dawkins postion. Many atheists criticized Christopher Hitchens because of his position on the Iraq war but they were not critical of his atheist position. Sam Harris had many critics on his Israel stance by atheists, but not his atheist position. Atheist will not always agree with what another atheist is saying but you will be hard pressed to find criticism of their arguments and stance on atheism by atheists. Michael Ruse is the only one I feel that did this but he was really nitpicking and says Dawkins is being simplistic about his arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> Changing midstream are you?
> 
> "*I was trying to find these atheists who were criticizing Dawkins..."  *
> 
> I gave you some and you dismiss them summarily.  What a dunce you are.  A sheep of the Chief Dunce, Dawkins!
> ..and, BTW Flew was a fine Atheist for most of his 87 year life.
> 
> You, like your idol, suffer from delusions of adequacy.   Dream on, sucker!
> 
> ..keep on kissing your Pope's ass!
Click to expand...

Are any of them criticizing his work or his stance on Atheism? As for Anthony Flew he became a deist in 2004. In fact he wrote a book called "There Is A God: How the world's most Notorious Atheist changed his Mind" in 2007. His criticism of Dawkins is from 2010.


----------



## asaratis

dblack said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I didn't start this thread.  I do not care who does or does not believe in God.  I am a live-and-let-live person.  Just don't try to push your beliefs on me with no factual evidence to support them...and don't belittle me for having whatever beliefs I do.   I don't push my beliefs on others except maybe in scientific matters where I try to teach them proven facts about science, nature or how to craft physical things from steel shapes, wood, building materials and hardware.  When it comes to believing in God, not believing in God or believing that God does not exist, you are totally on your on.  The modern day Atheists have turned Atheism into a religion, with human idols and an agenda juxtaposed to long established religions.  But you do make a good point.  I suppose it does have some attributes of a cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not my point and you know it. And your dishonesty isn't appreciated. All you've succeeded in doing in this thread is to prove that _some_ people treat atheism like a religion - something I don't think anyone here disagrees with. But instead of saying that atheism can be approached as a religion (as can just about any other belief), you've repeatedly claimed that atheism IS a religion, that calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism. And that is just a chickenshit lie that you've provided exactly no justification for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have misstated my claims.  Just as Christians and Jews don't have to be members of churches, neither do Atheist.  That doesn't mean that churches for them do not exist.  That Atheism is a religion is a justified claim. That's why I made it. That calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism is not.  That is why I haven't made the claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you have, in so many words. Your whole game here is equivocation, banking on blurred meanings and sophistry. Dodging valid criticisms with little diversions, etc, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blurred meanings?  That I rely on established, well respected dictionaries instead of the idiotic Dawkins' scale to define _Atheist_ as one that believes God does not exist is not blurring.  That I believe that to believe either way takes faith is not blurring.  That I believe that faith regarding a deity (whether it exists or not) could be classified  as a religious belief is not blurring.  That I believe any person belonging to any religion does not have to be considered religious is not blurring.  That I believe that any person acting on the doctrine of his/her religion _is_ being religious is not blurring.  That I believe Atheists have their own set of "church elders" in Dawkins, Hitchens and others is not blurring.  That I believe the Atheists leaders are proselytizing is not blurring.  That I believe there are Atheist churches available for you to join is not blurring.  That I believe the courts have defined Atheism as a religion is not blurring.
> 
> I leave the sophistry to your idol, Richard.  Even his own brethren have accused him of simplistic, less-than-sophomoric argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have any use for Dawkins or Hitchens. And I've given you know reason to insinuate I do. This is really all you're here for, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Good for you!  That's commendable.

You've given me no reason to think it other than your occasional parroting of the "let's attack the Christians" wolf pack, as suggested and recommended by Dawkins and Hitchens to win the war against the "non-scientific religious" folk that are "threatening to ruin our quest toward infinite knowledge for all".  It is such a worthy goal...with exception of its being 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% unlikely to happen.

God forbid that I should say you are like the others.

I'm not here to label anyone.  Just here to argue against the OP posit.

Hitchens is dead.  Dawkins will die.  Hatred of religion will someday die. Every living thing will someday die.  What's the sense in promoting anguish and scorn for each other in the living time?  Live and let live.  You want to believe in God?...good for you!  You wanna believe God doesn't exist?...good for you.  Just don't consider your thoughts suitable for all peoples....else you'll be pushin' your own "religion" (set of beliefs---doctrine----dogma---rules to live by---philosophy) on others.  Science is alive and well in the Judeo-Christian world.  Evolution is a fact of life.  If millions of people do not want to accept that, so be it.  They and their indoctrinated offspring will someday die.....and so will you!  Life goes on best when it's left alone!

BTW, Atheism is a religion.


----------



## Tuatara

PratchettFan said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember years ago watching this documentary on people who actually believed in fairies. These people have a belief in the existence of fairies. Most of us I'm sure do not believe in the existence of fairies. That is not a belief. It is really that simple.
> 
> I'm sure some other members here like asaratis, Pratchettfan and Quantum would assert that we have beliefs that fairies don't exist. They are simply inverting the definition by applying it to the negative.
> 
> eg. You believe such & such does *not* exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A non sequitur, but yes - if your position is based upon nothing but your assertion it be so then it is a belief.  What else could it be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is based on whether or not there are facts or evidence to support it. That is not an assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you neutral on this subject?  Do you consider that the probability of fairies existing is equal to the probability they do not?  Because that is what having no belief means, unless you have facts or evidence to support it.  If you consider the probability higher that they don't exist, what evidence or facts do you have to support that conclusion?
Click to expand...

No I am not neutral on the subject of fairies. I don't believe they exist. As for the probability of fairies existing being equal to the probability that they do not exist I quite sure any sane person would disagree witrh this. Also no belief does not mean you think the probability of something existing is equal to the probability of it not existing. If I were to state I have no beliefs in preminissions it means I do not belive in preminissions. It is really that simple. As for having facts or evidence to support it you can't have evidence to support a negative. Facts would be there has been no DNA samples of a fairy found, no photographic or video evidence found, and no actual fairy ever presented, dead or alive. These are some of the facts to support my position. Does this mean this is suffiecient evidence to rule out any evidence of fairies? Of course not as the onus of eviedence is on the ones who claim they are real. Anyone cam make a claim about anything but if you can't provide evidence to back your claim then why should others believe you?


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all the quote I put up was a criticism of John Moore's criticism of Dawkins. I was trying to find these atheists who were criticizing Dawkins as Moore is an Anglican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I posted a detailed criticism of Dawkin' reliance on logical fallacies in his work from an atheist website, what's your point?
Click to expand...

Actually your website was a Catholic website.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Montrovant said:


> I didn't claim karma is a religion.
> 
> I also didn't make a point, I asked a question.  I'm sorry you cannot tell the difference.



FYI, it is actually possible in rhetoric to make a point with a question, my apologies for assuming you are smarter than you are.


----------



## asaratis

Tuatara said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Adam Lee - Atheist - Very dishonest in his approach and a hack. I personally doubt he is an atheist. Doesn't actually criticize Dawkins arguments, just calls him sexist.
> 
> Michael Ruse - Atheist - Criticizes Dawkins approach and style in his arguments.
> 
> Justin Michael - Atheist - but doesn't criticize Dawkin's position or work, just feels he is arrogant with a vitriolic attitude.
> 
> Anthony Flew - Deist
> 
> Alister McGrath* - Angilcan
> 
> None of these criticisms are about Dawkins postion. Many atheists criticized Christopher Hitchens because of his position on the Iraq war but they were not critical of his atheist position. Sam Harris had many critics on his Israel stance by atheists, but not his atheist position. Atheist will not always agree with what another atheist is saying but you will be hard pressed to find criticism of their arguments and stance on atheism by atheists. Michael Ruse is the only one I feel that did this but he was really nitpicking and says Dawkins is being simplistic about his arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> Changing midstream are you?
> 
> "*I was trying to find these atheists who were criticizing Dawkins..."  *
> 
> I gave you some and you dismiss them summarily.  What a dunce you are.  A sheep of the Chief Dunce, Dawkins!
> ..and, BTW Flew was a fine Atheist for most of his 87 year life.
> 
> You, like your idol, suffer from delusions of adequacy.   Dream on, sucker!
> 
> ..keep on kissing your Pope's ass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are any of them criticizing his work or his stance on Atheism? As for Anthony Flew he became a deist in 2004. In fact he wrote a book called "There Is A God: How the world's most Notorious Atheist changed his Mind" in 2007. His criticism of Dawkins is from 2010.
Click to expand...

What difference do the dates make? The older the wiser, I think!

Anthony Flew also wrote a review of Dawkins' book.

Apparently, you didn't read the review.   Read what the master said about the leader of the band.

Antony Flew Reviews Dawkins 8217 8220 The God Delusion 8221 Uncommon Descent

The argument was presented in evidence that Dawkins is the shallow, pseudo-intellectual twit that I claimed him to be....not some Grand Dragon of the All Knowing Atheist Movement.  He is a mediocre mind at best....as is the Court Jester, Bill Maher.  People that quote either one of them with any sort of pride are good candidates for the Jerry Springer Show.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Well I've seen a million post from people like Hollie trying to explain to you the things they say in that video so I thought rather than hearing a little bit about why you are wrong and then you reply with some bullshit and then we explain another reason and another reason and so on as to all the reasons why you are wrong, and you keep coming back with more and more bullshit.  So I thought a nice well done 10 minute video on why you are wrong might help.  We're certainly getting no where.  So listen to it and it'll explain in great detail why you are wrong.



The only thing Hollie does is accuse me of being a YEC and a fundie. if your video is on the same level as that you are even dumber than I thought.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> Actually your website was a Catholic website.



I love it when idiots say stupid things.

FYI, Oxford is about as far from being Catholic as it is possible to get. 

Dawkins Debunked

Want tot ell me again how smart Dawkins is?


----------



## Flopper

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]


A *religion* is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe.


----------



## asaratis

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least I'm open minded about it and I don't believe in it 100% like for example you guys believe that whore Mary was a virgin when she got knocked up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go telling me what I believe again.
> 
> By the way, just so you know how stupid it is for you to insist that only someone who has sexual intercourse in order to get pregnant, I present to you the evidence that you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s possible for you to get pregnant without having sexual intercourse (penetration) if, for example:
> 
> 
> sperm get into your vagina – for example, if you or your partner have semen or pre-ejaculate on your fingers and touch your vagina
> your partner ejaculates near your vagina
> your partner’s erect penis comes into contact with your body near your vagina
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can I get pregnant if I have sex without penetration - Health questions - NHS Choices
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pregnancy can happen when sperm (from cum or pre-cum) gets in the vagina or on the vulva. This usually happens when two people have vaginal (penis-in-vagina) sex.
> 
> If sperm comes in contact with the vagina or vulva during body rubbing/dry humping without clothes, there’s a small chance of pregnancy (even if you don't actually have his penis in your vagina).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How Pregnancy Happens Planned Parenthood
> 
> In other words, if I do actually believe that Mary was a virgin, which you have no evidence of, at least I would have science on my side admitting that it can happen.
Click to expand...

That could happen.

So could this:

The Immaculate Conception

*The Immaculate Conception* 
(words and music by Norman G. Walker © SOCAN) 
*chorus melody and a few words are from "Dixie", by Daniel D. Emmett*
Come and listen to a story that was told to me 
'Bout May 12, 1863 
Such a terrible war between the grey and blue 
It's a story about a woman of seventeen years 
'Bout a soldier stranger who never came near 
It's hard to believe but I swear that it's true 
Well the battle was on and the man fell down 
From a poorly placed bullet that put him to the ground 
He found that his left testicle was gone 
Half a second later came a terrible cry 
That very same bullet through the air did fly 
And pierced the woman low in her side

I wish I was in the land of cotton 
Where stories like this are not forgotten 
Look away, look away, look away, faint-hearted.

Well the man recovered though it took some time 
To adjust to the assault on his sexual prime 
In just a few months his mind was more at ease 
But that woman was ill for a month or two 
That bullet went in but it never went through 
Evenually she was back on her feet 
But just two hundred and seventy eight days 
From the time that rifle ball went astray 
An eight pound bouncin' baby boy was born 
That woman swore that she was a virgin 
It was verified by a military surgeon 
Dr. L.G. Capers was his name

I wish I was in the land of cotton 
Where stories like this are not forgotten 
Look away, look away, look away, if you have to.

When the baby was only three weeks old 
That doctor was called and quietly told 
To check the baby's swollen sensitive scrotum 
To operate was his medical call 
He extracted a battered up rifle ball 
"They's no mistake cuz guns, well, he know'd 'em" 
That doctor thought til it all came clear 
That rifle ball carried sperm so dear 
From the wounded man to the womb of that virgin 
Now I'm not sure if this is an exception 
But it sounds to me like immaculate conception 
Please call the pope for me now, I'm urgin'

I wish I was in the land of cotton 
Where stories like this are not forgotten 
Look away, look away, look away, unfaithful.

This miraculous story doesn't end here 
The doctor told that soldier clear 
That he was the father of that baby 
Of couse he seemed quite skeptical at first 
But a doctor is a doctor, and it could have been worse 
So he consented to visit the young mother 
A friendship ripened to a happy marriage 
Three more kids and you can't disparage 
That none looked more like dad than the first one 
On more thing I'll tell you true 
That soldier was my great grandpa too 
And she of course was my great grandmother

I wish I was in the land of cotton 
Where stories like this are not forgotten 
Look away, look away, look away,........ unbelievers.


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually your website was a Catholic website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when idiots say stupid things.
> 
> FYI, Oxford is about as far from being Catholic as it is possible to get.
> 
> Dawkins Debunked
> 
> Want tot ell me again how smart Dawkins is?
Click to expand...

That is not the link I was responding to. Go back and find the correct link.


----------



## asaratis

Tuatara said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually your website was a Catholic website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when idiots say stupid things.
> 
> FYI, Oxford is about as far from being Catholic as it is possible to get.
> 
> Dawkins Debunked
> 
> Want tot ell me again how smart Dawkins is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the link I was responding to. Go back and find the correct link.
Click to expand...

Read that link...word by word...from beginning to end...

It is not up to him to do your research.  Go back and bring up the link to which you refer.  To which one were you responding?

Read this one first....
Dawkins Debunked


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> That is not the link I was responding to. Go back and find the correct link.



Hey, stupid, I do not care what you think we are talking about, all I care about is what I am talking about. If you look you will see I said that I posted a link that listed all the fallacies that Dawkins used. You then claimed that that link was from a Catholic website.

Now, go back and read the thread and discover that I actually posted this link and admit you made a stupid assumption. Unless, that is, the site you claim we were talking about actually addresses the logical fallacies in Dawkins book.


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not my point and you know it. And your dishonesty isn't appreciated. All you've succeeded in doing in this thread is to prove that _some_ people treat atheism like a religion - something I don't think anyone here disagrees with. But instead of saying that atheism can be approached as a religion (as can just about any other belief), you've repeatedly claimed that atheism IS a religion, that calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism. And that is just a chickenshit lie that you've provided exactly no justification for.
> 
> 
> 
> You have misstated my claims.  Just as Christians and Jews don't have to be members of churches, neither do Atheist.  That doesn't mean that churches for them do not exist.  That Atheism is a religion is a justified claim. That's why I made it. That calling yourself an atheist is the same as a membership in the Church of Atheism is not.  That is why I haven't made the claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you have, in so many words. Your whole game here is equivocation, banking on blurred meanings and sophistry. Dodging valid criticisms with little diversions, etc, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blurred meanings?  That I rely on established, well respected dictionaries instead of the idiotic Dawkins' scale to define _Atheist_ as one that believes God does not exist is not blurring.  That I believe that to believe either way takes faith is not blurring.  That I believe that faith regarding a deity (whether it exists or not) could be classified  as a religious belief is not blurring.  That I believe any person belonging to any religion does not have to be considered religious is not blurring.  That I believe that any person acting on the doctrine of his/her religion _is_ being religious is not blurring.  That I believe Atheists have their own set of "church elders" in Dawkins, Hitchens and others is not blurring.  That I believe the Atheists leaders are proselytizing is not blurring.  That I believe there are Atheist churches available for you to join is not blurring.  That I believe the courts have defined Atheism as a religion is not blurring.
> 
> I leave the sophistry to your idol, Richard.  Even his own brethren have accused him of simplistic, less-than-sophomoric argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have any use for Dawkins or Hitchens. And I've given you know reason to insinuate I do. This is really all you're here for, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you!  That's commendable.
> 
> You've given me no reason to think it other than your occasional parroting of the "let's attack the Christians" wolf pack, as suggested and recommended by Dawkins and Hitchens to win the war against the "non-scientific religious" folk that are "threatening to ruin our quest toward infinite knowledge for all".  It is such a worthy goal...with exception of its being 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% unlikely to happen.
> 
> God forbid that I should say you are like the others.
> 
> I'm not here to label anyone.  Just here to argue against the OP posit.
> 
> Hitchens is dead.  Dawkins will die.  Hatred of religion will someday die. Every living thing will someday die.  What's the sense in promoting anguish and scorn for each other in the living time?  Live and let live.  You want to believe in God?...good for you!  You wanna believe God doesn't exist?...good for you.  Just don't consider your thoughts suitable for all peoples....else you'll be pushin' your own "religion" (set of beliefs---doctrine----dogma---rules to live by---philosophy) on others.  Science is alive and well in the Judeo-Christian world.  Evolution is a fact of life.  If millions of people do not want to accept that, so be it.  They and their indoctrinated offspring will someday die.....and so will you!  Life goes on best when it's left alone!
> 
> BTW, Atheism is a religion.
Click to expand...

Heh....


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I've seen a million post from people like Hollie trying to explain to you the things they say in that video so I thought rather than hearing a little bit about why you are wrong and then you reply with some bullshit and then we explain another reason and another reason and so on as to all the reasons why you are wrong, and you keep coming back with more and more bullshit.  So I thought a nice well done 10 minute video on why you are wrong might help.  We're certainly getting no where.  So listen to it and it'll explain in great detail why you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing Hollie does is accuse me of being a YEC and a fundie. if your video is on the same level as that you are even dumber than I thought.
Click to expand...

When your views represent nothing more than the unsupportable dogma spewed by religious zealots, how else would one describe you?


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually your website was a Catholic website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when idiots say stupid things.
> 
> FYI, Oxford is about as far from being Catholic as it is possible to get.
> 
> Dawkins Debunked
> 
> Want tot ell me again how smart Dawkins is?
Click to expand...

No one Is missing the sheer terror that Dawkins causes you fundies. What's remarkable is just how much time you and others spend out of your day hating, obsessing and agonizing over his every word. 

None of you actually challenge his arguments with counter claims. The fact is, there are no counter claims that fundies can employ in terms of demonstrable, peer-reviewed arguments in favor of magic and supernaturalism. You fundies are left to your usual tactics of frantic, sweaty cutting and pasting from someone's personal blog.


----------



## PratchettFan

Tuatara said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember years ago watching this documentary on people who actually believed in fairies. These people have a belief in the existence of fairies. Most of us I'm sure do not believe in the existence of fairies. That is not a belief. It is really that simple.
> 
> I'm sure some other members here like asaratis, Pratchettfan and Quantum would assert that we have beliefs that fairies don't exist. They are simply inverting the definition by applying it to the negative.
> 
> eg. You believe such & such does *not* exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A non sequitur, but yes - if your position is based upon nothing but your assertion it be so then it is a belief.  What else could it be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is based on whether or not there are facts or evidence to support it. That is not an assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you neutral on this subject?  Do you consider that the probability of fairies existing is equal to the probability they do not?  Because that is what having no belief means, unless you have facts or evidence to support it.  If you consider the probability higher that they don't exist, what evidence or facts do you have to support that conclusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I am not neutral on the subject of fairies. I don't believe they exist. As for the probability of fairies existing being equal to the probability that they do not exist I quite sure any sane person would disagree witrh this. Also no belief does not mean you think the probability of something existing is equal to the probability of it not existing. If I were to state I have no beliefs in preminissions it means I do not belive in preminissions. It is really that simple. As for having facts or evidence to support it you can't have evidence to support a negative. Facts would be there has been no DNA samples of a fairy found, no photographic or video evidence found, and no actual fairy ever presented, dead or alive. These are some of the facts to support my position. Does this mean this is suffiecient evidence to rule out any evidence of fairies? Of course not as the onus of eviedence is on the ones who claim they are real. Anyone cam make a claim about anything but if you can't provide evidence to back your claim then why should others believe you?
Click to expand...

 
I want you to read your last sentence and answer it for me.  What evidence do you have to support your position?  Saying you can't have any evidence does not mean you are now absolved from the obligation of supporting your position.

Any conclusion made in the absence of supporting evidence is a belief.  It can be nothing else.  The real question is, why is having a belief such a horrifying concept?


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually your website was a Catholic website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when idiots say stupid things.
> 
> FYI, Oxford is about as far from being Catholic as it is possible to get.
> 
> Dawkins Debunked
> 
> Want tot ell me again how smart Dawkins is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one Is missing the sheer terror that Dawkins causes you fundies. What's remarkable is just how much time you and others spend out of your day hating, obsessing and agonizing over his every word.
> 
> None of you actually challenge his arguments with counter claims. The fact is, there are no counter claims that fundies can employ in terms of demonstrable, peer-reviewed arguments in favor of magic and supernaturalism. You fundies are left to your usual tactics of frantic, sweaty cutting and pasting from someone's personal blog.
Click to expand...

You'd make a good sci-fi writer...maybe get on the staff at Twilight Zone...


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the link I was responding to. Go back and find the correct link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, stupid, I do not care what you think we are talking about, all I care about is what I am talking about. If you look you will see I said that I posted a link that listed all the fallacies that Dawkins used. You then claimed that that link was from a Catholic website.
> 
> Now, go back and read the thread and discover that I actually posted this link and admit you made a stupid assumption. Unless, that is, the site you claim we were talking about actually addresses the logical fallacies in Dawkins book.
Click to expand...

This is the one I quoted and responded to.  Michael Faraday would find Richard Dawkins terrifying CatholicHerald.co.uk


----------



## Tuatara

PratchettFan said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember years ago watching this documentary on people who actually believed in fairies. These people have a belief in the existence of fairies. Most of us I'm sure do not believe in the existence of fairies. That is not a belief. It is really that simple.
> 
> I'm sure some other members here like asaratis, Pratchettfan and Quantum would assert that we have beliefs that fairies don't exist. They are simply inverting the definition by applying it to the negative.
> 
> eg. You believe such & such does *not* exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A non sequitur, but yes - if your position is based upon nothing but your assertion it be so then it is a belief.  What else could it be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is based on whether or not there are facts or evidence to support it. That is not an assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you neutral on this subject?  Do you consider that the probability of fairies existing is equal to the probability they do not?  Because that is what having no belief means, unless you have facts or evidence to support it.  If you consider the probability higher that they don't exist, what evidence or facts do you have to support that conclusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I am not neutral on the subject of fairies. I don't believe they exist. As for the probability of fairies existing being equal to the probability that they do not exist I quite sure any sane person would disagree witrh this. Also no belief does not mean you think the probability of something existing is equal to the probability of it not existing. If I were to state I have no beliefs in preminissions it means I do not belive in preminissions. It is really that simple. As for having facts or evidence to support it you can't have evidence to support a negative. Facts would be there has been no DNA samples of a fairy found, no photographic or video evidence found, and no actual fairy ever presented, dead or alive. These are some of the facts to support my position. Does this mean this is suffiecient evidence to rule out any evidence of fairies? Of course not as the onus of eviedence is on the ones who claim they are real. Anyone cam make a claim about anything but if you can't provide evidence to back your claim then why should others believe you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want you to read your last sentence and answer it for me.  What evidence do you have to support your position?  Saying you can't have any evidence does not mean you are now absolved from the obligation of supporting your position.
> 
> Any conclusion made in the absence of supporting evidence is a belief.  It can be nothing else.  The real question is, why is having a belief such a horrifying concept?
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have to support your position? I don't need evidence to support a negative and I will prove this. I'm quite sure you don't belive in the god Zeus. Can you give proof he does not exist. Also one of your comrades PostmoderProph, already stated correctly " I don't have to prove a negative".
Saying you can't have any evidence does not mean you are now absolved from the obligation of supporting your position. Did you not watch the video Sealybobo put up? Please watch it will explain everything.
Any conclusion made in the absence of supporting evidence is a belief.  It can be nothing else.  The real question is, why is having a belief such a horrifying concept? I never said having a belief is a horrifying concept. Your first statement is wrong and here's why. A person may have beliefs or non beliefs whether or not there is evidence to support it or not. There are a few individuals alive today that still feel the earth is flat. Evcidence suggests otherwise but that is their belief. Many fundies today don't believe in evolution despite their being ample evidence. 

I think the whole concept of belief is confusing you. You feel an absense of belief it the same as belief.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Tuatara said:


> Also one of your comrades PostmoderProph, already stated correctly " I don't have to prove a negative".


that is not an accurate quote.....I stated I didn't have to prove anything......


----------



## Tuatara

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also one of your comrades PostmoderProph, already stated correctly " I don't have to prove a negative".
> 
> 
> 
> that is not an accurate quote.....I stated I didn't have to prove anything......
Click to expand...

Post 1716 page 86, your exact words " I don't have to prove a negative"


----------



## PratchettFan

Tuatara said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A non sequitur, but yes - if your position is based upon nothing but your assertion it be so then it is a belief.  What else could it be?
> 
> 
> 
> My position is based on whether or not there are facts or evidence to support it. That is not an assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you neutral on this subject?  Do you consider that the probability of fairies existing is equal to the probability they do not?  Because that is what having no belief means, unless you have facts or evidence to support it.  If you consider the probability higher that they don't exist, what evidence or facts do you have to support that conclusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I am not neutral on the subject of fairies. I don't believe they exist. As for the probability of fairies existing being equal to the probability that they do not exist I quite sure any sane person would disagree witrh this. Also no belief does not mean you think the probability of something existing is equal to the probability of it not existing. If I were to state I have no beliefs in preminissions it means I do not belive in preminissions. It is really that simple. As for having facts or evidence to support it you can't have evidence to support a negative. Facts would be there has been no DNA samples of a fairy found, no photographic or video evidence found, and no actual fairy ever presented, dead or alive. These are some of the facts to support my position. Does this mean this is suffiecient evidence to rule out any evidence of fairies? Of course not as the onus of eviedence is on the ones who claim they are real. Anyone cam make a claim about anything but if you can't provide evidence to back your claim then why should others believe you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want you to read your last sentence and answer it for me.  What evidence do you have to support your position?  Saying you can't have any evidence does not mean you are now absolved from the obligation of supporting your position.
> 
> Any conclusion made in the absence of supporting evidence is a belief.  It can be nothing else.  The real question is, why is having a belief such a horrifying concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What evidence do you have to support your position? I don't need evidence to support a negative and I will prove this. I'm quite sure you don't belive in the god Zeus. Can you give proof he does not exist. Also one of your comrades PostmoderProph, already stated correctly " I don't have to prove a negative".
> Saying you can't have any evidence does not mean you are now absolved from the obligation of supporting your position. Did you not watch the video Sealybobo put up? Please watch it will explain everything.
> Any conclusion made in the absence of supporting evidence is a belief.  It can be nothing else.  The real question is, why is having a belief such a horrifying concept? I never said having a belief is a horrifying concept. Your first statement is wrong and here's why. A person may have beliefs or non beliefs whether or not there is evidence to support it or not. There are a few individuals alive today that still feel the earth is flat. Evcidence suggests otherwise but that is their belief. Many fundies today don't believe in evolution despite their being ample evidence.
> 
> I think the whole concept of belief is confusing you. You feel an absense of belief it the same as belief.
Click to expand...

 
No, I can't prove Zeus does not exist.  I believe Zeus doesn't exist.  And you are wrong, if you claim a negative you have to prove it.  If you can't prove something, then you shouldn't make the claim at all.

It is perfectly possible to prove a negative.  I claim there is not a bottle of soda on my desk.  I have looked at my desk, felt around it, brought people in  to confirm it and have demonstrated objectively there is not a bottle of soda there.  Very easy.

I do not feel an absence of belief is the same as belief.  I am just fascinated that people who clearly have belief are so adamant that it is something else.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> When your views represent nothing more than the unsupportable dogma spewed by religious zealots, how else would one describe you?



My knowledge that evolution is true is unsupportable dogma spewed by religious zealots?

Dayam


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> No one Is missing the sheer terror that Dawkins causes you fundies. What's remarkable is just how much time you and others spend out of your day hating, obsessing and agonizing over his every word.
> 
> None of you actually challenge his arguments with counter claims. The fact is, there are no counter claims that fundies can employ in terms of demonstrable, peer-reviewed arguments in favor of magic and supernaturalism. You fundies are left to your usual tactics of frantic, sweaty cutting and pasting from someone's personal blog.



Dawkins is a pretentious idiot that only scares people who do not understand science.

Wait, I just described you, no wonder you think I am afraid of him, you cannot imagine that anyone is not afraid of him because of your own fear.

By the way, given the fact that science is slowly coming to accept the theory that other universes exist, and only a complete idiot would ever think that a randomly created universe would have the exact same parameter as this one, any being from a universe with different natural laws would, by definition, be supernatural to us, just like we would to them.

Then again, I actually think about things like that because ideas do not scare me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> This is the one I quoted and responded to.  Michael Faraday would find Richard Dawkins terrifying CatholicHerald.co.uk



Which is not one of my links.

Interesting that you think that is a response to my actual post, isn't it?


----------



## sealybobo

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually your website was a Catholic website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when idiots say stupid things.
> 
> FYI, Oxford is about as far from being Catholic as it is possible to get.
> 
> Dawkins Debunked
> 
> Want tot ell me again how smart Dawkins is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one Is missing the sheer terror that Dawkins causes you fundies. What's remarkable is just how much time you and others spend out of your day hating, obsessing and agonizing over his every word.
> 
> None of you actually challenge his arguments with counter claims. The fact is, there are no counter claims that fundies can employ in terms of demonstrable, peer-reviewed arguments in favor of magic and supernaturalism. You fundies are left to your usual tactics of frantic, sweaty cutting and pasting from someone's personal blog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd make a good sci-fi writer...maybe get on the staff at Twilight Zone...
Click to expand...


How old are you gramma.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also one of your comrades PostmoderProph, already stated correctly " I don't have to prove a negative".
> 
> 
> 
> that is not an accurate quote.....I stated I didn't have to prove anything......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post 1716 page 86, your exact words " I don't have to prove a negative"
Click to expand...

you misunderstood my point....nobody needs to prove anything to anyone.....people just have to make their choices of what they want to believe.....


----------



## Tuatara

PratchettFan said:


> No, I can't prove Zeus does not exist.  I believe Zeus doesn't exist.


Exactly, as that would be proving a negative.


> And you are wrong, if you claim a negative you have to prove it.  If you can't prove something, then you shouldn't make the claim at all.


You just claimed a negative by saying you don't believe in Zeus. Where is your proof that he doesn't exist.



> It is perfectly possible to prove a negative.  I claim there is not a bottle of soda on my desk.  I have looked at my desk, felt around it, brought people in  to confirm it and have demonstrated objectively there is not a bottle of soda there.  Very easy.


In order for that to be a negative someone would first have to claim that there is a bottle of soda on your desk and it would be up to them to provide the evidence. Since we are clearly talking about supernatural phenomenoms James Randle said it best with this "When James Randle coined the phrase "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such that telepathy does not exist), but he also argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove so. He discusses that induction is often used as a mode of proving a thesis, but if an individual assumes that something is or is not, then the person must prove so. Further, as he says, he does not take an advocacy position, as a lawyer would. He says that he cannot prove that a negative is true, but he could attempt to use evidence and induction to support a claim that he is biased toward, such as a claim that something does not exist (ex. flying reindeer)"  A better example of this is Russell's Teapot


> *Russell's teapot*, sometimes called the *celestial teapot* or *cosmic teapot*, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.





> I do not feel an absence of belief is the same as belief.  I am just fascinated that people who clearly have belief are so adamant that it is something else


Do not confuse belief with lack of belief.


----------



## Tuatara

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also one of your comrades PostmoderProph, already stated correctly " I don't have to prove a negative".
> 
> 
> 
> that is not an accurate quote.....I stated I didn't have to prove anything......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post 1716 page 86, your exact words " I don't have to prove a negative"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you misunderstood my point....nobody needs to prove anything to anyone.....people just have to make their choices of what they want to believe.....
Click to expand...

If someone says "I believe in god", they don't have to prove it, but if someone said "I know for a fact god exists" then yes they have to prove it.


----------



## asaratis

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also one of your comrades PostmoderProph, already stated correctly " I don't have to prove a negative".
> 
> 
> 
> that is not an accurate quote.....I stated I didn't have to prove anything......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post 1716 page 86, your exact words " I don't have to prove a negative"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you misunderstood my point....nobody needs to prove anything to anyone.....people just have to make their choices of what they want to believe.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If someone says "I believe in god", they don't have to prove it, but if someone said "I know for a fact god exists" then yes they have to prove it.
Click to expand...

By the same token, if someone says, "I  believe Zeus does not exist", they don't have to prove it.  If they said, "I know for a fact that Zeus does not exist", then I would ask for proof.


----------



## asaratis

Tuatara said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I can't prove Zeus does not exist.  I believe Zeus doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, as that would be proving a negative.
> 
> 
> 
> And you are wrong, if you claim a negative you have to prove it.  If you can't prove something, then you shouldn't make the claim at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just claimed a negative by saying you don't believe in Zeus. Where is your proof that he doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is perfectly possible to prove a negative.  I claim there is not a bottle of soda on my desk.  I have looked at my desk, felt around it, brought people in  to confirm it and have demonstrated objectively there is not a bottle of soda there.  Very easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In order for that to be a negative someone would first have to claim that there is a bottle of soda on your desk and it would be up to them to provide the evidence. Since we are clearly talking about supernatural phenomenoms James Randle said it best with this "When James Randle coined the phrase "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such that telepathy does not exist), but he also argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove so. He discusses that induction is often used as a mode of proving a thesis, but if an individual assumes that something is or is not, then the person must prove so. Further, as he says, he does not take an advocacy position, as a lawyer would. He says that he cannot prove that a negative is true, but he could attempt to use evidence and induction to support a claim that he is biased toward, such as a claim that something does not exist (ex. flying reindeer)"  A better example of this is Russell's Teapot
> 
> 
> 
> *Russell's teapot*, sometimes called the *celestial teapot* or *cosmic teapot*, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not feel an absence of belief is the same as belief.  I am just fascinated that people who clearly have belief are so adamant that it is something else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do not confuse belief with lack of belief.
Click to expand...


By the way, Bertrand Russell's tea pot analogy is hogwash.  For an analogy to be legitimate, there must be some similarity between the things being compared.  A tiny teapot (whether detectable or not) is in no way similar to anything supernatural.


----------



## asaratis

sealybobo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually your website was a Catholic website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when idiots say stupid things.
> 
> FYI, Oxford is about as far from being Catholic as it is possible to get.
> 
> Dawkins Debunked
> 
> Want tot ell me again how smart Dawkins is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one Is missing the sheer terror that Dawkins causes you fundies. What's remarkable is just how much time you and others spend out of your day hating, obsessing and agonizing over his every word.
> 
> None of you actually challenge his arguments with counter claims. The fact is, there are no counter claims that fundies can employ in terms of demonstrable, peer-reviewed arguments in favor of magic and supernaturalism. You fundies are left to your usual tactics of frantic, sweaty cutting and pasting from someone's personal blog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd make a good sci-fi writer...maybe get on the staff at Twilight Zone...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How old are you gramma.
Click to expand...

That would be granpa.

I remember Snooky Lanson (from Hit Parade), Buck Rogers, Sky King, The $64,000 Question, The Price is Right, Lassie...


----------



## PratchettFan

Tuatara said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I can't prove Zeus does not exist.  I believe Zeus doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, as that would be proving a negative.
> 
> 
> 
> And you are wrong, if you claim a negative you have to prove it.  If you can't prove something, then you shouldn't make the claim at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just claimed a negative by saying you don't believe in Zeus. Where is your proof that he doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

 
I have no proof.  That is why I called it a belief.  Not a lack of belief, not a non-belief... a belief.



Tuatara said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is perfectly possible to prove a negative.  I claim there is not a bottle of soda on my desk.  I have looked at my desk, felt around it, brought people in  to confirm it and have demonstrated objectively there is not a bottle of soda there.  Very easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order for that to be a negative someone would first have to claim that there is a bottle of soda on your desk and it would be up to them to provide the evidence. Since we are clearly talking about supernatural phenomenoms James Randle said it best with this "When James Randle coined the phrase "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such that telepathy does not exist), but he also argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove so. He discusses that induction is often used as a mode of proving a thesis, but if an individual assumes that something is or is not, then the person must prove so. Further, as he says, he does not take an advocacy position, as a lawyer would. He says that he cannot prove that a negative is true, but he could attempt to use evidence and induction to support a claim that he is biased toward, such as a claim that something does not exist (ex. flying reindeer)"  A better example of this is Russell's Teapot
> 
> 
> 
> *Russell's teapot*, sometimes called the *celestial teapot* or *cosmic teapot*, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I need only claim it is not there.  That is a negative claim and I can easily prove it.  The person making the claim, whether it is negative or positive, has the burden of supporting the claim.  You can't make a claim, declare it to be negative, and then act as of that claim is proven based upon your in ability to prove it.  If you can't prove a negative claim, don't make a negative claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not confuse belief with lack of belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not.  That is the point.  A lack of belief in the total absence of evidence is neutrality.  You are not neutral.  Therefore, you do not lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## PostmodernProph

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also one of your comrades PostmoderProph, already stated correctly " I don't have to prove a negative".
> 
> 
> 
> that is not an accurate quote.....I stated I didn't have to prove anything......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Post 1716 page 86, your exact words " I don't have to prove a negative"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you misunderstood my point....nobody needs to prove anything to anyone.....people just have to make their choices of what they want to believe.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If someone says "I believe in god", they don't have to prove it, but if someone said "I know for a fact god exists" then yes they have to prove it.
Click to expand...

If someone says "I do not believe in god", they don't have to prove it, but if someone said "there is no god" then yes they have to prove it.


----------



## PostmodernProph

asaratis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually your website was a Catholic website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when idiots say stupid things.
> 
> FYI, Oxford is about as far from being Catholic as it is possible to get.
> 
> Dawkins Debunked
> 
> Want tot ell me again how smart Dawkins is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one Is missing the sheer terror that Dawkins causes you fundies. What's remarkable is just how much time you and others spend out of your day hating, obsessing and agonizing over his every word.
> 
> None of you actually challenge his arguments with counter claims. The fact is, there are no counter claims that fundies can employ in terms of demonstrable, peer-reviewed arguments in favor of magic and supernaturalism. You fundies are left to your usual tactics of frantic, sweaty cutting and pasting from someone's personal blog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd make a good sci-fi writer...maybe get on the staff at Twilight Zone...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How old are you gramma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be granpa.
> 
> I remember Snooky Lanson (from Hit Parade), Buck Rogers, Sky King, The $64,000 Question, The Price is Right, Lassie...
Click to expand...

when God created grass we argued about what color it should be......he wanted green.....


----------



## PratchettFan

asaratis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually your website was a Catholic website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when idiots say stupid things.
> 
> FYI, Oxford is about as far from being Catholic as it is possible to get.
> 
> Dawkins Debunked
> 
> Want tot ell me again how smart Dawkins is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one Is missing the sheer terror that Dawkins causes you fundies. What's remarkable is just how much time you and others spend out of your day hating, obsessing and agonizing over his every word.
> 
> None of you actually challenge his arguments with counter claims. The fact is, there are no counter claims that fundies can employ in terms of demonstrable, peer-reviewed arguments in favor of magic and supernaturalism. You fundies are left to your usual tactics of frantic, sweaty cutting and pasting from someone's personal blog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd make a good sci-fi writer...maybe get on the staff at Twilight Zone...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How old are you gramma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be granpa.
> 
> I remember Snooky Lanson (from Hit Parade), Buck Rogers, Sky King, The $64,000 Question, The Price is Right, Lassie...
Click to expand...

 
The Many Loves of Dobbie Gillis - on prime time.


----------



## PratchettFan

PratchettFan said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I can't prove Zeus does not exist.  I believe Zeus doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, as that would be proving a negative.
> 
> 
> 
> And you are wrong, if you claim a negative you have to prove it.  If you can't prove something, then you shouldn't make the claim at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just claimed a negative by saying you don't believe in Zeus. Where is your proof that he doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no proof.  That is why I called it a belief.  Not a lack of belief, not a non-belief... a belief.
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is perfectly possible to prove a negative.  I claim there is not a bottle of soda on my desk.  I have looked at my desk, felt around it, brought people in  to confirm it and have demonstrated objectively there is not a bottle of soda there.  Very easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order for that to be a negative someone would first have to claim that there is a bottle of soda on your desk and it would be up to them to provide the evidence. Since we are clearly talking about supernatural phenomenoms James Randle said it best with this "When James Randle coined the phrase "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such that telepathy does not exist), but he also argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove so. He discusses that induction is often used as a mode of proving a thesis, but if an individual assumes that something is or is not, then the person must prove so. Further, as he says, he does not take an advocacy position, as a lawyer would. He says that he cannot prove that a negative is true, but he could attempt to use evidence and induction to support a claim that he is biased toward, such as a claim that something does not exist (ex. flying reindeer)"  A better example of this is Russell's Teapot
> 
> 
> 
> *Russell's teapot*, sometimes called the *celestial teapot* or *cosmic teapot*, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I need only claim it is not there.  That is a negative claim and I can easily prove it.  The person making the claim, whether it is negative or positive, has the burden of supporting the claim.  You can't make a claim, declare it to be negative, and then act as of that claim is proven based upon your in ability to prove it.  If you can't prove a negative claim, don't make a negative claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not confuse belief with lack of belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not.  That is the point.  A lack of belief in the total absence of evidence is neutrality.  You are not neutral.  Therefore, you do not lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
Well, that didn't work out well.  Sorry about the formatting on the reply.  I tried to get clever.


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the one I quoted and responded to.  Michael Faraday would find Richard Dawkins terrifying CatholicHerald.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not one of my links.
> 
> Interesting that you think that is a response to my actual post, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Here is your actual post I was responding too.
Dawkins criticized again for arrogance and evangelical militancy Why Evolution Is True

This is a reply to the criticsm directed at Dawkins. There are 2 main pieces this author is referring to. One is a criticism from the Telegraph by Charles Moore who is not an atheist but an Anglican and the other piece is from the Catholic website also written by a non-atheist. My original point is the criticism directed at Dawkins was not from an atheist and the piece you put up was criticizing those who criticized Dawkins.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I originally suggested three attributes of religion and no one ever argued they were wrong or more were needed.  These are them:
> 
> A group to which members identify themselves.  "I am an Atheist along with my fellow Atheists"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the idea that atheism is a religion fails on your first criteria. 'Atheists' doesn't describe a cohesive group, any more than 'pessimists' does. It just identifies people who share a single trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Atheists identify as a group.  Atheists join in groups all of the time.  Here is just one web site of many that will tell you how you can join a group  How to Find an Atheist Support Group Atheist Revolution.  People put up billboards, organize holiday displays, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. Some do. That's been addressed. If you want to point to some atheist groups, and show how they are operating as religions, go for it. I might agree with you. But that doesn't mean that the general concept of atheism represents a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have said that Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  I have already indicated how some Atheists are treating Atheism as a religion is through the application of dogma.  Without dogma, you don't have religion.
> 
> Of course, if someone wants to disagree with the attributes of religion I have used I am certainly open to that discussion.  They just seem to be the three basics to me.  However, without determining what those attributes are in advance you really can't determine if something is or is not religion.
> 
> For example, if I put an electric motor on a unicycle, is it an automobile?  We can't answer that without first identifying what the attributes of an automobile are and comparing that to the unicycle.  Does the number of wheels matter, does it require a particular power plant, does the method of steering matter, etc.?  Simply stating that it isn't by definition without that comparison is not an investigation, it's dogma.
Click to expand...



What dogma is that?  You're still making up your own definitions.  I can treat a pet rock like a puppy, but it's still not a puppy, it's a pet rock.


----------



## sealybobo

asaratis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually your website was a Catholic website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when idiots say stupid things.
> 
> FYI, Oxford is about as far from being Catholic as it is possible to get.
> 
> Dawkins Debunked
> 
> Want tot ell me again how smart Dawkins is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one Is missing the sheer terror that Dawkins causes you fundies. What's remarkable is just how much time you and others spend out of your day hating, obsessing and agonizing over his every word.
> 
> None of you actually challenge his arguments with counter claims. The fact is, there are no counter claims that fundies can employ in terms of demonstrable, peer-reviewed arguments in favor of magic and supernaturalism. You fundies are left to your usual tactics of frantic, sweaty cutting and pasting from someone's personal blog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd make a good sci-fi writer...maybe get on the staff at Twilight Zone...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How old are you gramma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be granpa.
> 
> I remember Snooky Lanson (from Hit Parade), Buck Rogers, Sky King, The $64,000 Question, The Price is Right, Lassie...
Click to expand...


Yea but I remember those things too.  I just remember them in syndication.  I'm 43 so I guess technically I could be a granpa.


----------



## asaratis

sealybobo said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when idiots say stupid things.
> 
> FYI, Oxford is about as far from being Catholic as it is possible to get.
> 
> Dawkins Debunked
> 
> Want tot ell me again how smart Dawkins is?
> 
> 
> 
> No one Is missing the sheer terror that Dawkins causes you fundies. What's remarkable is just how much time you and others spend out of your day hating, obsessing and agonizing over his every word.
> 
> None of you actually challenge his arguments with counter claims. The fact is, there are no counter claims that fundies can employ in terms of demonstrable, peer-reviewed arguments in favor of magic and supernaturalism. You fundies are left to your usual tactics of frantic, sweaty cutting and pasting from someone's personal blog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd make a good sci-fi writer...maybe get on the staff at Twilight Zone...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How old are you gramma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be granpa.
> 
> I remember Snooky Lanson (from Hit Parade), Buck Rogers, Sky King, The $64,000 Question, The Price is Right, Lassie...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea but I remember those things too.  I just remember them in syndication.  I'm 43 so I guess technically I could be a granpa.
Click to expand...

I was born in '43...have children older than you.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I originally suggested three attributes of religion and no one ever argued they were wrong or more were needed.  These are them:
> 
> A group to which members identify themselves.  "I am an Atheist along with my fellow Atheists"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the idea that atheism is a religion fails on your first criteria. 'Atheists' doesn't describe a cohesive group, any more than 'pessimists' does. It just identifies people who share a single trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Atheists identify as a group.  Atheists join in groups all of the time.  Here is just one web site of many that will tell you how you can join a group  How to Find an Atheist Support Group Atheist Revolution.  People put up billboards, organize holiday displays, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. Some do. That's been addressed. If you want to point to some atheist groups, and show how they are operating as religions, go for it. I might agree with you. But that doesn't mean that the general concept of atheism represents a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have said that Atheism is not in and of itself a religion.  I have already indicated how some Atheists are treating Atheism as a religion is through the application of dogma.  Without dogma, you don't have religion.
> 
> Of course, if someone wants to disagree with the attributes of religion I have used I am certainly open to that discussion.  They just seem to be the three basics to me.  However, without determining what those attributes are in advance you really can't determine if something is or is not religion.
> 
> For example, if I put an electric motor on a unicycle, is it an automobile?  We can't answer that without first identifying what the attributes of an automobile are and comparing that to the unicycle.  Does the number of wheels matter, does it require a particular power plant, does the method of steering matter, etc.?  Simply stating that it isn't by definition without that comparison is not an investigation, it's dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What dogma is that?  You're still making up your own definitions.  I can treat a pet rock like a puppy, but it's still not a puppy, it's a pet rock.
Click to expand...


I just said it.  Stating that something is a particular way by definition without regard to reality is dogma.  A doctrine which is to be accepted without question is dogma.  And yes, your example is apt.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> Exactly, as that would be proving a negative.



Which, despite the idiots who don't understand anything claiming otherwise, can be done.



Tuatara said:


> You just claimed a negative by saying you don't believe in Zeus. Where is your proof that he doesn't exist.
> 
> In order for that to be a negative someone would first have to claim that there is a bottle of soda on your desk and it would be up to them to provide the evidence. Since we are clearly talking about supernatural phenomenoms James Randle said it best with this "When James Randle coined the phrase "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such that telepathy does not exist), but he also argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove so. He discusses that induction is often used as a mode of proving a thesis, but if an individual assumes that something is or is not, then the person must prove so. Further, as he says, he does not take an advocacy position, as a lawyer would. He says that he cannot prove that a negative is true, but he could attempt to use evidence and induction to support a claim that he is biased toward, such as a claim that something does not exist (ex. flying reindeer)"  A better example of this is Russell's Teapot
> 
> 
> 
> *Russell's teapot*, sometimes called the *celestial teapot* or *cosmic teapot*, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.
Click to expand...


Randi said you can't prove a negative? No wonder I always thought he was an idiot.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Negative Proof Fallacy and Burden of Proof

Negatives are proved every single day, you just have to know how to think.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> Here is your actual post I was responding too.
> Dawkins criticized again for arrogance and evangelical militancy Why Evolution Is True
> 
> This is a reply to the criticsm directed at Dawkins. There are 2 main pieces this author is referring to. One is a criticism from the Telegraph by Charles Moore who is not an atheist but an Anglican and the other piece is from the Catholic website also written by a non-atheist. My original point is the criticism directed at Dawkins was not from an atheist and the piece you put up was criticizing those who criticized Dawkins.



No, the post you were responding to was the one where I said I posted a link detailing all of the fallacies that Dawkins uses, and you claimed my source was a Catholic website.


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is your actual post I was responding too.
> Dawkins criticized again for arrogance and evangelical militancy Why Evolution Is True
> 
> This is a reply to the criticsm directed at Dawkins. There are 2 main pieces this author is referring to. One is a criticism from the Telegraph by Charles Moore who is not an atheist but an Anglican and the other piece is from the Catholic website also written by a non-atheist. My original point is the criticism directed at Dawkins was not from an atheist and the piece you put up was criticizing those who criticized Dawkins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the post you were responding to was the one where I said I posted a link detailing all of the fallacies that Dawkins uses, and you claimed my source was a Catholic website.
Click to expand...

Post # 1636 Page 82, Please reread carefully what I just stated in post #1814. You are having a comprehension problem.


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, as that would be proving a negative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which, despite the idiots who don't understand anything claiming otherwise, can be done.
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just claimed a negative by saying you don't believe in Zeus. Where is your proof that he doesn't exist.
> 
> In order for that to be a negative someone would first have to claim that there is a bottle of soda on your desk and it would be up to them to provide the evidence. Since we are clearly talking about supernatural phenomenoms James Randle said it best with this "When James Randle coined the phrase "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such that telepathy does not exist), but he also argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove so. He discusses that induction is often used as a mode of proving a thesis, but if an individual assumes that something is or is not, then the person must prove so. Further, as he says, he does not take an advocacy position, as a lawyer would. He says that he cannot prove that a negative is true, but he could attempt to use evidence and induction to support a claim that he is biased toward, such as a claim that something does not exist (ex. flying reindeer)"  A better example of this is Russell's Teapot
> 
> 
> 
> *Russell's teapot*, sometimes called the *celestial teapot* or *cosmic teapot*, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Randi said you can't prove a negative? No wonder I always thought he was an idiot.
> 
> http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf
> 
> Negative Proof Fallacy and Burden of Proof
> 
> Negatives are proved every single day, you just have to know how to think.
Click to expand...




Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, as that would be proving a negative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which, despite the idiots who don't understand anything claiming otherwise, can be done.
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just claimed a negative by saying you don't believe in Zeus. Where is your proof that he doesn't exist.
> 
> In order for that to be a negative someone would first have to claim that there is a bottle of soda on your desk and it would be up to them to provide the evidence. Since we are clearly talking about supernatural phenomenoms James Randle said it best with this "When James Randle coined the phrase "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such that telepathy does not exist), but he also argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove so. He discusses that induction is often used as a mode of proving a thesis, but if an individual assumes that something is or is not, then the person must prove so. Further, as he says, he does not take an advocacy position, as a lawyer would. He says that he cannot prove that a negative is true, but he could attempt to use evidence and induction to support a claim that he is biased toward, such as a claim that something does not exist (ex. flying reindeer)"  A better example of this is Russell's Teapot
> 
> 
> 
> *Russell's teapot*, sometimes called the *celestial teapot* or *cosmic teapot*, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Randi said you can't prove a negative? No wonder I always thought he was an idiot.
> 
> http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf
> 
> Negative Proof Fallacy and Burden of Proof
> 
> Negatives are proved every single day, you just have to know how to think.
Click to expand...

Steven Hales is taking this in the wrong direction at every turn. Here is one false example he portrays.


1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence 
in the fossil record.

2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil 
record.

3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.  

It should be 
Person 1 states "Unicorns exist"
Person 2 states "Unicorns do not exist"
Person 1 States "Then prove they don't exist"


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> Post # 1636 Page 82, Please reread carefully what I just stated in post #1814. You are having a comprehension problem.



I am not the one with a problem. You want to limit the stuff I can talk about to a single post, even though the link I refereed to was not in that post, and I am not playing along.

Comprehend now?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> Steven Hales is taking this in the wrong direction at every turn. Here is one false example he portrays.
> 
> 
> 1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence
> in the fossil record.
> 
> 2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil
> record.
> 
> 3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.
> 
> It should be
> Person 1 states "Unicorns exist"
> Person 2 states "Unicorns do not exist"
> Person 1 States "Then prove they don't exist"



Why do you get to define the parameters of logic when they were already defined before you came along? Proving a negative is pretty easy, if you know how to think.

For example, I can prove that the universe is not deterministic, even though cause and effect exist. This can easily be demonstrated by the various experiments regarding the evolution of single celled organisms and how they adapt to new environments. 

You are 100% wrong about this, you should just shut up.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Tuatara said:


> It should be
> Person 1 states "Unicorns exist"
> Person 2 states "Unicorns do not exist"
> Person 1 States "Then prove they don't exist"


then how about....
Person 1 states "Unicorns exist"
Person 2 states "Unicorns do not exist"
Person 3 states "Both of you prove your claims"


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Hey, I didn't start this thread.  I do not care who does or does not believe in God.  I am a live-and-let-live person.  Just don't try to push your beliefs on me with no factual evidence to support them...and don't belittle me for having whatever beliefs I do.   I don't push my beliefs on others except maybe in scientific matters where I try to teach them proven facts about science, nature or how to craft physical things from steel shapes, wood, building materials and hardware.  When it comes to believing in God, not believing in God or believing that God does not exist, you are totally on your on.  The modern day Atheists have turned Atheism into a religion, with human idols and an agenda juxtaposed to long established religions.  But you do make a good point.  I suppose it does have some attributes of a cult.




Boy, that is rich!  And no, atheism does not have some attributes of a cult.


----------



## dblack

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I didn't start this thread.  I do not care who does or does not believe in God.  I am a live-and-let-live person.  Just don't try to push your beliefs on me with no factual evidence to support them...and don't belittle me for having whatever beliefs I do.   I don't push my beliefs on others except maybe in scientific matters where I try to teach them proven facts about science, nature or how to craft physical things from steel shapes, wood, building materials and hardware.  When it comes to believing in God, not believing in God or believing that God does not exist, you are totally on your on.  The modern day Atheists have turned Atheism into a religion, with human idols and an agenda juxtaposed to long established religions.  But you do make a good point.  I suppose it does have some attributes of a cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, that is rich!  And no, atheism does not have some attributes of a cult.
Click to expand...


It's simple logic:

Some atheists started a cult. => Therefore, atheism is a cult.

We can apply this 'logic' in different contexts:

Some Christians committed murder. => Therefore, Christians are murderers.
Some Republicans are racists. => Therefore, Republicans are racists.

Try it yourself, it's great fun!


----------



## Carla_Danger

dblack said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I didn't start this thread.  I do not care who does or does not believe in God.  I am a live-and-let-live person.  Just don't try to push your beliefs on me with no factual evidence to support them...and don't belittle me for having whatever beliefs I do.   I don't push my beliefs on others except maybe in scientific matters where I try to teach them proven facts about science, nature or how to craft physical things from steel shapes, wood, building materials and hardware.  When it comes to believing in God, not believing in God or believing that God does not exist, you are totally on your on.  The modern day Atheists have turned Atheism into a religion, with human idols and an agenda juxtaposed to long established religions.  But you do make a good point.  I suppose it does have some attributes of a cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, that is rich!  And no, atheism does not have some attributes of a cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's simple logic:
> 
> Some atheists started a cult. => Therefore, atheism is a cult.
> 
> We can apply this 'logic' in different contexts:
> 
> Some Christians committed murder. => Therefore, Christians are murderers.
> Some Republicans are racists. => Therefore, Republicans are racists.
> 
> Try it yourself, it's great fun!
Click to expand...




There's more than just "some" racist Republican's.


----------



## DriftingSand

Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.


----------



## Carla_Danger

DriftingSand said:


> Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.





Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.


----------



## dblack

Carla_Danger said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.
Click to expand...


I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.


----------



## Trinnity

DriftingSand said:


> Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.


I miss you.


----------



## Carla_Danger

dblack said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.
Click to expand...



So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?


----------



## DriftingSand

Carla_Danger said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?
Click to expand...


Some may very well do just that.  The world is full of religions.  Some spend their entire life diligently trying to prove that God doesn't exist.  It's an obsession with many.  For them, the rejection of God IS a religion. They read anti-God books; they think anti-God thoughts; the preach anti-God messages; and some even go so far as to purposely live in a manner that's diametrically opposed to the written Word of God.


----------



## Carla_Danger

DriftingSand said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some may very well do just that.  The world is full of religions.  Some spend their entire life diligently trying to prove that God doesn't exist.  It's an obsession with many.  For them, the rejection of God IS a religion. They read anti-God books; they think anti-God thoughts; the preach anti-God messages; and some even go so far as to purposely live in a manner that's diametrically opposed to the written Word of God.
Click to expand...




There may be many religions, but atheism isn't one of them.  

Who are these "many" people you speak of?


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?
Click to expand...

There you go again with silly analogies, likely generated by your observance of the dogma of the Atheist Pope Dawkins.  Not one of the things you use in the silly analogies has any significant resemblance to God.  They are just imaginary physical creatures and things that exist in individual minds only.


----------



## DriftingSand

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go again with silly analogies, likely generated by your observance of the dogma of the Atheist Pope Dawkins.  Not one of the things you use in the silly analogies has any significant resemblance to God.  They are just imaginary physical creatures and things that exist in individual minds only.
Click to expand...


Sounds to me like you're a religious atheist.  Thanks for making my point.


----------



## DriftingSand

Carla_Danger said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some may very well do just that.  The world is full of religions.  Some spend their entire life diligently trying to prove that God doesn't exist.  It's an obsession with many.  For them, the rejection of God IS a religion. They read anti-God books; they think anti-God thoughts; the preach anti-God messages; and some even go so far as to purposely live in a manner that's diametrically opposed to the written Word of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may be many religions, but atheism isn't one of them.
> 
> Who are these "many" people you speak of?
Click to expand...


Read Humanist Manifesto 1.  They refer to themselves as "religious Humanists."  Yup ... it's a fact.


----------



## DriftingSand

Quote:
"FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created."

Quote:
"EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion."

Humanist Manifesto I

Sorry you religious atheists.  If you don't want to be seen as a religion then stop defining yourselves as such.


----------



## DriftingSand

Wish I could still wrap quotes around quotes like the old days.


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> There you go again with silly analogies, likely generated by your observance of the dogma of the Atheist Pope Dawkins.  Not one of the things you use in the silly analogies has any significant resemblance to God.  They are just imaginary physical creatures and things that exist in individual minds only.




This might help: Structure of Intelligence Chapter 6 - Analogy


----------



## DriftingSand

dblack said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.
Click to expand...


Agreed.


----------



## asaratis

DriftingSand said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go again with silly analogies, likely generated by your observance of the dogma of the Atheist Pope Dawkins.  Not one of the things you use in the silly analogies has any significant resemblance to God.  They are just imaginary physical creatures and things that exist in individual minds only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you're a religious atheist.  Thanks for making my point.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you have me confused with someone that believes God does not exist.


----------



## asaratis

DriftingSand said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some may very well do just that.  The world is full of religions.  Some spend their entire life diligently trying to prove that God doesn't exist.  It's an obsession with many.  For them, the rejection of God IS a religion. They read anti-God books; they think anti-God thoughts; the preach anti-God messages; and some even go so far as to purposely live in a manner that's diametrically opposed to the written Word of God.
Click to expand...

That has been part of my argument here.  Just because the religion of Atheism exists does not mean that all Atheists are religious.

I think that maybe one unwarranted fear in the Atheist's mind is that defining Atheism as a religion makes him/her a religious person.  It does not.  Other than some rituals such as baptisms, believing in the things that any religion does makes you a follower or member of that religion.

It is only when you act on those beliefs that you become "religious".


----------



## NYcarbineer

DriftingSand said:


> Quote:
> "FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created."
> 
> Quote:
> "EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion."
> 
> Humanist Manifesto I
> 
> Sorry you religious atheists.  If you don't want to be seen as a religion then stop defining yourselves as such.



'The philosophy or life stance of *secular humanism* (alternatively known by some adherents as *Humanism*, specifically with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism) embraces human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, or superstition as the basis of morality and decision making."

Secular humanism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## asaratis

dblack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again with silly analogies, likely generated by your observance of the dogma of the Atheist Pope Dawkins.  Not one of the things you use in the silly analogies has any significant resemblance to God.  They are just imaginary physical creatures and things that exist in individual minds only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might help: Structure of Intelligence Chapter 6 - Analogy
Click to expand...

You got your quotes phucked up.


----------



## dblack

asaratis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again with silly analogies, likely generated by your observance of the dogma of the Atheist Pope Dawkins.  Not one of the things you use in the silly analogies has any significant resemblance to God.  They are just imaginary physical creatures and things that exist in individual minds only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might help: Structure of Intelligence Chapter 6 - Analogy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got your quotes phucked up.
Click to expand...


Thanks. Corrected. Now...

Take my stinging retort like a man!


----------



## Tuatara

DriftingSand said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some may very well do just that.  The world is full of religions.  Some spend their entire life diligently trying to prove that God doesn't exist.  It's an obsession with many.  For them, the rejection of God IS a religion. They read anti-God books; they think anti-God thoughts; the preach anti-God messages; *and some even go so far as to purposely live in a manner that's diametrically opposed to the written Word of God*.
Click to expand...

You mean like not owning slaves and wearing more than one type of cloth. Oh no, the horror.


----------



## DriftingSand

Tuatara said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not Christianity. Those were the requirements of the Old Covenant which ultimately didn't work out for the Israelites.  They aren't required under the New Covenant written in the blood of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some may very well do just that.  The world is full of religions.  Some spend their entire life diligently trying to prove that God doesn't exist.  It's an obsession with many.  For them, the rejection of God IS a religion. They read anti-God books; they think anti-God thoughts; the preach anti-God messages; *and some even go so far as to purposely live in a manner that's diametrically opposed to the written Word of God*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like not owning slaves and wearing more than one type of cloth. Oh no, the horror.
Click to expand...


----------



## protectionist

DriftingSand said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
Click to expand...


DriftingSand.  Can I PM you ?


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Steven Hales is taking this in the wrong direction at every turn. Here is one false example he portrays.
> 
> 
> 1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence
> in the fossil record.
> 
> 2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil
> record.
> 
> 3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.
> 
> It should be
> Person 1 states "Unicorns exist"
> Person 2 states "Unicorns do not exist"
> Person 1 States "Then prove they don't exist"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you get to define the parameters of logic when they were already defined before you came along? Proving a negative is pretty easy, if you know how to think.
> 
> For example, I can prove that the universe is not deterministic, even though cause and effect exist. This can easily be demonstrated by the various experiments regarding the evolution of single celled organisms and how they adapt to new environments.
> 
> You are 100% wrong about this, you should just shut up.
Click to expand...

Prove that all the other gods ever described don't exist. Either you believe in all of them or show me proof that they do not exist. I love using people's own argument against them. Oh and until you provide proof, shut up.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go again with silly analogies, likely generated by your observance of the dogma of the Atheist Pope Dawkins.  Not one of the things you use in the silly analogies has any significant resemblance to God.  They are just imaginary physical creatures and things that exist in individual minds only.
Click to expand...




There you go again, being completely wrong. Actually, you're again confusing your religion with my non religion. I think there's just as much of a chance we'll be able to prove Bigfoot exists, as we are that God exists...two imaginary creatures that exist in the mind only.


----------



## Carla_Danger

DriftingSand said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go again with silly analogies, likely generated by your observance of the dogma of the Atheist Pope Dawkins.  Not one of the things you use in the silly analogies has any significant resemblance to God.  They are just imaginary physical creatures and things that exist in individual minds only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you're a religious atheist.  Thanks for making my point.
Click to expand...



Couldn't come up with any, huh?  Just like the clicking noises your keyboard makes? There's no such thing as a religious atheist.


----------



## Carla_Danger

DriftingSand said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some may very well do just that.  The world is full of religions.  Some spend their entire life diligently trying to prove that God doesn't exist.  It's an obsession with many.  For them, the rejection of God IS a religion. They read anti-God books; they think anti-God thoughts; the preach anti-God messages; and some even go so far as to purposely live in a manner that's diametrically opposed to the written Word of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may be many religions, but atheism isn't one of them.
> 
> Who are these "many" people you speak of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read Humanist Manifesto 1.  They refer to themselves as "religious Humanists."  Yup ... it's a fact.
Click to expand...




That's a contradiction in terms.


----------



## sealybobo

DriftingSand said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some may very well do just that.  The world is full of religions.  Some spend their entire life diligently trying to prove that God doesn't exist.  It's an obsession with many.  For them, the rejection of God IS a religion. They read anti-God books; they think anti-God thoughts; the preach anti-God messages; and some even go so far as to purposely live in a manner that's diametrically opposed to the written Word of God.
Click to expand...


What are anti god thoughts?  Seems to me every day I hear Christians admitting that they are and will never be perfect and that's why Jesus died for them.  Sort of a free pass to continue having those sick thoughts.

The only thing I say that is anti god is that there is no god.  I don't preach rape, lying, stealing, fucking your neighbors wife.

Oh do you mean gay sex or pro choice?  Well we don't have a problem with gay sex or abortion because there is no god.  

Notice the things that you say are anti god are also legal?  That's why we don't care what your religion says or thinks.  We have laws.  We are a secular "atheist" society in that respect.


----------



## sealybobo

Carla_Danger said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go again with silly analogies, likely generated by your observance of the dogma of the Atheist Pope Dawkins.  Not one of the things you use in the silly analogies has any significant resemblance to God.  They are just imaginary physical creatures and things that exist in individual minds only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you're a religious atheist.  Thanks for making my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't come up with any, huh?  Just like the clicking noises your keyboard makes? There's no such thing as a religious atheist.
Click to expand...


Maybe a militant atheist but not a religious one.

And notice a "militant" atheist is one who passionately debates a theist that there is no god, god is unnecessary and in a lot of cases god is not good for people.  Just look at the Muslims in Syria and Iraq.  How's god doing for them?  

We don't bomb churches or start wars over there being no god.


----------



## Carla_Danger

sealybobo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go again with silly analogies, likely generated by your observance of the dogma of the Atheist Pope Dawkins.  Not one of the things you use in the silly analogies has any significant resemblance to God.  They are just imaginary physical creatures and things that exist in individual minds only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you're a religious atheist.  Thanks for making my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't come up with any, huh?  Just like the clicking noises your keyboard makes? There's no such thing as a religious atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe a militant atheist but not a religious one.
> 
> And notice a "militant" atheist is one who passionately debates a theist that there is no god, god is unnecessary and in a lot of cases god is not good for people.  Just look at the Muslims in Syria and Iraq.  How's god doing for them?
> 
> We don't bomb churches or start wars over there being no god.
Click to expand...




I have no proof, one way or another.  I  simply do not believe in God, and I reject the literal interpretation of the Bible.


You can't twist that into a religion.


----------



## DriftingSand

sealybobo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go again with silly analogies, likely generated by your observance of the dogma of the Atheist Pope Dawkins.  Not one of the things you use in the silly analogies has any significant resemblance to God.  They are just imaginary physical creatures and things that exist in individual minds only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you're a religious atheist.  Thanks for making my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't come up with any, huh?  Just like the clicking noises your keyboard makes? There's no such thing as a religious atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe a militant atheist but not a religious one.
> 
> And notice a "militant" atheist is one who passionately debates a theist that there is no god, god is unnecessary and in a lot of cases god is not good for people.  Just look at the Muslims in Syria and Iraq.  How's god doing for them?
> 
> We don't bomb churches or start wars over there being no god.
Click to expand...


God is necessary if you seek eternal life in His Kingdom. If that doesn't interest you then He's allowed you to reject Him.  You may want to stock up on plenty of sun block.


----------



## sealybobo

Carla_Danger said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again with silly analogies, likely generated by your observance of the dogma of the Atheist Pope Dawkins.  Not one of the things you use in the silly analogies has any significant resemblance to God.  They are just imaginary physical creatures and things that exist in individual minds only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you're a religious atheist.  Thanks for making my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't come up with any, huh?  Just like the clicking noises your keyboard makes? There's no such thing as a religious atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe a militant atheist but not a religious one.
> 
> And notice a "militant" atheist is one who passionately debates a theist that there is no god, god is unnecessary and in a lot of cases god is not good for people.  Just look at the Muslims in Syria and Iraq.  How's god doing for them?
> 
> We don't bomb churches or start wars over there being no god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no proof, one way or another.  I  simply do not believe in God, and I reject the literal interpretation of the Bible.
> 
> 
> You can't twist that into a religion.
Click to expand...


I love it when theists get excited when we admit that we can not know 100% for sure there is no god.  For us to know that we would have to be gods ourselves and be able to see in every corner of the universe and beyond to know if there is an invisible man hiding inside black holes.  

But they do say they know 100% there is a god because he visited Adam, Moses, Noah & Jesus.  In other words they believe a lie is a fact.  

This is why we say we are atheists when we really are agnostic atheists.  Because as far as the bible stories go, that we are certain is bullshit.  

Big diff between generic god and Jesus/Mohammad god.  I'm an atheist when it comes to Jesus and Mo, an agnostic atheist when it comes to some generic force that people say must have created us.  I don't think there is one but I can't know for sure so I lean towards atheists.

No, this isn't religious thinking.  This is phylisophical debate.


----------



## Carla_Danger

DriftingSand said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again with silly analogies, likely generated by your observance of the dogma of the Atheist Pope Dawkins.  Not one of the things you use in the silly analogies has any significant resemblance to God.  They are just imaginary physical creatures and things that exist in individual minds only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you're a religious atheist.  Thanks for making my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't come up with any, huh?  Just like the clicking noises your keyboard makes? There's no such thing as a religious atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe a militant atheist but not a religious one.
> 
> And notice a "militant" atheist is one who passionately debates a theist that there is no god, god is unnecessary and in a lot of cases god is not good for people.  Just look at the Muslims in Syria and Iraq.  How's god doing for them?
> 
> We don't bomb churches or start wars over there being no god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is necessary if you seek eternal life in His Kingdom. If that doesn't interest you then He's allowed you to reject Him.  You may want to stock up on plenty of sun block.
Click to expand...





Wow, your God is scary.  He/She doesn't sound very loving. Why would I want to worship something like that?


----------



## sealybobo

DriftingSand said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again with silly analogies, likely generated by your observance of the dogma of the Atheist Pope Dawkins.  Not one of the things you use in the silly analogies has any significant resemblance to God.  They are just imaginary physical creatures and things that exist in individual minds only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you're a religious atheist.  Thanks for making my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't come up with any, huh?  Just like the clicking noises your keyboard makes? There's no such thing as a religious atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe a militant atheist but not a religious one.
> 
> And notice a "militant" atheist is one who passionately debates a theist that there is no god, god is unnecessary and in a lot of cases god is not good for people.  Just look at the Muslims in Syria and Iraq.  How's god doing for them?
> 
> We don't bomb churches or start wars over there being no god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is necessary if you seek eternal life in His Kingdom. If that doesn't interest you then He's allowed you to reject Him.  You may want to stock up on plenty of sun block.
Click to expand...


Its saying stuff like this that makes you theists look/sound really stupid.  You are brainwashed dummy.  Sun block.  HA!

I would have to believe your pedophile priests to swallow that one.


----------



## sealybobo

DriftingSand said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again with silly analogies, likely generated by your observance of the dogma of the Atheist Pope Dawkins.  Not one of the things you use in the silly analogies has any significant resemblance to God.  They are just imaginary physical creatures and things that exist in individual minds only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you're a religious atheist.  Thanks for making my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't come up with any, huh?  Just like the clicking noises your keyboard makes? There's no such thing as a religious atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe a militant atheist but not a religious one.
> 
> And notice a "militant" atheist is one who passionately debates a theist that there is no god, god is unnecessary and in a lot of cases god is not good for people.  Just look at the Muslims in Syria and Iraq.  How's god doing for them?
> 
> We don't bomb churches or start wars over there being no god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is necessary if you seek eternal life in His Kingdom. If that doesn't interest you then He's allowed you to reject Him.  You may want to stock up on plenty of sun block.
Click to expand...


Do you really believe god talked to adam?  Noah lived 350 years?  Jonah lived 3 days in the belly of a whale?  Mary was a virgin?  

If those are allegories, so is the entire Jesus story.   Sorry to break it to you.  Does this mean you are going to start raping and stealing?


----------



## Carla_Danger

sealybobo said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again with silly analogies, likely generated by your observance of the dogma of the Atheist Pope Dawkins.  Not one of the things you use in the silly analogies has any significant resemblance to God.  They are just imaginary physical creatures and things that exist in individual minds only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you're a religious atheist.  Thanks for making my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't come up with any, huh?  Just like the clicking noises your keyboard makes? There's no such thing as a religious atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe a militant atheist but not a religious one.
> 
> And notice a "militant" atheist is one who passionately debates a theist that there is no god, god is unnecessary and in a lot of cases god is not good for people.  Just look at the Muslims in Syria and Iraq.  How's god doing for them?
> 
> We don't bomb churches or start wars over there being no god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is necessary if you seek eternal life in His Kingdom. If that doesn't interest you then He's allowed you to reject Him.  You may want to stock up on plenty of sun block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its saying stuff like this that makes you theists look/sound really stupid.  You are brainwashed dummy.  Sun block.  HA!
> 
> I would have to believe your pedophile priests to swallow that one.
Click to expand...





Fear-mongering has never worked on me!


----------



## sealybobo

Carla_Danger said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you're a religious atheist.  Thanks for making my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't come up with any, huh?  Just like the clicking noises your keyboard makes? There's no such thing as a religious atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe a militant atheist but not a religious one.
> 
> And notice a "militant" atheist is one who passionately debates a theist that there is no god, god is unnecessary and in a lot of cases god is not good for people.  Just look at the Muslims in Syria and Iraq.  How's god doing for them?
> 
> We don't bomb churches or start wars over there being no god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is necessary if you seek eternal life in His Kingdom. If that doesn't interest you then He's allowed you to reject Him.  You may want to stock up on plenty of sun block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its saying stuff like this that makes you theists look/sound really stupid.  You are brainwashed dummy.  Sun block.  HA!
> 
> I would have to believe your pedophile priests to swallow that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fear-mongering has never worked on me!
Click to expand...


Where are you going to put all that guilt you have for all that sin you do?


----------



## DriftingSand

protectionist said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DriftingSand.  Can I PM you ?
Click to expand...


Sure thing!!!


----------



## DriftingSand

Carla_Danger said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some may very well do just that.  The world is full of religions.  Some spend their entire life diligently trying to prove that God doesn't exist.  It's an obsession with many.  For them, the rejection of God IS a religion. They read anti-God books; they think anti-God thoughts; the preach anti-God messages; and some even go so far as to purposely live in a manner that's diametrically opposed to the written Word of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may be many religions, but atheism isn't one of them.
> 
> Who are these "many" people you speak of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read Humanist Manifesto 1.  They refer to themselves as "religious Humanists."  Yup ... it's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a contradiction in terms.
Click to expand...


You'll have to get after the numerous atheists that signed the document.  Put on your reading glasses because there are many.


----------



## Tuatara

DriftingSand said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again with silly analogies, likely generated by your observance of the dogma of the Atheist Pope Dawkins.  Not one of the things you use in the silly analogies has any significant resemblance to God.  They are just imaginary physical creatures and things that exist in individual minds only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you're a religious atheist.  Thanks for making my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't come up with any, huh?  Just like the clicking noises your keyboard makes? There's no such thing as a religious atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe a militant atheist but not a religious one.
> 
> And notice a "militant" atheist is one who passionately debates a theist that there is no god, god is unnecessary and in a lot of cases god is not good for people.  Just look at the Muslims in Syria and Iraq.  How's god doing for them?
> 
> We don't bomb churches or start wars over there being no god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is necessary if you seek eternal life in His Kingdom. If that doesn't interest you then He's allowed you to reject Him.  You may want to stock up on plenty of sun block.
Click to expand...

Let say for your sake there was a Christian/Judean god. He sends millions upon millions of good people to helll simply because they did not believe in him or they were worshipping the wong god. He also lets millions of bad people into heaven simply because they repent their actions and ask for forgiveness. Now ask me if I want to spend eternity with a schmuck like that.


----------



## DriftingSand

Tuatara said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again with silly analogies, likely generated by your observance of the dogma of the Atheist Pope Dawkins.  Not one of the things you use in the silly analogies has any significant resemblance to God.  They are just imaginary physical creatures and things that exist in individual minds only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you're a religious atheist.  Thanks for making my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't come up with any, huh?  Just like the clicking noises your keyboard makes? There's no such thing as a religious atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe a militant atheist but not a religious one.
> 
> And notice a "militant" atheist is one who passionately debates a theist that there is no god, god is unnecessary and in a lot of cases god is not good for people.  Just look at the Muslims in Syria and Iraq.  How's god doing for them?
> 
> We don't bomb churches or start wars over there being no god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is necessary if you seek eternal life in His Kingdom. If that doesn't interest you then He's allowed you to reject Him.  You may want to stock up on plenty of sun block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let say for your sake there was a Christian/Judean god. He sends millions upon millions of good people to helll simply because they did not believe in him or they were worshipping the wong god. He also lets millions of bad people into heaven simply because they repent their actions and ask for forgiveness. Now ask me if I want to spend eternity with a schmuck like that.
Click to expand...


Fortunately for all of us He gave us the power of choice.  If you would rather wallow around in a lake of fire with a true schmuck like Satan then have at it.  Enjoy.


----------



## DriftingSand

Tuatara said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again with silly analogies, likely generated by your observance of the dogma of the Atheist Pope Dawkins.  Not one of the things you use in the silly analogies has any significant resemblance to God.  They are just imaginary physical creatures and things that exist in individual minds only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you're a religious atheist.  Thanks for making my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't come up with any, huh?  Just like the clicking noises your keyboard makes? There's no such thing as a religious atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe a militant atheist but not a religious one.
> 
> And notice a "militant" atheist is one who passionately debates a theist that there is no god, god is unnecessary and in a lot of cases god is not good for people.  Just look at the Muslims in Syria and Iraq.  How's god doing for them?
> 
> We don't bomb churches or start wars over there being no god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is necessary if you seek eternal life in His Kingdom. If that doesn't interest you then He's allowed you to reject Him.  You may want to stock up on plenty of sun block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let say for your sake there was a Christian/Judean god. He sends millions upon millions of good people to helll simply because they did not believe in him or they were worshipping the wong god. He also lets millions of bad people into heaven simply because they repent their actions and ask for forgiveness. Now ask me if I want to spend eternity with a schmuck like that.
Click to expand...


By the way ... the "Judeo" god isn't the same as the Christian God.  The Christian God is Jesus Christ -- a God rejected by the followers of Judaism.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> There's more than just "some" racist Republican's.



Congratulations, you just proved him right.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.



Yet some atheist treat is as a religion, a fact which you are always willing to ignore to maintain your faith in a world that doesn't really exist.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?



Not that I am aware of, but it is possible.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> 'The philosophy or life stance of *secular humanism* (alternatively known by some adherents as *Humanism*, specifically with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism) embraces human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, or superstition as the basis of morality and decision making."
> 
> Secular humanism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



I bet you think you proved him wrong.

Hint, you didn't.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> Prove that all the other gods ever described don't exist. Either you believe in all of them or show me proof that they do not exist. I love using people's own argument against them. Oh and until you provide proof, shut up.



Prove that I believe something before you demand I prove something silly just to satisfy your idiotic ramblings.


----------



## sealybobo

Tuatara said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again with silly analogies, likely generated by your observance of the dogma of the Atheist Pope Dawkins.  Not one of the things you use in the silly analogies has any significant resemblance to God.  They are just imaginary physical creatures and things that exist in individual minds only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you're a religious atheist.  Thanks for making my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't come up with any, huh?  Just like the clicking noises your keyboard makes? There's no such thing as a religious atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe a militant atheist but not a religious one.
> 
> And notice a "militant" atheist is one who passionately debates a theist that there is no god, god is unnecessary and in a lot of cases god is not good for people.  Just look at the Muslims in Syria and Iraq.  How's god doing for them?
> 
> We don't bomb churches or start wars over there being no god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is necessary if you seek eternal life in His Kingdom. If that doesn't interest you then He's allowed you to reject Him.  You may want to stock up on plenty of sun block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let say for your sake there was a Christian/Judean god. He sends millions upon millions of good people to helll simply because they did not believe in him or they were worshipping the wong god. He also lets millions of bad people into heaven simply because they repent their actions and ask for forgiveness. Now ask me if I want to spend eternity with a schmuck like that.
Click to expand...


Stop calling things Judeo/Christian.  Christians think Jews who deny Jesus aren't going to heaven.  Some think Jews who were good will get a last minute reprieve but Jesus said only through him and Jews deny he was the messiah there is no denying that.  There were no Jews on the Mayflower and I don't think any of the founding fathers were name Washingtonberg.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that all the other gods ever described don't exist. Either you believe in all of them or show me proof that they do not exist. I love using people's own argument against them. Oh and until you provide proof, shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that I believe something before you demand I prove something silly just to satisfy your idiotic ramblings.
Click to expand...


He/She has you on this one.


----------



## sealybobo

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]



Here is another thought.  If atheism is "just another religion", how come you hate us so much?

Why doesn't it bother you all those other religions are making shit up?  Maybe it is their fault we don't believe?  Maybe if there weren't 20 different versions of god it would seem more credible?

Think about it.  They took a poll and atheists were the least trusted group.  No where in there did people say Mormons or Muslims.  

Get it?  People would rather vote for a Mormon or Muslim or any other religion rather than an Atheist.

This should tell you we aren't "just another religion".  

Theists have this unspoken truce with each other.  You don't publically call out my religion for being bullshit and we won't formally and officially call your religion out.  At least not out in public.


----------



## NYcarbineer

This thread reads like a very very long Professor Irwin Corey bit.  Except for the fact that Corey knew he was talking gibberish.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Quantum Windbag said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet some atheist treat is as a religion, a fact which you are always willing to ignore to maintain your faith in a world that doesn't really exist.
Click to expand...




No, it's the other way around. Christian's want to classify atheism as a religion so they can bring it down to their level of witchcraft and wizardry.


----------



## sealybobo

Carla_Danger said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet some atheist treat is as a religion, a fact which you are always willing to ignore to maintain your faith in a world that doesn't really exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's the other way around. Christian's want to classify atheism as a religion so they can bring it down to their level of witchcraft and wizardry.
Click to expand...


Notice traditional Christians don't mind when Mormons, other Christians, Muslims or Jews tell them they aren't doing it right but when us atheists say their god is a joke they get all bent out of shape?  

So they want us to be "just another religion", rather than the one truth and that truth is there is no god.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> No, it's the other way around. Christian's want to classify atheism as a religion so they can bring it down to their level of witchcraft and wizardry.



Which explains why atheist went to court to get their beliefs declared a religion.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Quantum Windbag said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's the other way around. Christian's want to classify atheism as a religion so they can bring it down to their level of witchcraft and wizardry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which explains why atheist went to court to get their beliefs declared a religion.
Click to expand...




No they didn't.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> No they didn't.



The case has been posted in this thread more than once so I won't repost if, but Kaufman v McCaughtry was a case filed by an atheist in order to practice his religion in prison. If you don't believe me, look it up.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Tuatara said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again with silly analogies, likely generated by your observance of the dogma of the Atheist Pope Dawkins.  Not one of the things you use in the silly analogies has any significant resemblance to God.  They are just imaginary physical creatures and things that exist in individual minds only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you're a religious atheist.  Thanks for making my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't come up with any, huh?  Just like the clicking noises your keyboard makes? There's no such thing as a religious atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe a militant atheist but not a religious one.
> 
> And notice a "militant" atheist is one who passionately debates a theist that there is no god, god is unnecessary and in a lot of cases god is not good for people.  Just look at the Muslims in Syria and Iraq.  How's god doing for them?
> 
> We don't bomb churches or start wars over there being no god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is necessary if you seek eternal life in His Kingdom. If that doesn't interest you then He's allowed you to reject Him.  You may want to stock up on plenty of sun block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let say for your sake there was a Christian/Judean god. He sends millions upon millions of good people to helll simply because they did not believe in him or they were worshipping the wong god. He also lets millions of bad people into heaven simply because they repent their actions and ask for forgiveness. Now ask me if I want to spend eternity with a schmuck like that.
Click to expand...

lets see.....should I spend eternity in heaven with a god you don't like or spend it in hell with you.......how long do I have to make up my mind?.......


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another thought.  If atheism is "just another religion", how come you hate us so much?
Click to expand...


its the lawsuits......


----------



## Carla_Danger

Quantum Windbag said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The case has been posted in this thread more than once so I won't repost if, but Kaufman v McCaughtry was a case filed by an atheist in order to practice his religion in prison. If you don't believe me, look it up.
Click to expand...




A religious form is the only form they had available for his atheist study group. That does not make atheism a religion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> A religious form is the only form they had available for his atheist study group. That does not make atheism a religion.



It does for them.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Quantum Windbag said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> A religious form is the only form they had available for his atheist study group. That does not make atheism a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does for them.
Click to expand...



No it doesn't.


----------



## Tuatara

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you're a religious atheist.  Thanks for making my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't come up with any, huh?  Just like the clicking noises your keyboard makes? There's no such thing as a religious atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe a militant atheist but not a religious one.
> 
> And notice a "militant" atheist is one who passionately debates a theist that there is no god, god is unnecessary and in a lot of cases god is not good for people.  Just look at the Muslims in Syria and Iraq.  How's god doing for them?
> 
> We don't bomb churches or start wars over there being no god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is necessary if you seek eternal life in His Kingdom. If that doesn't interest you then He's allowed you to reject Him.  You may want to stock up on plenty of sun block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let say for your sake there was a Christian/Judean god. He sends millions upon millions of good people to helll simply because they did not believe in him or they were worshipping the wong god. He also lets millions of bad people into heaven simply because they repent their actions and ask for forgiveness. Now ask me if I want to spend eternity with a schmuck like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lets see.....should I spend eternity in heaven with a god you don't like or spend it in hell with you.......how long do I have to make up my mind?.......
Click to expand...

Don't forget that your god is sending the vast majority of good people that ever existed to hell. It tells a lot about someone like yourself,doesn't it. It's a good thing I don't believe in something that wretched but it would be worse to believe in it and champion that kind of realm.


----------



## protectionist

DriftingSand said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DriftingSand.  Can I PM you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure thing!!!
Click to expand...

 But I can't.  When I tried, a message came up saying >_ "ERROR.  This member limits who may view their full profile."_


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's the other way around. Christian's want to classify atheism as a religion so they can bring it down to their level of witchcraft and wizardry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which explains why atheist went to court to get their beliefs declared a religion.
Click to expand...


An atheist went to court.  Did he have a consensus of all atheists on earth agreeing with his position?


----------



## DriftingSand

protectionist said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, atheism cannot be a religion.  There are no specific tenets for atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DriftingSand.  Can I PM you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure thing!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I can't.  When I tried, a message came up saying >_ "ERROR.  This member limits who may view their full profile."_
Click to expand...


I'll try to open that up.  This new software/format is really tough to deal with but I should be able to figure it out ... eventually.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't come up with any, huh?  Just like the clicking noises your keyboard makes? There's no such thing as a religious atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe a militant atheist but not a religious one.
> 
> And notice a "militant" atheist is one who passionately debates a theist that there is no god, god is unnecessary and in a lot of cases god is not good for people.  Just look at the Muslims in Syria and Iraq.  How's god doing for them?
> 
> We don't bomb churches or start wars over there being no god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is necessary if you seek eternal life in His Kingdom. If that doesn't interest you then He's allowed you to reject Him.  You may want to stock up on plenty of sun block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let say for your sake there was a Christian/Judean god. He sends millions upon millions of good people to helll simply because they did not believe in him or they were worshipping the wong god. He also lets millions of bad people into heaven simply because they repent their actions and ask for forgiveness. Now ask me if I want to spend eternity with a schmuck like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lets see.....should I spend eternity in heaven with a god you don't like or spend it in hell with you.......how long do I have to make up my mind?.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't forget that your god is sending the vast majority of good people that ever existed to hell. It tells a lot about someone like yourself,doesn't it. It's a good thing I don't believe in something that wretched but it would be worse to believe in it and champion that kind of realm.
Click to expand...

no one is going to hell who isn't choosing to go there instead of spending eternity "with a schmuck like that".....why are you blaming him for your choice?......


----------



## PostmodernProph

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's the other way around. Christian's want to classify atheism as a religion so they can bring it down to their level of witchcraft and wizardry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which explains why atheist went to court to get their beliefs declared a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An atheist went to court.  Did he have a consensus of all atheists on earth agreeing with his position?
Click to expand...

as I recall, Q's position is that for some, atheism has been elevated to a religion......that doesn't mean all atheists have to.......considering all that you have done to defend your faith, its obvious that you at least, treat it as a religion......


----------



## PratchettFan

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe a militant atheist but not a religious one.
> 
> And notice a "militant" atheist is one who passionately debates a theist that there is no god, god is unnecessary and in a lot of cases god is not good for people.  Just look at the Muslims in Syria and Iraq.  How's god doing for them?
> 
> We don't bomb churches or start wars over there being no god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is necessary if you seek eternal life in His Kingdom. If that doesn't interest you then He's allowed you to reject Him.  You may want to stock up on plenty of sun block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let say for your sake there was a Christian/Judean god. He sends millions upon millions of good people to helll simply because they did not believe in him or they were worshipping the wong god. He also lets millions of bad people into heaven simply because they repent their actions and ask for forgiveness. Now ask me if I want to spend eternity with a schmuck like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lets see.....should I spend eternity in heaven with a god you don't like or spend it in hell with you.......how long do I have to make up my mind?.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't forget that your god is sending the vast majority of good people that ever existed to hell. It tells a lot about someone like yourself,doesn't it. It's a good thing I don't believe in something that wretched but it would be worse to believe in it and champion that kind of realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no one is going to hell who isn't choosing to go there instead of spending eternity "with a schmuck like that".....why are you blaming him for your choice?......
Click to expand...

 
This is akin to my holding a gun to your head and telling you if you don't accept me as your friend and I am going to blow your brains out.  And then blaming you when I pull the trigger because it was your choice.


----------



## dblack

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is necessary if you seek eternal life in His Kingdom. If that doesn't interest you then He's allowed you to reject Him.  You may want to stock up on plenty of sun block.
> 
> 
> 
> Let say for your sake there was a Christian/Judean god. He sends millions upon millions of good people to helll simply because they did not believe in him or they were worshipping the wong god. He also lets millions of bad people into heaven simply because they repent their actions and ask for forgiveness. Now ask me if I want to spend eternity with a schmuck like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lets see.....should I spend eternity in heaven with a god you don't like or spend it in hell with you.......how long do I have to make up my mind?.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't forget that your god is sending the vast majority of good people that ever existed to hell. It tells a lot about someone like yourself,doesn't it. It's a good thing I don't believe in something that wretched but it would be worse to believe in it and champion that kind of realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no one is going to hell who isn't choosing to go there instead of spending eternity "with a schmuck like that".....why are you blaming him for your choice?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is akin to my holding a gun to your head and telling you if you don't accept me as your friend and I am going to blow your brains out.  And then blaming you when I pull the trigger because it was your choice.
Click to expand...


Which sounds suspiciously like the logic behind civil rights laws (apologies for the non sequitur)


----------



## Carla_Danger

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's the other way around. Christian's want to classify atheism as a religion so they can bring it down to their level of witchcraft and wizardry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which explains why atheist went to court to get their beliefs declared a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An atheist went to court.  Did he have a consensus of all atheists on earth agreeing with his position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as I recall, Q's position is that for some, atheism has been elevated to a religion......that doesn't mean all atheists have to.......considering all that you have done to defend your faith, its obvious that you at least, treat it as a religion......
Click to expand...



Apparently, you're just as ignorant as Q.  That's a made up definition. No one is treating atheism as a religion (except for irrational theists), because it's not one.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you're a religious atheist.  Thanks for making my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't come up with any, huh?  Just like the clicking noises your keyboard makes? There's no such thing as a religious atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe a militant atheist but not a religious one.
> 
> And notice a "militant" atheist is one who passionately debates a theist that there is no god, god is unnecessary and in a lot of cases god is not good for people.  Just look at the Muslims in Syria and Iraq.  How's god doing for them?
> 
> We don't bomb churches or start wars over there being no god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is necessary if you seek eternal life in His Kingdom. If that doesn't interest you then He's allowed you to reject Him.  You may want to stock up on plenty of sun block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let say for your sake there was a Christian/Judean god. He sends millions upon millions of good people to helll simply because they did not believe in him or they were worshipping the wong god. He also lets millions of bad people into heaven simply because they repent their actions and ask for forgiveness. Now ask me if I want to spend eternity with a schmuck like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lets see.....should I spend eternity in heaven with a god you don't like or spend it in hell with you.......how long do I have to make up my mind?.......
Click to expand...




You don't get to decide.


----------



## Carla_Danger

DriftingSand said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point is, atheism _can_ become the focus of a religion - you _can_ build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DriftingSand.  Can I PM you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure thing!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I can't.  When I tried, a message came up saying >_ "ERROR.  This member limits who may view their full profile."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll try to open that up.  This new software/format is really tough to deal with but I should be able to figure it out ... eventually.
Click to expand...




Why don't you take your personal software problems over to the Announcements and Feedback section?

Announcements and Feedback US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## DriftingSand

Carla_Danger said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand.  Can I PM you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure thing!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I can't.  When I tried, a message came up saying >_ "ERROR.  This member limits who may view their full profile."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll try to open that up.  This new software/format is really tough to deal with but I should be able to figure it out ... eventually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you take your personal software problems over to the Announcements and Feedback section?
> 
> Announcements and Feedback US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


Don't feel like it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PostmodernProph said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's the other way around. Christian's want to classify atheism as a religion so they can bring it down to their level of witchcraft and wizardry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which explains why atheist went to court to get their beliefs declared a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An atheist went to court.  Did he have a consensus of all atheists on earth agreeing with his position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as I recall, Q's position is that for some, atheism has been elevated to a religion......that doesn't mean all atheists have to.......considering all that you have done to defend your faith, its obvious that you at least, treat it as a religion......
Click to expand...


You mean like Brazilians treat soccer as a religion?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> No it doesn't.



I keep forgetting about your magical power to read people's minds.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> An atheist went to court.  Did he have a consensus of all atheists on earth agreeing with his position?



Do you actually think you made a point there?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> An atheist went to court.  Did he have a consensus of all atheists on earth agreeing with his position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually think you made a point there?
Click to expand...


Yes because that guy doesn't speak for all atheists.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PratchettFan said:


> This is akin to my holding a gun to your head and telling you if you don't accept me as your friend and I am going to blow your brains out.  And then blaming you when I pull the trigger because it was your choice.



That applies only if you can prove the Bible defines Hell the way you do.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Once you  have decided that not believing in something is a religion, then the term religion becomes meaningless.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> Apparently, you're just as ignorant as Q.  That's a made up definition. No one is treating atheism as a religion (except for irrational theists), because it's not one.



Yet there are churches that treat atheism as a religion, despite your insistence that it is not one. Have you ever considered the possibility that your views do not define those other atheists have?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Yes because that guy doesn't speak for all atheists.



That would only be a point if you can show where I said he did. Since I never said that, all you did was show how desperate you are to look stupid.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Once you  have decided that not believing in something is a religion, then the term religion becomes meaningless.



Once you have decided you get to tell others they cannot believe something simply because it is different from what you believe you become a tyrant.


----------



## DriftingSand

Quantum Windbag said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep forgetting about your magical power to read people's minds.
Click to expand...


Reefer gives folks special, magical powers.


----------



## Carla_Danger

NYcarbineer said:


> Once you  have decided that not believing in something is a religion, then the term religion becomes meaningless.






Good point.  And it's only religious people trying to turn atheism into a religion. Seems they don't think very much of their own religion.


----------



## dblack

NYcarbineer said:


> Once you  have decided that not believing in something is a religion, then the term religion becomes meaningless.



That's really the crux of it.

Fuck it, let's cut the chase. Let's talk about the real reason the "atheism is a religion" schtick is so appealing to the fundies. The ugly truth is, ironically, they suffer from the delusion that atheists are smarter than they are. Nevermind that your typical atheist doesn't actually think this way. The loudmouths and the proselytizers amongst the non-believer crowd have provoked them, and now insecure Christians are obsessed with this idea that atheists think they're stupid.

So they revert to the playground rhetoric of "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?" - insisting that atheists are just as "religious" as they are. But as you point out, this basically makes the entire concept of faith and religion meaningless. By their (new) conception of religion any and all beliefs are equally "religious" - and no more profound or meaningful than non-belief. It's really kind of sad to see.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because that guy doesn't speak for all atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would only be a point if you can show where I said he did. Since I never said that, all you did was show how desperate you are to look stupid.
Click to expand...


Then you made a pointless post.  The only possible point your post would have had is that the atheist guy who claimed atheism was a religion contributed to the argument that atheism is a religion,

which it doesn't.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Carla_Danger said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's the other way around. Christian's want to classify atheism as a religion so they can bring it down to their level of witchcraft and wizardry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which explains why atheist went to court to get their beliefs declared a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An atheist went to court.  Did he have a consensus of all atheists on earth agreeing with his position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as I recall, Q's position is that for some, atheism has been elevated to a religion......that doesn't mean all atheists have to.......considering all that you have done to defend your faith, its obvious that you at least, treat it as a religion......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you're just as ignorant as Q.  That's a made up definition. No one is treating atheism as a religion (except for irrational theists), because it's not one.
Click to expand...


can something have apologetics and not be a religion?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

Carla_Danger said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't come up with any, huh?  Just like the clicking noises your keyboard makes? There's no such thing as a religious atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe a militant atheist but not a religious one.
> 
> And notice a "militant" atheist is one who passionately debates a theist that there is no god, god is unnecessary and in a lot of cases god is not good for people.  Just look at the Muslims in Syria and Iraq.  How's god doing for them?
> 
> We don't bomb churches or start wars over there being no god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is necessary if you seek eternal life in His Kingdom. If that doesn't interest you then He's allowed you to reject Him.  You may want to stock up on plenty of sun block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let say for your sake there was a Christian/Judean god. He sends millions upon millions of good people to helll simply because they did not believe in him or they were worshipping the wong god. He also lets millions of bad people into heaven simply because they repent their actions and ask for forgiveness. Now ask me if I want to spend eternity with a schmuck like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lets see.....should I spend eternity in heaven with a god you don't like or spend it in hell with you.......how long do I have to make up my mind?.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to decide.
Click to expand...

that's going to disappoint Tuatara......he may end up with an eternity of heaven against his will......


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once you  have decided that not believing in something is a religion, then the term religion becomes meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once you have decided you get to tell others they cannot believe something simply because it is different from what you believe you become a tyrant.
Click to expand...


You can believe that your grandmother had legitimate psychic powers to predict the future,

but the fact that many of us might dispute that does not deny her the right to believe so, or anyone else to believe so.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't come up with any, huh?  Just like the clicking noises your keyboard makes? There's no such thing as a religious atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe a militant atheist but not a religious one.
> 
> And notice a "militant" atheist is one who passionately debates a theist that there is no god, god is unnecessary and in a lot of cases god is not good for people.  Just look at the Muslims in Syria and Iraq.  How's god doing for them?
> 
> We don't bomb churches or start wars over there being no god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is necessary if you seek eternal life in His Kingdom. If that doesn't interest you then He's allowed you to reject Him.  You may want to stock up on plenty of sun block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let say for your sake there was a Christian/Judean god. He sends millions upon millions of good people to helll simply because they did not believe in him or they were worshipping the wong god. He also lets millions of bad people into heaven simply because they repent their actions and ask for forgiveness. Now ask me if I want to spend eternity with a schmuck like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lets see.....should I spend eternity in heaven with a god you don't like or spend it in hell with you.......how long do I have to make up my mind?.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to decide.
Click to expand...




Quantum Windbag said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is akin to my holding a gun to your head and telling you if you don't accept me as your friend and I am going to blow your brains out.  And then blaming you when I pull the trigger because it was your choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That applies only if you can prove the Bible defines Hell the way you do.
Click to expand...


The Bible has nothing to do with it.


----------



## PratchettFan

NYcarbineer said:


> Once you  have decided that not believing in something is a religion, then the term religion becomes meaningless.



Why?


----------



## NYcarbineer

PratchettFan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once you  have decided that not believing in something is a religion, then the term religion becomes meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...


Because it is not a religion to believe that a man is innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## PratchettFan

NYcarbineer said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once you  have decided that not believing in something is a religion, then the term religion becomes meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it is not a religion to believe that a man is innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...


And chewing gum is not an Olympic sport.  So what?  Why would the term be meaningless?  What exactly does something have to be in order to be a religion and why?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Then you made a pointless post.  The only possible point your post would have had is that the atheist guy who claimed atheism was a religion contributed to the argument that atheism is a religion,
> 
> which it doesn't.



Sigh

Newsflash, I never claimed that atheism, in and of itself, is a religion. Throughout this thread all I have said is that some atheist treat their beliefs as a religion. Thus, my post pointing to a single person who went to court to claim atheism is a religion, actually backs up my point, especially when you factor in Carla's denial that it ever happened, and totally negates any claim that it is impossible for an atheist to believe that atheism is a religion.

Atheists lead prayer, they go to church, and even go to court to defend the religion of atheism.



> All that was missing from David Williamson's invocation Monday was an "amen."
> 
> The founder of the Central Florida Freethought Community, an association of "nonbelievers" and a chapter of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, delivered the ceremonial opening to Monday's meeting of the Osceola County Commission, a role almost always filled by clergy, usually Christian clergy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He made no mention of God or faith or blessings, as prayerful invocations traditionally do, nor did he urge those assembled for the public meeting to bow their heads — though many did, perhaps out of habit.
> 
> "Through the millennia, we as a society have learned the best way to govern the people is for the people to govern themselves," Williamson said, beginning his reflection, which lasted a minute and 14 seconds.
> 
> His was the first of eight scheduled invocations that will be offered soon at government meetings in Central Florida by atheists, agnostics or humanists who are making use of a Supreme Court ruling that advises public bodies to make a reasonable effort to include all community members, regardless of faith — or lack of it.



Atheist prayer opens Osceola meeting - Orlando Sentinel

Feel free to ignore reality if you want to be considered an idiot by every sane person in the world.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> You can believe that your grandmother had legitimate psychic powers to predict the future,
> 
> but the fact that many of us might dispute that does not deny her the right to believe so, or anyone else to believe so.



Why do you dispute the right of some atheist to claim atheism as their religion then?

Wait, I bet you thought you were making a point against me, didn't you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PratchettFan said:


> The Bible has nothing to do with it.



Really? 

I bet you cannot prove that the Bible even says that Hell is a place of eternal torment. The only verse that even refers to Hell as anything approaching the pit of fire accepted in popular culture says that it was made for the Devil and his angels, and describes it as the second death. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure death means death, not eternal life in a pit of fire.


----------



## PratchettFan

Quantum Windbag said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I bet you cannot prove that the Bible even says that Hell is a place of eternal torment. The only verse that even refers to Hell as anything approaching the pit of fire accepted in popular culture says that it was made for the Devil and his angels, and describes it as the second death. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure death means death, not eternal life in a pit of fire.
Click to expand...


Yes, really.  I was not talking with the Bible, I was talking with PM.  I was responding to PM's concept.  I really don't care what the Bible's take might be on the subject.  If you think PM has it wrong, then I would take it up with him.


----------



## PostmodernProph

PratchettFan said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I bet you cannot prove that the Bible even says that Hell is a place of eternal torment. The only verse that even refers to Hell as anything approaching the pit of fire accepted in popular culture says that it was made for the Devil and his angels, and describes it as the second death. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure death means death, not eternal life in a pit of fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, really.  I was not talking with the Bible, I was talking with PM.  I was responding to PM's concept.  I really don't care what the Bible's take might be on the subject.  If you think PM has it wrong, then I would take it up with him.
Click to expand...


then you're even farther afield......my post made no mention of pits of fire....I was responding to someone who thought heaven was a place of schmucks and didn't want to be included......and the Bible has something to do with it, as it tells folks what they have to make a choice about......


----------



## PratchettFan

PostmodernProph said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I bet you cannot prove that the Bible even says that Hell is a place of eternal torment. The only verse that even refers to Hell as anything approaching the pit of fire accepted in popular culture says that it was made for the Devil and his angels, and describes it as the second death. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure death means death, not eternal life in a pit of fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, really.  I was not talking with the Bible, I was talking with PM.  I was responding to PM's concept.  I really don't care what the Bible's take might be on the subject.  If you think PM has it wrong, then I would take it up with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then you're even farther afield......my post made no mention of pits of fire....I was responding to someone who thought heaven was a place of schmucks and didn't want to be included......and the Bible has something to do with it, as it tells folks what they have to make a choice about......
Click to expand...


So you don't think Hell is a place of suffering then?


----------



## PostmodernProph

I think that being in the place where that "schmuck" is will be a happy and pleasant place for all of eternity......I think that spending all of eternity away from that happy and pleasant place will not be happy or pleasant.....I don't devote any time to considering what places I neither intend or want to visit are like.....I leave that to the folks who choose not to enjoy the company of schmucks......


----------



## PratchettFan

PostmodernProph said:


> I think that being in the place where that "schmuck" is will be a happy and pleasant place for all of eternity......I think that spending all of eternity away from that happy and pleasant place will not be happy or pleasant.....I don't devote any time to considering what places I neither intend or want to visit are like.....I leave that to the folks who choose not to enjoy the company of schmucks......



You didn't answer the question.  I believe the exact wording you used was, "no one is going to hell who isn't choosing to go there".  You didn't say "not going to heaven".  Why would you indicate someone is going somewhere you don't even think about? 

So, based upon what you said - that is akin to me holding a gun to your head....  well, you know the rest.


----------



## sealybobo

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't come up with any, huh?  Just like the clicking noises your keyboard makes? There's no such thing as a religious atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe a militant atheist but not a religious one.
> 
> And notice a "militant" atheist is one who passionately debates a theist that there is no god, god is unnecessary and in a lot of cases god is not good for people.  Just look at the Muslims in Syria and Iraq.  How's god doing for them?
> 
> We don't bomb churches or start wars over there being no god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is necessary if you seek eternal life in His Kingdom. If that doesn't interest you then He's allowed you to reject Him.  You may want to stock up on plenty of sun block.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let say for your sake there was a Christian/Judean god. He sends millions upon millions of good people to helll simply because they did not believe in him or they were worshipping the wong god. He also lets millions of bad people into heaven simply because they repent their actions and ask for forgiveness. Now ask me if I want to spend eternity with a schmuck like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lets see.....should I spend eternity in heaven with a god you don't like or spend it in hell with you.......how long do I have to make up my mind?.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't forget that your god is sending the vast majority of good people that ever existed to hell. It tells a lot about someone like yourself,doesn't it. It's a good thing I don't believe in something that wretched but it would be worse to believe in it and champion that kind of realm.
Click to expand...


And then turn around and claim the reason we don't buy into it is because WE'RE evil.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that being in the place where that "schmuck" is will be a happy and pleasant place for all of eternity......I think that spending all of eternity away from that happy and pleasant place will not be happy or pleasant.....I don't devote any time to considering what places I neither intend or want to visit are like.....I leave that to the folks who choose not to enjoy the company of schmucks......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.  I believe the exact wording you used was, "no one is going to hell who isn't choosing to go there".  You didn't say "not going to heaven".  Why would you indicate someone is going somewhere you don't even think about?
> 
> So, based upon what you said - that is akin to me holding a gun to your head....  well, you know the rest.
Click to expand...


I'm a god.  Send me all your money or burn for eternity.  Your choice.  

Hey, no one is going to hell who isn't choosing to go there.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PratchettFan said:


> Yes, really.  I was not talking with the Bible, I was talking with PM.  I was responding to PM's concept.  I really don't care what the Bible's take might be on the subject.  If you think PM has it wrong, then I would take it up with him.



Then tell me what his concept is, if you can. You are just assuming he has the same concept of hell you do, which is why you look like an idiot when you try to argue that you aren't talking about the Bible.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, really.  I was not talking with the Bible, I was talking with PM.  I was responding to PM's concept.  I really don't care what the Bible's take might be on the subject.  If you think PM has it wrong, then I would take it up with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then tell me what his concept is, if you can. You are just assuming he has the same concept of hell you do, which is why you look like an idiot when you try to argue that you aren't talking about the Bible.
Click to expand...


Just the fact they believe in hell makes them look like an idiot.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Just the fact they believe in hell makes them look like an idiot.



Funny, I don't recall PostModernProphet ever saying he believes in hell. In my book that makes the people who assume they know what other people believe the idiots.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just the fact they believe in hell makes them look like an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I don't recall PostModernProphet ever saying he believes in hell. In my book that makes the people who assume they know what other people believe the idiots.
Click to expand...


I didn't actually mean him I meant anyone who believes in hell.  I knew that was going to happen.  Prachet said he said "no one is going to hell who isn't choosing to go there"

If PostModern said that, then I would assume he/she believes in hell.

Anyways, mind your own business.  It was a joke anyways, just like you god.


----------



## PostmodernProph

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that being in the place where that "schmuck" is will be a happy and pleasant place for all of eternity......I think that spending all of eternity away from that happy and pleasant place will not be happy or pleasant.....I don't devote any time to considering what places I neither intend or want to visit are like.....I leave that to the folks who choose not to enjoy the company of schmucks......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.  I believe the exact wording you used was, "no one is going to hell who isn't choosing to go there".  You didn't say "not going to heaven".  Why would you indicate someone is going somewhere you don't even think about?
> 
> So, based upon what you said - that is akin to me holding a gun to your head....  well, you know the rest.
Click to expand...

because the guy I was talking with said he didn't want to go to a place where a schmuck like God was.....obviously he isn't going there unless he chose to and he's specifically stated what his choice was.......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just the fact they believe in hell makes them look like an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I don't recall PostModernProphet ever saying he believes in hell. In my book that makes the people who assume they know what other people believe the idiots.
Click to expand...

as I recall, I am recently on record as saying I haven't given much thought to what hell is, nor do I intend to........I don't intend to go there....I also don't intend to go to Redlands, California....therefore, I have not given much attention to what its like there or what I would do if I went there.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Prachet said he said "no one is going to hell who isn't choosing to go there"


that is true....I did say that.....I have said it many times......I do so because that is what the scriptures tell me.....

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned,  but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 

what happens to the condemned I do not know....the same passage says...." that whoever believes  in him shall not perish but have eternal life. "

what it means to "perish" instead of having eternal life, I do not have the answer to......however, since it does not apply to me I will leave that to those who look forward to it instead of spending eternity with "schmucks"......


----------



## PratchettFan

Quantum Windbag said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, really.  I was not talking with the Bible, I was talking with PM.  I was responding to PM's concept.  I really don't care what the Bible's take might be on the subject.  If you think PM has it wrong, then I would take it up with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then tell me what his concept is, if you can. You are just assuming he has the same concept of hell you do, which is why you look like an idiot when you try to argue that you aren't talking about the Bible.
Click to expand...


The concept is that God sends you to this place called Hell, which is clearly unpleasant.  It really doesn't matter what the details might be because my response was directed at this concept of blame.  That God creates the place, decides who will go to the place, sends you to the place and yet has no responsibility for any of it.  The idea that the one being which actually has some control over events is the one which has no involvement is absurd.


----------



## PratchettFan

PostmodernProph said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that being in the place where that "schmuck" is will be a happy and pleasant place for all of eternity......I think that spending all of eternity away from that happy and pleasant place will not be happy or pleasant.....I don't devote any time to considering what places I neither intend or want to visit are like.....I leave that to the folks who choose not to enjoy the company of schmucks......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.  I believe the exact wording you used was, "no one is going to hell who isn't choosing to go there".  You didn't say "not going to heaven".  Why would you indicate someone is going somewhere you don't even think about?
> 
> So, based upon what you said - that is akin to me holding a gun to your head....  well, you know the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because the guy I was talking with said he didn't want to go to a place where a schmuck like God was.....obviously he isn't going there unless he chose to and he's specifically stated what his choice was.......
Click to expand...


Yes, you are the one who brought up hell, which apparently is a place that will not be happy or pleasant.  So, I repeat, that is like my holding a gun to your head and blaming you if I pull the trigger.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prachet said he said "no one is going to hell who isn't choosing to go there"
> 
> 
> 
> that is true....I did say that.....I have said it many times......I do so because that is what the scriptures tell me.....
> 
> John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned,  but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
> 
> what happens to the condemned I do not know....the same passage says...." that whoever believes  in him shall not perish but have eternal life. "
> 
> what it means to "perish" instead of having eternal life, I do not have the answer to......however, since it does not apply to me I will leave that to those who look forward to it instead of spending eternity with "schmucks"......
Click to expand...


God would have done a much better job of proving he exists if he existed.  

See, you would have to believe the Old and New Testaments are authentic in order to believe what you believe.  Just look at Muslims.  500 years ago they had access to the bible and they decided to write their own religion.  Mormons too.  Christianity is just another religion.  Everyone thinks their book is the best.

Think about it.  Your spin says that we have to believe your unbelievable stories or go to hell.  Believe and go to heaven.  The entire story is so clearly written by primitive men in ancient times.  Very clever in fact George Carlin called it the greatest bullshit story of all time.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that being in the place where that "schmuck" is will be a happy and pleasant place for all of eternity......I think that spending all of eternity away from that happy and pleasant place will not be happy or pleasant.....I don't devote any time to considering what places I neither intend or want to visit are like.....I leave that to the folks who choose not to enjoy the company of schmucks......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.  I believe the exact wording you used was, "no one is going to hell who isn't choosing to go there".  You didn't say "not going to heaven".  Why would you indicate someone is going somewhere you don't even think about?
> 
> So, based upon what you said - that is akin to me holding a gun to your head....  well, you know the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because the guy I was talking with said he didn't want to go to a place where a schmuck like God was.....obviously he isn't going there unless he chose to and he's specifically stated what his choice was.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you are the one who brought up hell, which apparently is a place that will not be happy or pleasant.  So, I repeat, that is like my holding a gun to your head and blaming you if I pull the trigger.
Click to expand...


Think about the sources of religion.  Priests and Churches.  They've been using religion to control the masses for thousands of years.  

Then if you look at all the other religions that came before or after (whatever religion you think is best fill in the blank).

Then consider all the bad churches and preachers and the PTL scandals and pedophile priests.  The wars.  The people being burned at the stakes for being witches.  Basically the history of religion.

Ok, so you're telling me that a god is going to condemn me because I don't believe you or your corrupt churches?  Really?


----------



## PostmodernProph

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that being in the place where that "schmuck" is will be a happy and pleasant place for all of eternity......I think that spending all of eternity away from that happy and pleasant place will not be happy or pleasant.....I don't devote any time to considering what places I neither intend or want to visit are like.....I leave that to the folks who choose not to enjoy the company of schmucks......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.  I believe the exact wording you used was, "no one is going to hell who isn't choosing to go there".  You didn't say "not going to heaven".  Why would you indicate someone is going somewhere you don't even think about?
> 
> So, based upon what you said - that is akin to me holding a gun to your head....  well, you know the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because the guy I was talking with said he didn't want to go to a place where a schmuck like God was.....obviously he isn't going there unless he chose to and he's specifically stated what his choice was.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you are the one who brought up hell, which apparently is a place that will not be happy or pleasant.  So, I repeat, that is like my holding a gun to your head and blaming you if I pull the trigger.
Click to expand...

actually, its more like telling you that you ought to choose to put the gun down and you saying "I don't have to do what you say!".......as to me bringing up hell I beg to differ.....I was responding to I believe Tuatara who was posting that he preferred being there than spending eternity with a schmuck like God.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prachet said he said "no one is going to hell who isn't choosing to go there"
> 
> 
> 
> that is true....I did say that.....I have said it many times......I do so because that is what the scriptures tell me.....
> 
> John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned,  but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
> 
> what happens to the condemned I do not know....the same passage says...." that whoever believes  in him shall not perish but have eternal life. "
> 
> what it means to "perish" instead of having eternal life, I do not have the answer to......however, since it does not apply to me I will leave that to those who look forward to it instead of spending eternity with "schmucks"......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God would have done a much better job of proving he exists if he existed.
Click to expand...

not if he didn't intend to prove he exists....


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> See, you would have to believe the Old and New Testaments are authentic in order to believe what you believe.


d'uh!......


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I didn't actually mean him I meant anyone who believes in hell.  I knew that was going to happen.  Prachet said he said "no one is going to hell who isn't choosing to go there"
> 
> If PostModern said that, then I would assume he/she believes in hell.
> 
> Anyways, mind your own business.  It was a joke anyways, just like you god.



And the only hell he could possibly believe in is the one that you define for him, right?

By the way, what makes you think this isn't my business? Do you have an assignment sheet from god that tells you what everyone is supposed to do?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PratchettFan said:


> The concept is that God sends you to this place called Hell, which is clearly unpleasant.  It really doesn't matter what the details might be because my response was directed at this concept of blame.  That God creates the place, decides who will go to the place, sends you to the place and yet has no responsibility for any of it.  The idea that the one being which actually has some control over events is the one which has no involvement is absurd.



Why is that the only possible concept? I have heard people tell me that Hell is actually a pretty fun place where you get to do whatever you want without having to worry about an invisible sky pixie looking over your shoulder and telling you that it is wrong.

Then again, I happen to know the Hell you believe in doesn't exist, so I got no problems with mocking people like you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> God would have done a much better job of proving he exists if he existed.
> 
> See, you would have to believe the Old and New Testaments are authentic in order to believe what you believe.  Just look at Muslims.  500 years ago they had access to the bible and they decided to write their own religion.  Mormons too.  Christianity is just another religion.  Everyone thinks their book is the best.
> 
> Think about it.  Your spin says that we have to believe your unbelievable stories or go to hell.  Believe and go to heaven.  The entire story is so clearly written by primitive men in ancient times.  Very clever in fact George Carlin called it the greatest bullshit story of all time.



Why should God prove He exists? Has anyone on this forum ever demanded you prove that you exist? How can I know you are not a chat bot? You certainly wouldn't pass a Touring test unless you suddenly develop actual intelligence to respond to people.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> God would have done a much better job of proving he exists if he existed.
> 
> See, you would have to believe the Old and New Testaments are authentic in order to believe what you believe.  Just look at Muslims.  500 years ago they had access to the bible and they decided to write their own religion.  Mormons too.  Christianity is just another religion.  Everyone thinks their book is the best.
> 
> Think about it.  Your spin says that we have to believe your unbelievable stories or go to hell.  Believe and go to heaven.  The entire story is so clearly written by primitive men in ancient times.  Very clever in fact George Carlin called it the greatest bullshit story of all time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should God prove He exists? Has anyone on this forum ever demanded you prove that you exist? How can I know you are not a chat bot? You certainly wouldn't pass a Touring test unless you suddenly develop actual intelligence to respond to people.
Click to expand...


Why would he leave it in the hands of a corrupt church and our ignorant forefathers?  He needs to revisit.


----------



## PratchettFan

Quantum Windbag said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The concept is that God sends you to this place called Hell, which is clearly unpleasant.  It really doesn't matter what the details might be because my response was directed at this concept of blame.  That God creates the place, decides who will go to the place, sends you to the place and yet has no responsibility for any of it.  The idea that the one being which actually has some control over events is the one which has no involvement is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that the only possible concept? I have heard people tell me that Hell is actually a pretty fun place where you get to do whatever you want without having to worry about an invisible sky pixie looking over your shoulder and telling you that it is wrong.
> 
> Then again, I happen to know the Hell you believe in doesn't exist, so I got no problems with mocking people like you.
Click to expand...


I will try this one last time.  PM refers to as an unpleasant place where people go.  That is the concept I am responding to.  If you want to consider other concepts, be my guess.  You are free to mock anything that you wish and I am free not to care


----------



## PostmodernProph

PratchettFan said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The concept is that God sends you to this place called Hell, which is clearly unpleasant.  It really doesn't matter what the details might be because my response was directed at this concept of blame.  That God creates the place, decides who will go to the place, sends you to the place and yet has no responsibility for any of it.  The idea that the one being which actually has some control over events is the one which has no involvement is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that the only possible concept? I have heard people tell me that Hell is actually a pretty fun place where you get to do whatever you want without having to worry about an invisible sky pixie looking over your shoulder and telling you that it is wrong.
> 
> Then again, I happen to know the Hell you believe in doesn't exist, so I got no problems with mocking people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will try this one last time.  PM refers to as an unpleasant place where people go.  That is the concept I am responding to.  If you want to consider other concepts, be my guess.  You are free to mock anything that you wish and I am free not to care
Click to expand...

if you still misunderstand what I am saying after all this, you belong in some unpleasant place.......if you want to pick a bone, pick it with Tauratara.....


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Why would he leave it in the hands of a corrupt church and our ignorant forefathers?  He needs to revisit.



What makes you think he left it in the hands of the church?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PratchettFan said:


> I will try this one last time.  PM refers to as an unpleasant place where people go.  That is the concept I am responding to.  If you want to consider other concepts, be my guess.  You are free to mock anything that you wish and I am free not to care



Except he says he didn't. Frankly, I believe his recollection over yours.


----------



## MaryL

Um...HELLO! We never claimed to be, DUDE, Atheism is to religion what butter is to shit. Please.


----------



## PratchettFan

Quantum Windbag said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will try this one last time.  PM refers to as an unpleasant place where people go.  That is the concept I am responding to.  If you want to consider other concepts, be my guess.  You are free to mock anything that you wish and I am free not to care
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except he says he didn't. Frankly, I believe his recollection over yours.
Click to expand...


And I believe what he actually wrote over his recollections.  We are in a medium in which what was actually written is right there to see and one need not depend upon memories.  I suppose we each have our standards of evidence.


----------



## PratchettFan

PostmodernProph said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The concept is that God sends you to this place called Hell, which is clearly unpleasant.  It really doesn't matter what the details might be because my response was directed at this concept of blame.  That God creates the place, decides who will go to the place, sends you to the place and yet has no responsibility for any of it.  The idea that the one being which actually has some control over events is the one which has no involvement is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that the only possible concept? I have heard people tell me that Hell is actually a pretty fun place where you get to do whatever you want without having to worry about an invisible sky pixie looking over your shoulder and telling you that it is wrong.
> 
> Then again, I happen to know the Hell you believe in doesn't exist, so I got no problems with mocking people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will try this one last time.  PM refers to as an unpleasant place where people go.  That is the concept I am responding to.  If you want to consider other concepts, be my guess.  You are free to mock anything that you wish and I am free not to care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you still misunderstand what I am saying after all this, you belong in some unpleasant place.......if you want to pick a bone, pick it with Tauratara.....
Click to expand...


I don't misunderstand what you are saying.  You were pretty clear.


----------



## PostmodernProph

PratchettFan said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will try this one last time.  PM refers to as an unpleasant place where people go.  That is the concept I am responding to.  If you want to consider other concepts, be my guess.  You are free to mock anything that you wish and I am free not to care
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except he says he didn't. Frankly, I believe his recollection over yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what was actually written is right there to see and one need not depend upon memories.
Click to expand...

then point to it......


----------



## PratchettFan

PostmodernProph said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will try this one last time.  PM refers to as an unpleasant place where people go.  That is the concept I am responding to.  If you want to consider other concepts, be my guess.  You are free to mock anything that you wish and I am free not to care
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except he says he didn't. Frankly, I believe his recollection over yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what was actually written is right there to see and one need not depend upon memories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then point to it......
Click to expand...


Which part of that do you deny saying?  Do you deny you referred to hell as a place where you go? Do you deny you indicated it is unpleasant?  Let me know which and I will provide you with the quotes where you said it.


----------



## GreenBean

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]



You cut that link off short here's the rest...


the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"

synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; 
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]

a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: *religions*
"the world's great religions"
*a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. "consumerism is the new religion"*

The last one seems to fit fanatical Atheism to tee - So by some definitions *Atheism can be considered a Religion *


----------



## GreenBean

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion
> 
> 
> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> 
> number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?
Click to expand...



I posted almost the same reply b4 I saw yours  - nice post


----------



## Tuatara

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prachet said he said "no one is going to hell who isn't choosing to go there"
> 
> 
> 
> that is true....I did say that.....I have said it many times......I do so because that is what the scriptures tell me.....
> 
> John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned,  but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
> 
> what happens to the condemned I do not know....the same passage says...." that whoever believes  in him shall not perish but have eternal life. "
> 
> what it means to "perish" instead of having eternal life, I do not have the answer to......however, since it does not apply to me I will leave that to those who look forward to it instead of spending eternity with "schmucks"......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God would have done a much better job of proving he exists if he existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not if he didn't intend to prove he exists....
Click to expand...

Let's think about this shall we. If god existed and he had the power to let every single living person know he exists but *intended* not to let anyone know he existed knowing very well that billions of other people believed in other religions and gods or in no gods at all, yet he choses to remain silent so they can all spend an eternity in pain and suffering, I ask you what kind of god is that? That is not a caring and loving god. That is worse than all the despotic psycopaths and murderers that ever existed. Hitler is a kitten compared to him.


----------



## GreenBean

Carla_Danger said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion
> 
> 
> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> 
> number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wish.
> 
> And no it doesn't.  What we have is a lack of faith. Religion relies on faith. .
Click to expand...

And an Atheist has *Faith* in their conviction that there is no *God.*

In fact to have come to that conclusion independently - that is - for someone who was not raised as an Atheist - an Atheist deserves some respect as a free thinker - assuming  their Atheism is not based on socio-fascist / Marxist / Communist Religions of intolerance.


----------



## Carla_Danger

GreenBean said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion
> 
> 
> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> 
> number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I posted almost the same reply b4 I saw yours  - nice post
Click to expand...




You both are mentally challenged.


----------



## Carla_Danger

GreenBean said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion
> 
> 
> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> 
> number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wish.
> 
> And no it doesn't.  What we have is a lack of faith. Religion relies on faith. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And an Atheist has *Faith* in their conviction that there is no *God.*
> 
> In fact to have come to that conclusion independently - that is - for someone who was not raised as an Atheist - an Atheist deserves some respect as a free thinker - assuming  their Atheism is not based on socio-fascist / Marxist / Communist Religions of intolerance.
Click to expand...




Well, that's bullshit.  I don't have faith that there is no God.  I  have no proof, one way or the other. As a matter of fact, if I had some evidence pointing towards there being a God, I would certainly weigh the evidence.


----------



## Carla_Danger

GreenBean said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cut that link off short here's the rest...
> 
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed;
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> a particular system of faith and worship.
> plural noun: *religions*
> "the world's great religions"
> *a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. "consumerism is the new religion"*
> 
> The last one seems to fit fanatical Atheism to tee - So by some definitions *Atheism can be considered a Religion *
Click to expand...




Consumerism isn't a religion either.  Had I know this was going to be so difficult for people, I would have spent more time finding a better definition of religion.  And there are better definitions out there.


----------



## GreenBean

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> God would have done a much better job of proving he exists if he existed.
> 
> See, you would have to believe the Old and New Testaments are authentic in order to believe what you believe.  Just look at Muslims.  500 years ago they had access to the bible and they decided to write their own religion.  Mormons too.  Christianity is just another religion.  Everyone thinks their book is the best.
> 
> Think about it.  Your spin says that we have to believe your unbelievable stories or go to hell.  Believe and go to heaven.  The entire story is so clearly written by primitive men in ancient times.  Very clever in fact George Carlin called it the greatest bullshit story of all time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should God prove He exists? Has anyone on this forum ever demanded you prove that you exist? How can I know you are not a chat bot? You certainly wouldn't pass a Touring test unless you suddenly develop actual intelligence to respond to people.
Click to expand...


God doesn't give a rats ass whether you believe in him/her or not.

This life is merely a learning experience for the spiritual being attached to it.  A stepping stone on the path to ultimate Karma and absorption into the Godhead.   Either that or we all drop dead and cease to exist.
I prefer to believe the first scenario because as in the words of the fellow who invented Jesus  "Eat Drink and be Merry for tomorrow we Die"  - *St. Paul Apollonius*


----------



## GreenBean

Carla_Danger said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cut that link off short here's the rest...
> 
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed;
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> a particular system of faith and worship.
> plural noun: *religions*
> "the world's great religions"
> *a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. "consumerism is the new religion"*
> 
> The last one seems to fit fanatical Atheism to tee - So by some definitions *Atheism can be considered a Religion *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consumerism isn't a religion either.  Had I know this was going to be so difficult for people, I would have spent more time finding a better definition of religion.  And there are better definitions out there.
Click to expand...


That was not MY wording "consumerism" .....that was googles definition - argue with them.  It comes from the same link which you cut short in the opening of this thread - lol


----------



## GreenBean

Carla_Danger said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion
> 
> 
> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> 
> number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wish.
> 
> And no it doesn't.  What we have is a lack of faith. Religion relies on faith. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And an Atheist has *Faith* in their conviction that there is no *God.*
> 
> In fact to have come to that conclusion independently - that is - for someone who was not raised as an Atheist - an Atheist deserves some respect as a free thinker - assuming  their Atheism is not based on socio-fascist / Marxist / Communist Religions of intolerance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's bullshit.  I don't have faith that there is no God.  I  have no proof, one way or the other. As a matter of fact, if I had some evidence pointing towards there being a God, I would certainly weigh the evidence.
Click to expand...





> I don't have faith that there is no God. I have no proof, one way or the other. As a matter of fact, if I had some evidence pointing towards there being a God, I would certainly weigh the evidence.




*Then you are an agnostic not an atheist - there's a difference.
*
An Atheist is adamant in their Faith that there is no God , while an agnostic questions the existence of God but has no faith that there is or isn't a God.

So basically you just lost the debate - but you gained some essential and useful insights - regards and have a good night - don't forget ...If you should die before you wake - I pray the Lord your soul to take.  Regards and sleep tight


----------



## GreenBean

Carla_Danger said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion
> 
> 
> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> 
> number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I posted almost the same reply b4 I saw yours  - nice post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You both are mentally challenged.
Click to expand...



Yes ...uh huh ... I think I see it clearly now . Its the rest of the World that is ill and you are the only sane one ...okay.   That is what the voices in your head are telling you isn't it ?


----------



## Carla_Danger

GreenBean said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion
> 
> 
> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> 
> number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wish.
> 
> And no it doesn't.  What we have is a lack of faith. Religion relies on faith. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And an Atheist has *Faith* in their conviction that there is no *God.*
> 
> In fact to have come to that conclusion independently - that is - for someone who was not raised as an Atheist - an Atheist deserves some respect as a free thinker - assuming  their Atheism is not based on socio-fascist / Marxist / Communist Religions of intolerance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's bullshit.  I don't have faith that there is no God.  I  have no proof, one way or the other. As a matter of fact, if I had some evidence pointing towards there being a God, I would certainly weigh the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have faith that there is no God. I have no proof, one way or the other. As a matter of fact, if I had some evidence pointing towards there being a God, I would certainly weigh the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are an agnostic not an atheist - there's a difference.
Click to expand...




I'm sorry, but you don't get to define me.  I'm an atheist because I don't live my life as if a God exists.


----------



## GreenBean

Carla_Danger said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion
> 
> 
> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> 
> number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wish.
> 
> And no it doesn't.  What we have is a lack of faith. Religion relies on faith. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And an Atheist has *Faith* in their conviction that there is no *God.*
> 
> In fact to have come to that conclusion independently - that is - for someone who was not raised as an Atheist - an Atheist deserves some respect as a free thinker - assuming  their Atheism is not based on socio-fascist / Marxist / Communist Religions of intolerance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's bullshit.  I don't have faith that there is no God.  I  have no proof, one way or the other. As a matter of fact, if I had some evidence pointing towards there being a God, I would certainly weigh the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have faith that there is no God. I have no proof, one way or the other. As a matter of fact, if I had some evidence pointing towards there being a God, I would certainly weigh the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are an agnostic not an atheist - there's a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but you don't get to define me.  I'm an atheist because I don't live my life as if a God exists.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry but you don't get to rewrite the English Language and .... I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN DEFINE YOU - THERE'S NO WORD FOR IT - SLEEP TIGHT


----------



## Carla_Danger

GreenBean said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion
> 
> 
> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> 
> number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I posted almost the same reply b4 I saw yours  - nice post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You both are mentally challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes ...uh huh ... I think I see it clearly now . Its the rest of the World that is ill and you are the only sane one ...okay.   That is what the voices in your head are telling you isn't it ?
Click to expand...




Well, compared to you and your mentally challenged friend I would say I'm the sane one, yes.


----------



## Carla_Danger

GreenBean said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wish.
> 
> And no it doesn't.  What we have is a lack of faith. Religion relies on faith. .
> 
> 
> 
> And an Atheist has *Faith* in their conviction that there is no *God.*
> 
> In fact to have come to that conclusion independently - that is - for someone who was not raised as an Atheist - an Atheist deserves some respect as a free thinker - assuming  their Atheism is not based on socio-fascist / Marxist / Communist Religions of intolerance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's bullshit.  I don't have faith that there is no God.  I  have no proof, one way or the other. As a matter of fact, if I had some evidence pointing towards there being a God, I would certainly weigh the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have faith that there is no God. I have no proof, one way or the other. As a matter of fact, if I had some evidence pointing towards there being a God, I would certainly weigh the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are an agnostic not an atheist - there's a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but you don't get to define me.  I'm an atheist because I don't live my life as if a God exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but you don't get to rewrite the English Language and .... I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN DEFINE YOU - THERE'S NO WORD FOR IT - SLEEP TIGHT
Click to expand...



Maybe you can tell us what exactly atheists worship.


----------



## Carla_Danger

GreenBean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> God would have done a much better job of proving he exists if he existed.
> 
> See, you would have to believe the Old and New Testaments are authentic in order to believe what you believe.  Just look at Muslims.  500 years ago they had access to the bible and they decided to write their own religion.  Mormons too.  Christianity is just another religion.  Everyone thinks their book is the best.
> 
> Think about it.  Your spin says that we have to believe your unbelievable stories or go to hell.  Believe and go to heaven.  The entire story is so clearly written by primitive men in ancient times.  Very clever in fact George Carlin called it the greatest bullshit story of all time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should God prove He exists? Has anyone on this forum ever demanded you prove that you exist? How can I know you are not a chat bot? You certainly wouldn't pass a Touring test unless you suddenly develop actual intelligence to respond to people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God doesn't give a rats ass whether you believe in him/her or not.
> 
> This life is merely a learning experience for the spiritual being attached to it.  A stepping stone on the path to ultimate Karma and absorption into the Godhead.   Either that or we all drop dead and cease to exist.
> I prefer to believe the first scenario because as in the words of the fellow who invented Jesus  "Eat Drink and be Merry for tomorrow we Die"  - *St. Paul Apollonius*
Click to expand...



Huh, ultimate Karma and absorption into a Godhead???  What the hey?


----------



## PratchettFan

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prachet said he said "no one is going to hell who isn't choosing to go there"
> 
> 
> 
> that is true....I did say that.....I have said it many times......I do so because that is what the scriptures tell me.....
> 
> John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned,  but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
> 
> what happens to the condemned I do not know....the same passage says...." that whoever believes  in him shall not perish but have eternal life. "
> 
> what it means to "perish" instead of having eternal life, I do not have the answer to......however, since it does not apply to me I will leave that to those who look forward to it instead of spending eternity with "schmucks"......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God would have done a much better job of proving he exists if he existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not if he didn't intend to prove he exists....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's think about this shall we. If god existed and he had the power to let every single living person know he exists but *intended* not to let anyone know he existed knowing very well that billions of other people believed in other religions and gods or in no gods at all, yet he choses to remain silent so they can all spend an eternity in pain and suffering, I ask you what kind of god is that? That is not a caring and loving god. That is worse than all the despotic psycopaths and murderers that ever existed. Hitler is a kitten compared to him.
Click to expand...

 
I would say that is a pretty good indication that if there is a God, then this particular description is wrong.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And an Atheist has *Faith* in their conviction that there is no *God.*
> 
> In fact to have come to that conclusion independently - that is - for someone who was not raised as an Atheist - an Atheist deserves some respect as a free thinker - assuming  their Atheism is not based on socio-fascist / Marxist / Communist Religions of intolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's bullshit.  I don't have faith that there is no God.  I  have no proof, one way or the other. As a matter of fact, if I had some evidence pointing towards there being a God, I would certainly weigh the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have faith that there is no God. I have no proof, one way or the other. As a matter of fact, if I had some evidence pointing towards there being a God, I would certainly weigh the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are an agnostic not an atheist - there's a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but you don't get to define me.  I'm an atheist because I don't live my life as if a God exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but you don't get to rewrite the English Language and .... I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN DEFINE YOU - THERE'S NO WORD FOR IT - SLEEP TIGHT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can tell us what exactly atheists worship.
Click to expand...

 
Is worship a requirement for religion?


----------



## PostmodernProph

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will try this one last time.  PM refers to as an unpleasant place where people go.  That is the concept I am responding to.  If you want to consider other concepts, be my guess.  You are free to mock anything that you wish and I am free not to care
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except he says he didn't. Frankly, I believe his recollection over yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what was actually written is right there to see and one need not depend upon memories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then point to it......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part of that do you deny saying?  Do you deny you referred to hell as a place where you go? Do you deny you indicated it is unpleasant?  Let me know which and I will provide you with the quotes where you said it.
Click to expand...


why?.....are you fresh out of pointless things to occupy your time?......hell is the antithesis of heaven.......if heaven is pleasant, the antithesis must be unpleasant.....is heaven a "place", is hell a "place"?........is either six miles north of somewhere?.....does it literally have a gate?.......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prachet said he said "no one is going to hell who isn't choosing to go there"
> 
> 
> 
> that is true....I did say that.....I have said it many times......I do so because that is what the scriptures tell me.....
> 
> John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned,  but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
> 
> what happens to the condemned I do not know....the same passage says...." that whoever believes  in him shall not perish but have eternal life. "
> 
> what it means to "perish" instead of having eternal life, I do not have the answer to......however, since it does not apply to me I will leave that to those who look forward to it instead of spending eternity with "schmucks"......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God would have done a much better job of proving he exists if he existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not if he didn't intend to prove he exists....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's think about this shall we. If god existed and he had the power to let every single living person know he exists but *intended* not to let anyone know he existed knowing very well that billions of other people believed in other religions and gods or in no gods at all, yet he choses to remain silent so they can all spend an eternity in pain and suffering, I ask you what kind of god is that? That is not a caring and loving god. That is worse than all the despotic psycopaths and murderers that ever existed. Hitler is a kitten compared to him.
Click to expand...

if you believed that you would be foolish to love him.......of course, I'm not saying your belief is anywhere near accurate or even logical, but that is obviously the choice you've made......


----------



## PratchettFan

PostmodernProph said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will try this one last time.  PM refers to as an unpleasant place where people go.  That is the concept I am responding to.  If you want to consider other concepts, be my guess.  You are free to mock anything that you wish and I am free not to care
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except he says he didn't. Frankly, I believe his recollection over yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what was actually written is right there to see and one need not depend upon memories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then point to it......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part of that do you deny saying?  Do you deny you referred to hell as a place where you go? Do you deny you indicated it is unpleasant?  Let me know which and I will provide you with the quotes where you said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why?.....are you fresh out of pointless things to occupy your time?......hell is the antithesis of heaven.......if heaven is pleasant, the antithesis must be unpleasant.....is heaven a "place", is hell a "place"?........is either six miles north of somewhere?.....does it literally have a gate?.......
Click to expand...

 
I don't believe in the place, so I am not saying what it is.  I am only going on what you have said.  You have said people go there and that it is unpleasant.  You used the phrase in one post "doomed to an eternity in hell" which doesn't sound fun to me.  I can only assume you are expressing what you think rather than just typing random words.  But it does appear you deny none of what I wrote, so we are back to my original statement about holding a gun to your head. 

I reject your concept of God and I choose not to go to hell.  If you think I am going to hell regardless of my choice not to, then it is obviously not my choice.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's bullshit.  I don't have faith that there is no God.  I  have no proof, one way or the other. As a matter of fact, if I had some evidence pointing towards there being a God, I would certainly weigh the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have faith that there is no God. I have no proof, one way or the other. As a matter of fact, if I had some evidence pointing towards there being a God, I would certainly weigh the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are an agnostic not an atheist - there's a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but you don't get to define me.  I'm an atheist because I don't live my life as if a God exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but you don't get to rewrite the English Language and .... I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN DEFINE YOU - THERE'S NO WORD FOR IT - SLEEP TIGHT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can tell us what exactly atheists worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is worship a requirement for religion?
Click to expand...



Usually, yes. A community center  powered by karaoke, kindness and cake is not a house of worship.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are an agnostic not an atheist - there's a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but you don't get to define me.  I'm an atheist because I don't live my life as if a God exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but you don't get to rewrite the English Language and .... I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN DEFINE YOU - THERE'S NO WORD FOR IT - SLEEP TIGHT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can tell us what exactly atheists worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is worship a requirement for religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Usually, yes. A community center  powered by karaoke, kindness and cake is not a house of worship.
Click to expand...

 
Non sequitur aside, "usually" is not a requirement.  "Always" is a requirement.  "Must" is a requirement.  So I ask again, is worship a requirement for religion?


----------



## GreenBean

Carla_Danger said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And an Atheist has *Faith* in their conviction that there is no *God.*
> 
> In fact to have come to that conclusion independently - that is - for someone who was not raised as an Atheist - an Atheist deserves some respect as a free thinker - assuming  their Atheism is not based on socio-fascist / Marxist / Communist Religions of intolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's bullshit.  I don't have faith that there is no God.  I  have no proof, one way or the other. As a matter of fact, if I had some evidence pointing towards there being a God, I would certainly weigh the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have faith that there is no God. I have no proof, one way or the other. As a matter of fact, if I had some evidence pointing towards there being a God, I would certainly weigh the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are an agnostic not an atheist - there's a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but you don't get to define me.  I'm an atheist because I don't live my life as if a God exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but you don't get to rewrite the English Language and .... I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN DEFINE YOU - THERE'S NO WORD FOR IT - SLEEP TIGHT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can tell us what exactly atheists worship.
Click to expand...


Been there ... done that ... follow the thread . We already did the definitions thing ... Remember ? 

An Atheist = a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. In the mind of an Atheist there is no God and he/she has *Faith in that conviction.*

An agnostic = a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims *neither faith nor disbelief in God.*
Religion doesn't necessarily require that there be a God 

By your own admission and definition you are not an Atheist - but more correctly defined you are an Agnostic 

Atheism Is Not A Religion US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



> Carla-Dingbat:  "I don't have faith that there is no God. I cannot be 100% sure of what happens when we die.. As a matter of fact, I miss the comfort I got out of religion back when I was a believer. I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists. (that's lack of faith)"






BUDDHISM – Religious teaching from Buddha and his followers that by destroying greed, hatred and delusion (the cause of all suffering) man can attain perfect enlightenment! There is NO GOD in Buddhism, Buddha may have been elevated to a God-Like status by his followers but there is no Supreme Deity

TAOISM - A system of religion and philosophy based on the teachings of Chinese philosopher Lao-tze   advocating a simple and honest lifestyle and non interference with the course of natural events.  By Western standards it is more of a philosophy - there is no God

CONFUCIUS - Confucius Say ......


----------



## GreenBean

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but you don't get to define me.  I'm an atheist because I don't live my life as if a God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but you don't get to rewrite the English Language and .... I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN DEFINE YOU - THERE'S NO WORD FOR IT - SLEEP TIGHT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can tell us what exactly atheists worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is worship a requirement for religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Usually, yes. A community center  powered by karaoke, kindness and cake is not a house of worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur aside, "usually" is not a requirement.  "Always" is a requirement.  "Must" is a requirement.  So I ask again, is worship a requirement for religion?
Click to expand...


Confucius Say  No
Carla Say Doh


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but you don't get to define me.  I'm an atheist because I don't live my life as if a God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but you don't get to rewrite the English Language and .... I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN DEFINE YOU - THERE'S NO WORD FOR IT - SLEEP TIGHT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can tell us what exactly atheists worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is worship a requirement for religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Usually, yes. A community center  powered by karaoke, kindness and cake is not a house of worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur aside, "usually" is not a requirement.  "Always" is a requirement.  "Must" is a requirement.  So I ask again, is worship a requirement for religion?
Click to expand...




As far as I know, yes.  Even in Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama is regarded as the Supreme Buddha.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would he leave it in the hands of a corrupt church and our ignorant forefathers?  He needs to revisit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think he left it in the hands of the church?
Click to expand...


On PBS Finding Your Roots last night they told how Anna Deavere Smith's ancestor was a black jew living in Europe.  I think they said 1400's.  Anyways, you had 3 choices, convert to Christianity, Move or Die.  Her ancestor moved to Jamaica.  Yes a black Jamaican Jew.  

This Christ/God thing has been force feed to us so long that it's the only reason it's still around.  Wise up.  Evolve.  

I also saw a show on how this one Border Colly dog knows hundreds of words.  They said it's no wonder dogs are getting smarter as they evolve next to us.  And does your dog actually love you or does it just want food?  Turns out they really love you.  Do they go to heaven?  If they don't, neither do you.  

The smartest dog in the world - CBS News


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but you don't get to rewrite the English Language and .... I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN DEFINE YOU - THERE'S NO WORD FOR IT - SLEEP TIGHT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can tell us what exactly atheists worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is worship a requirement for religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Usually, yes. A community center  powered by karaoke, kindness and cake is not a house of worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur aside, "usually" is not a requirement.  "Always" is a requirement.  "Must" is a requirement.  So I ask again, is worship a requirement for religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, yes.  Even in Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama is regarded as the Supreme Buddha.
Click to expand...

 
I suppose that depends upon who you talk to. Buddha is not a person, it's a title.  There have been many Buddhas and one tenet of the religion is that all of us are potential Buddhas, and some hold it is inevitable that all will become Buddha.  But indeed, Buddha worship is common within Buddhism.  I personally do not worship Buddha, so would you then say that I am not in a religion?


----------



## Carla_Danger

GreenBean said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's bullshit.  I don't have faith that there is no God.  I  have no proof, one way or the other. As a matter of fact, if I had some evidence pointing towards there being a God, I would certainly weigh the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have faith that there is no God. I have no proof, one way or the other. As a matter of fact, if I had some evidence pointing towards there being a God, I would certainly weigh the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are an agnostic not an atheist - there's a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but you don't get to define me.  I'm an atheist because I don't live my life as if a God exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but you don't get to rewrite the English Language and .... I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN DEFINE YOU - THERE'S NO WORD FOR IT - SLEEP TIGHT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can tell us what exactly atheists worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been there ... done that ... follow the thread . We already did the definitions thing ... Remember ?
> 
> An Atheist = a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. In the mind of an Atheist there is no God and he/she has *Faith in that conviction.*
> 
> An agnostic = a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims *neither faith nor disbelief in God.*
> Religion doesn't necessarily require that there be a God
> 
> By your own admission and definition you are not an Atheist - but more correctly defined you are an Agnostic
> 
> Atheism Is Not A Religion US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...



a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
_noun_

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"

synonyms:nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas,agnostic; 
nihilist
"why is it often assumed that a man of science is probably an atheist?"
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]


Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):


Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

Atheism Is Not A Religion Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can tell us what exactly atheists worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is worship a requirement for religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Usually, yes. A community center  powered by karaoke, kindness and cake is not a house of worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur aside, "usually" is not a requirement.  "Always" is a requirement.  "Must" is a requirement.  So I ask again, is worship a requirement for religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, yes.  Even in Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama is regarded as the Supreme Buddha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose that depends upon who you talk to. Buddha is not a person, it's a title.  There have been many Buddhas and one tenet of the religion is that all of us are potential Buddhas, and some hold it is inevitable that all will become Buddha.  But indeed, Buddha worship is common within Buddhism.  I personally do not worship Buddha, so would you then say that I am not in a religion?
Click to expand...




If you don't worship anything, I would say you're not in a religion.  I mean, really.


----------



## Carla_Danger

GreenBean said:


> BUDDHISM – Religious teaching from Buddha and his followers that by destroying greed, hatred and delusion (the cause of all suffering) man can attain perfect enlightenment! There is NO GOD in Buddhism, Buddha may have been elevated to a God-Like status by his followers but there is no Supreme Deity
> 
> TAOISM - A system of religion and philosophy based on the teachings of Chinese philosopher Lao-tze   advocating a simple and honest lifestyle and non interference with the course of natural events.  By Western standards it is more of a philosophy - there is no God
> 
> CONFUCIUS - Confucius Say ......




I could give a rats ass about the religious teaching from Buddha. I don't believe in Karma/rebirth Hocus Pocus, bullshit.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is worship a requirement for religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Usually, yes. A community center  powered by karaoke, kindness and cake is not a house of worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur aside, "usually" is not a requirement.  "Always" is a requirement.  "Must" is a requirement.  So I ask again, is worship a requirement for religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, yes.  Even in Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama is regarded as the Supreme Buddha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose that depends upon who you talk to. Buddha is not a person, it's a title.  There have been many Buddhas and one tenet of the religion is that all of us are potential Buddhas, and some hold it is inevitable that all will become Buddha.  But indeed, Buddha worship is common within Buddhism.  I personally do not worship Buddha, so would you then say that I am not in a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't worship anything, I would say you're not in a religion.  I mean, really.
Click to expand...

 
Ok.  We have something to actually work with.  Why is worship required for something to be a religion?


----------



## Mineva

Atheism* is not a religion* because it* does not have written rules.* But its another *"belief", *as like other religions.

Theist people* believe* there is God.

Atheist people *believe* there is no God.


----------



## PratchettFan

Mineva said:


> Atheism* is not a religion* because it* does not have written rules.* But its another *"belief", *as like other religions.
> 
> Theist people* believe* there is God.
> 
> Atheist people *believe* there is no God.


 
I don't think religion requires the ability to write, but I certainly brought up dogma as one attribute.  Is that what you are talking about?


----------



## Tuatara

PratchettFan said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prachet said he said "no one is going to hell who isn't choosing to go there"
> 
> 
> 
> that is true....I did say that.....I have said it many times......I do so because that is what the scriptures tell me.....
> 
> John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned,  but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
> 
> what happens to the condemned I do not know....the same passage says...." that whoever believes  in him shall not perish but have eternal life. "
> 
> what it means to "perish" instead of having eternal life, I do not have the answer to......however, since it does not apply to me I will leave that to those who look forward to it instead of spending eternity with "schmucks"......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God would have done a much better job of proving he exists if he existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not if he didn't intend to prove he exists....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's think about this shall we. If god existed and he had the power to let every single living person know he exists but *intended* not to let anyone know he existed knowing very well that billions of other people believed in other religions and gods or in no gods at all, yet he choses to remain silent so they can all spend an eternity in pain and suffering, I ask you what kind of god is that? That is not a caring and loving god. That is worse than all the despotic psycopaths and murderers that ever existed. Hitler is a kitten compared to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say that is a pretty good indication that if there is a God, then this particular description is wrong.
Click to expand...

My description is the exact discription in the bible and made by 99% of all christians. They are the ones saying that non-believers and those who worship other gods are going to hell. In fact it is exactly what PostmodernProph said.


----------



## Tuatara

Mineva said:


> Atheism* is not a religion* because it* does not have written rules.* But its another *"belief", *as like other religions.
> 
> Theist people* believe* there is God.
> 
> Atheist people *believe* there is *no* God.


When you apply a negative it becomes a non-belief. Opposite of belief.


----------



## PratchettFan

Tuatara said:


> Mineva said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism* is not a religion* because it* does not have written rules.* But its another *"belief", *as like other religions.
> 
> Theist people* believe* there is God.
> 
> Atheist people *believe* there is *no* God.
> 
> 
> 
> When you apply a negative it becomes a non-belief. Opposite of belief.
Click to expand...

 
No, it doesn't.


----------



## GreenBean

Mineva said:


> Atheism* is not a religion* because it* does not have written rules.* But its another *"belief", *as like other religions.
> 
> Theist people* believe* there is God.
> 
> Atheist people *believe* there is no God.



No written rules ...
Except the Faith that God does not exist . but it is irrelevant, as she already admitted she does not subscribe to the religion of Atheism.

Instead she is an Agnostic - but will never admit that because somebody else pointed it out to her - and she is her own God - Her God is a Jealous God and thou shalt have no other Gods before her !


----------



## Tuatara

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prachet said he said "no one is going to hell who isn't choosing to go there"
> 
> 
> 
> that is true....I did say that.....I have said it many times......I do so because that is what the scriptures tell me.....
> 
> John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned,  but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
> 
> what happens to the condemned I do not know....the same passage says...." that whoever believes  in him shall not perish but have eternal life. "
> 
> what it means to "perish" instead of having eternal life, I do not have the answer to......however, since it does not apply to me I will leave that to those who look forward to it instead of spending eternity with "schmucks"......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God would have done a much better job of proving he exists if he existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not if he didn't intend to prove he exists....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's think about this shall we. If god existed and he had the power to let every single living person know he exists but *intended* not to let anyone know he existed knowing very well that billions of other people believed in other religions and gods or in no gods at all, yet he choses to remain silent so they can all spend an eternity in pain and suffering, I ask you what kind of god is that? That is not a caring and loving god. That is worse than all the despotic psycopaths and murderers that ever existed. Hitler is a kitten compared to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you believed that you would be foolish to love him.......of course, I'm not saying your belief is anywhere near accurate or even logical, but that is obviously the choice you've made......
Click to expand...

It is accurate by your own account. You were the one that stated non-belivers and those who worshipped other gods would go to hell and you also stated god intended not to reveal himself.


----------



## PratchettFan

Tuatara said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is true....I did say that.....I have said it many times......I do so because that is what the scriptures tell me.....
> 
> John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned,  but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
> 
> what happens to the condemned I do not know....the same passage says...." that whoever believes  in him shall not perish but have eternal life. "
> 
> what it means to "perish" instead of having eternal life, I do not have the answer to......however, since it does not apply to me I will leave that to those who look forward to it instead of spending eternity with "schmucks"......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God would have done a much better job of proving he exists if he existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not if he didn't intend to prove he exists....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's think about this shall we. If god existed and he had the power to let every single living person know he exists but *intended* not to let anyone know he existed knowing very well that billions of other people believed in other religions and gods or in no gods at all, yet he choses to remain silent so they can all spend an eternity in pain and suffering, I ask you what kind of god is that? That is not a caring and loving god. That is worse than all the despotic psycopaths and murderers that ever existed. Hitler is a kitten compared to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say that is a pretty good indication that if there is a God, then this particular description is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My description is the exact discription in the bible and made by 99% of all christians. They are the ones saying that non-believers and those who worship other gods are going to hell. In fact it is exactly what PostmodernProph said.
Click to expand...

 
Whether that is correct or not (and I doubt it very much) that does not make the description any less wrong.


----------



## Mineva

Tuatara said:


> When you apply a negative it becomes a non-belief. Opposite of belief.



We dont need word games. An atheist is a *non-believer of faith in God, but a believer of the absence of God. *So a believer.


----------



## Tuatara

PratchettFan said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mineva said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism* is not a religion* because it* does not have written rules.* But its another *"belief", *as like other religions.
> 
> Theist people* believe* there is God.
> 
> Atheist people *believe* there is *no* God.
> 
> 
> 
> When you apply a negative it becomes a non-belief. Opposite of belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.
Click to expand...

yes, as you can see anyone can claim anything as a belief, even an agnostic view. I believe I'm not sure whether there is a god or not.

Anyone can add the word believe to a viewpoint but when you alter it with a negative it stops becomig a belief.

*1*.- an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
*2*.- trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something

Both these definitions do not include atheism.


----------



## Tuatara

Mineva said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you apply a negative it becomes a non-belief. Opposite of belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We dont need word games. An atheist is a *non-believer of faith in God, but a believer of the absence of God. *So a believer.
Click to expand...

So when someone asks you what do you belive in, what would you say. They are asking you what you believe in, not what you *don't* believe.


----------



## Mineva

Tuatara said:


> So when someone asks you what do you belive in, what would you say. They are asking you what you believe in, not what you *don't* believe.



I dont think it was such difficult to understand what I said. 

When someone asks you what do you believe in (as faith);

If you are a theist, you will say "I believe in God" or you can say the religion which you follow.

If you are an atheist, the answer varies from person to person, you cant say *"I dont believe in anything, I'm an atheist",* because its the same thing with sayin "I dont believe in God, I* believe* there is no God"..............illogical.

If you are an agnostic, you can say "I'm a bit confused" : )


----------



## PratchettFan

Mineva said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when someone asks you what do you belive in, what would you say. They are asking you what you believe in, not what you *don't* believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think it was such difficult to understand what I said.
> 
> When someone asks you what do you believe in (as faith);
> 
> If you are a theist, you will say "I believe in God" or you can say the religion which you follow.
> 
> If you are an atheist, the answer varies from person to person, you cant say *"I dont believe in anything, I'm an atheist",* because its the same thing with sayin "I dont believe in God, I* believe* there is no God"..............illogical.
> 
> If you are an agnostic, you can say "I'm a bit confused" : )
Click to expand...

 
Speaking as an Agnostic, I'm not at all confused.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually, yes. A community center  powered by karaoke, kindness and cake is not a house of worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur aside, "usually" is not a requirement.  "Always" is a requirement.  "Must" is a requirement.  So I ask again, is worship a requirement for religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, yes.  Even in Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama is regarded as the Supreme Buddha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose that depends upon who you talk to. Buddha is not a person, it's a title.  There have been many Buddhas and one tenet of the religion is that all of us are potential Buddhas, and some hold it is inevitable that all will become Buddha.  But indeed, Buddha worship is common within Buddhism.  I personally do not worship Buddha, so would you then say that I am not in a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't worship anything, I would say you're not in a religion.  I mean, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  We have something to actually work with.  Why is worship required for something to be a religion?
Click to expand...



I don't know of any religion that doesn't worship or have a specific spiritual practice, but i suppose what sets atheists apart is not having an organized belief system that is required in order to be considered a religion.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually, yes. A community center  powered by karaoke, kindness and cake is not a house of worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur aside, "usually" is not a requirement.  "Always" is a requirement.  "Must" is a requirement.  So I ask again, is worship a requirement for religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, yes.  Even in Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama is regarded as the Supreme Buddha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose that depends upon who you talk to. Buddha is not a person, it's a title.  There have been many Buddhas and one tenet of the religion is that all of us are potential Buddhas, and some hold it is inevitable that all will become Buddha.  But indeed, Buddha worship is common within Buddhism.  I personally do not worship Buddha, so would you then say that I am not in a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't worship anything, I would say you're not in a religion.  I mean, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  We have something to actually work with.  Why is worship required for something to be a religion?
Click to expand...




Mineva said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when someone asks you what do you belive in, what would you say. They are asking you what you believe in, not what you *don't* believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think it was such difficult to understand what I said.
> 
> When someone asks you what do you believe in (as faith);
> 
> If you are a theist, you will say "I believe in God" or you can say the religion which you follow.
> 
> If you are an atheist, the answer varies from person to person, you cant say *"I dont believe in anything, I'm an atheist",* because its the same thing with sayin "I dont believe in God, I* believe* there is no God"..............illogical.
> 
> If you are an agnostic, you can say "I'm a bit confused" : )
Click to expand...




You're right, it varies from person to person, because we don't have a specific belief system.


----------



## PostmodernProph

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except he says he didn't. Frankly, I believe his recollection over yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what was actually written is right there to see and one need not depend upon memories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then point to it......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part of that do you deny saying?  Do you deny you referred to hell as a place where you go? Do you deny you indicated it is unpleasant?  Let me know which and I will provide you with the quotes where you said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why?.....are you fresh out of pointless things to occupy your time?......hell is the antithesis of heaven.......if heaven is pleasant, the antithesis must be unpleasant.....is heaven a "place", is hell a "place"?........is either six miles north of somewhere?.....does it literally have a gate?.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You used the phrase in one post "doomed to an eternity in hell" which doesn't sound fun to me.
Click to expand...

doesn't sound like my usual posts....was I quoting what someone else had said?.........I might have used those words if I was mocking what someone else had posted......


----------



## PostmodernProph

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except he says he didn't. Frankly, I believe his recollection over yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what was actually written is right there to see and one need not depend upon memories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then point to it......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part of that do you deny saying?  Do you deny you referred to hell as a place where you go? Do you deny you indicated it is unpleasant?  Let me know which and I will provide you with the quotes where you said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why?.....are you fresh out of pointless things to occupy your time?......hell is the antithesis of heaven.......if heaven is pleasant, the antithesis must be unpleasant.....is heaven a "place", is hell a "place"?........is either six miles north of somewhere?.....does it literally have a gate?.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reject your concept of God and I choose not to go to hell.  If you think I am going to hell regardless of my choice not to, then it is obviously not my choice.
Click to expand...


I am only aware of two possible choices.....you can choose to believe or choose not to believe.....anything other than choosing to believe results in consequences that you choose not to believe in.....I cannot attest that this will help you to avoid those consequences....I would say, with confidence, that if you refuse an eternity with schmucks it is not likely you will get the eternity with schmucks......thus you will get the alternative consequence whatever that might be......


----------



## Derideo_Te

GreenBean said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cut that link off short here's the rest...
> 
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed;
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> a particular system of faith and worship.
> plural noun: *religions*
> "the world's great religions"
> *a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. "consumerism is the new religion"*
> 
> The last one seems to fit fanatical Atheism to tee - So by some definitions *Atheism can be considered a Religion *
Click to expand...


If you have to stretch that far then your fanatical obsession to brand atheism as a religion would fit the definition of a religious cult.


----------



## GreenBean

Carla_Danger said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are an agnostic not an atheist - there's a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but you don't get to define me.  I'm an atheist because I don't live my life as if a God exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but you don't get to rewrite the English Language and .... I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN DEFINE YOU - THERE'S NO WORD FOR IT - SLEEP TIGHT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can tell us what exactly atheists worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been there ... done that ... follow the thread . We already did the definitions thing ... Remember ?
> 
> An Atheist = a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. In the mind of an Atheist there is no God and he/she has *Faith in that conviction.*
> 
> An agnostic = a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims *neither faith nor disbelief in God.*
> Religion doesn't necessarily require that there be a God
> 
> By your own admission and definition you are not an Atheist - but more correctly defined you are an Agnostic
> 
> Atheism Is Not A Religion US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a·the·ist
> ˈāTHēəst/
> _noun_
> 
> a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
> "he is a committed atheist"
> 
> synonyms:nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas,agnostic;
> nihilist
> "why is it often assumed that a man of science is probably an atheist?"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> 
> Atheism Is Not A Religion Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...



So where do you place yourself on that scale ?


Derideo_Te said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cut that link off short here's the rest...
> 
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed;
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> a particular system of faith and worship.
> plural noun: *religions*
> "the world's great religions"
> *a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. "consumerism is the new religion"*
> 
> The last one seems to fit fanatical Atheism to tee - So by some definitions *Atheism can be considered a Religion *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have to stretch that far then your fanatical obsession to brand atheism as a religion would fit the definition of a religious cult.
Click to expand...



It's not really a very important  topic ... a rose by any other name is still a rose , and a turd by any other name still smells like shit.  It's just an exercise in Semantics .


----------



## sealybobo

Mineva said:


> Atheism* is not a religion* because it* does not have written rules.* But its another *"belief", *as like other religions.
> 
> Theist people* believe* there is God.
> 
> Atheist people *believe* there is no God.



Consider the following analogy: if I tell you that I visited Canada last week, would you believe me? Certainly visiting Canada is common and unremarkable, so there is no reason to think that my statement is inaccurate. However, you also have no reason to think it *is* true — so, although you may accept me at my word, you may just as easily accept my claim as plausible but then not give it further thought because it just isn’t important.

We can also go a bit further by modifying my claim to state that I *crawled* from my house to Canada. Again, such a feat is certainly possible — but on the other hand, it also isn’t very likely. Why would anyone do such a thing? While you might step right up to assert that my claim is false, a more likely position would be to “reject belief in” my claim pending further evidence and support. You aren’t actively believing it (because it seems implausible) but you aren’t denying it either (because it’s not impossible).

Because the evidence to warrant rational belief is lacking, the atheist does not adopt the belief — but the atheist also does not necessarily deny the claim due to a similar lack of contrary evidence. The reaction, then, is to simply “reject belief in” the claim because the theist offers no good reasons to believe.

As we can see, not only are disbelief and denial different things, but there are different levels to disbelief, just as there are to belief. If you are interested in learning in what sense a particular atheist “disbelieves” in a god, you will have to ask. Different atheists disbelieve in different ways and for different reasons.


----------



## sealybobo

Carla_Danger said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are an agnostic not an atheist - there's a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but you don't get to define me.  I'm an atheist because I don't live my life as if a God exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but you don't get to rewrite the English Language and .... I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN DEFINE YOU - THERE'S NO WORD FOR IT - SLEEP TIGHT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can tell us what exactly atheists worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been there ... done that ... follow the thread . We already did the definitions thing ... Remember ?
> 
> An Atheist = a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. In the mind of an Atheist there is no God and he/she has *Faith in that conviction.*
> 
> An agnostic = a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims *neither faith nor disbelief in God.*
> Religion doesn't necessarily require that there be a God
> 
> By your own admission and definition you are not an Atheist - but more correctly defined you are an Agnostic
> 
> Atheism Is Not A Religion US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a·the·ist
> ˈāTHēəst/
> _noun_
> 
> a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
> "he is a committed atheist"
> 
> synonyms:nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas,agnostic;
> nihilist
> "why is it often assumed that a man of science is probably an atheist?"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> 
> Atheism Is Not A Religion Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


Note that even a strong atheist can't be 100% sure something didn't create everything we see.  They would have to be a god themselves to say that.  They may be referring to the "god" that has supposedly visited us 5000, then 2000, then 500 and then 200 years ago.  Those gods we are 100% sure are made up because they are too unbelievable to even give a slim chance of being real.  Talking snakes, 350 year old men, virgin births, living in a whales belly for 3 days and living and of course the resurrection of Jesus.


----------



## GreenBean

sealybobo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but you don't get to define me.  I'm an atheist because I don't live my life as if a God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but you don't get to rewrite the English Language and .... I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN DEFINE YOU - THERE'S NO WORD FOR IT - SLEEP TIGHT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can tell us what exactly atheists worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been there ... done that ... follow the thread . We already did the definitions thing ... Remember ?
> 
> An Atheist = a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. In the mind of an Atheist there is no God and he/she has *Faith in that conviction.*
> 
> An agnostic = a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims *neither faith nor disbelief in God.*
> Religion doesn't necessarily require that there be a God
> 
> By your own admission and definition you are not an Atheist - but more correctly defined you are an Agnostic
> 
> Atheism Is Not A Religion US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a·the·ist
> ˈāTHēəst/
> _noun_
> 
> a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
> "he is a committed atheist"
> 
> synonyms:nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas,agnostic;
> nihilist
> "why is it often assumed that a man of science is probably an atheist?"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> 
> Atheism Is Not A Religion Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Note that even a strong atheist can't be 100% sure something didn't create everything we see.  They would have to be a god themselves to say that.  They may be referring to the "god" that has supposedly visited us 5000, then 2000, then 500 and then 200 years ago.  Those gods we are 100% sure are made up because they are too unbelievable to even give a slim chance of being real.  Talking snakes, 350 year old men, virgin births, living in a whales belly for 3 days and living and of course the resurrection of Jesus.
Click to expand...



Good argument - very good .... however ... a lot of what you just posted can be "explained away" with etymology and linguistic morphing.


----------



## sealybobo

GreenBean said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but you don't get to rewrite the English Language and .... I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN DEFINE YOU - THERE'S NO WORD FOR IT - SLEEP TIGHT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can tell us what exactly atheists worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been there ... done that ... follow the thread . We already did the definitions thing ... Remember ?
> 
> An Atheist = a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. In the mind of an Atheist there is no God and he/she has *Faith in that conviction.*
> 
> An agnostic = a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims *neither faith nor disbelief in God.*
> Religion doesn't necessarily require that there be a God
> 
> By your own admission and definition you are not an Atheist - but more correctly defined you are an Agnostic
> 
> Atheism Is Not A Religion US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a·the·ist
> ˈāTHēəst/
> _noun_
> 
> a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
> "he is a committed atheist"
> 
> synonyms:nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas,agnostic;
> nihilist
> "why is it often assumed that a man of science is probably an atheist?"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> 
> Atheism Is Not A Religion Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Note that even a strong atheist can't be 100% sure something didn't create everything we see.  They would have to be a god themselves to say that.  They may be referring to the "god" that has supposedly visited us 5000, then 2000, then 500 and then 200 years ago.  Those gods we are 100% sure are made up because they are too unbelievable to even give a slim chance of being real.  Talking snakes, 350 year old men, virgin births, living in a whales belly for 3 days and living and of course the resurrection of Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good argument - very good .... however ... a lot of what you just posted can be "explained away" with etymology and linguistic morphing.
Click to expand...


And I guess it is possible 200 years ago god told Joseph Smith about magic underwear, or 500  years ago talked to Mohammad, or 2000 years ago came on a suicide mission, or 5000 years before parted the red seas, talked to Noah, Adam & Eve & Jonah.  

I wasn't there so even with that I can't say 100% sure.  99.99999%


----------



## sealybobo

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]



I watch these religion channels all the time and I never see an Atheist perspective

TCT TCT Network

In fact yesterday they had a kids show where the atheist was mocking the Christians and the argument was not anywhere close to reality.  The atheists didn't say anything any of us atheists on USMB say to you.  Why didn't they use a realistic atheist?  Because they know a real atheist would eat you up.


----------



## Derideo_Te

GreenBean said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but you don't get to define me.  I'm an atheist because I don't live my life as if a God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but you don't get to rewrite the English Language and .... I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN DEFINE YOU - THERE'S NO WORD FOR IT - SLEEP TIGHT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can tell us what exactly atheists worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been there ... done that ... follow the thread . We already did the definitions thing ... Remember ?
> 
> An Atheist = a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. In the mind of an Atheist there is no God and he/she has *Faith in that conviction.*
> 
> An agnostic = a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims *neither faith nor disbelief in God.*
> Religion doesn't necessarily require that there be a God
> 
> By your own admission and definition you are not an Atheist - but more correctly defined you are an Agnostic
> 
> Atheism Is Not A Religion US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a·the·ist
> ˈāTHēəst/
> _noun_
> 
> a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
> "he is a committed atheist"
> 
> synonyms:nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas,agnostic;
> nihilist
> "why is it often assumed that a man of science is probably an atheist?"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> 
> Atheism Is Not A Religion Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So where do you place yourself on that scale ?
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cut that link off short here's the rest...
> 
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed;
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> a particular system of faith and worship.
> plural noun: *religions*
> "the world's great religions"
> *a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. "consumerism is the new religion"*
> 
> The last one seems to fit fanatical Atheism to tee - So by some definitions *Atheism can be considered a Religion *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have to stretch that far then your fanatical obsession to brand atheism as a religion would fit the definition of a religious cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not really a very important  topic ... a rose by any other name is still a rose , and a turd by any other name still smells like shit.  It's just an exercise in Semantics .
Click to expand...


Your religion considers lying to be a sin so you can try that "it was just an exercise in semantics" excuse when you are facing the condemnation of your eternal soul to everlasting torment.


----------



## sealybobo

Tuatara said:


> Mineva said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you apply a negative it becomes a non-belief. Opposite of belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We dont need word games. An atheist is a *non-believer of faith in God, but a believer of the absence of God. *So a believer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So when someone asks you what do you belive in, what would you say. They are asking you what you believe in, not what you *don't* believe.
Click to expand...


I would reply that I believe at this point in time we just don't know.  

I don't believe any organized religions and our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.

That is unless you believe the organized religions which I don't.

But as far as there being a generic god, there are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

Relying on supernatural explanations is a cop-out or a dead-end to deepening our understanding of reality. If a natural cause for something is not known, the scientific approach is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.


----------



## sealybobo

Mineva said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when someone asks you what do you belive in, what would you say. They are asking you what you believe in, not what you *don't* believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think it was such difficult to understand what I said.
> 
> When someone asks you what do you believe in (as faith);
> 
> If you are a theist, you will say "I believe in God" or you can say the religion which you follow.
> 
> If you are an atheist, the answer varies from person to person, you cant say *"I dont believe in anything, I'm an atheist",* because its the same thing with sayin "I dont believe in God, I* believe* there is no God"..............illogical.
> 
> If you are an agnostic, you can say "I'm a bit confused" : )
Click to expand...


If you don't belong to Christianity that means you do not believe the Jesus was god story and so you are an atheist.  

I think it sort of depends on if you are asking someone if they believe in a generic god or if they believe any of the Abrahamic religions.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur aside, "usually" is not a requirement.  "Always" is a requirement.  "Must" is a requirement.  So I ask again, is worship a requirement for religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, yes.  Even in Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama is regarded as the Supreme Buddha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose that depends upon who you talk to. Buddha is not a person, it's a title.  There have been many Buddhas and one tenet of the religion is that all of us are potential Buddhas, and some hold it is inevitable that all will become Buddha.  But indeed, Buddha worship is common within Buddhism.  I personally do not worship Buddha, so would you then say that I am not in a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't worship anything, I would say you're not in a religion.  I mean, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  We have something to actually work with.  Why is worship required for something to be a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any religion that doesn't worship or have a specific spiritual practice, but i suppose what sets atheists apart is not having an organized belief system that is required in order to be considered a religion.
Click to expand...


I've seen quite a bit of organization amongst Atheists, all around a core belief system.  There are associations, organizations, even churches.  Heck, there is even a bloody dating site.  No, that claim is not going to hold water.

Saying you don't know of a religion doesn't mean there isn't one.  I certainly consider my faith a religion and I do not worship or engage in specific spiritual practices.  If we are going to make any determination in this question we must first establish what religion is.  But I am more than willing to consider this so long as it is done without prejudice.

What actually constitutes worship?  We can go with the primary definition of showing love and respect to a god.  But does it have to be positive?  Love and hate may not be the same emotion but they are still emotions.  Would not showing hate and disrespect to a god be just as emotional an experience as love and respect?  If not, what would we call it?


----------



## PratchettFan

PostmodernProph said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> what was actually written is right there to see and one need not depend upon memories.
> 
> 
> 
> then point to it......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part of that do you deny saying?  Do you deny you referred to hell as a place where you go? Do you deny you indicated it is unpleasant?  Let me know which and I will provide you with the quotes where you said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why?.....are you fresh out of pointless things to occupy your time?......hell is the antithesis of heaven.......if heaven is pleasant, the antithesis must be unpleasant.....is heaven a "place", is hell a "place"?........is either six miles north of somewhere?.....does it literally have a gate?.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You used the phrase in one post "doomed to an eternity in hell" which doesn't sound fun to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> doesn't sound like my usual posts....was I quoting what someone else had said?.........I might have used those words if I was mocking what someone else had posted......
Click to expand...


Post #269 of the thread Faith is Born of Fear.  I will say this board has a very good search engine.


----------



## PratchettFan

PostmodernProph said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> what was actually written is right there to see and one need not depend upon memories.
> 
> 
> 
> then point to it......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part of that do you deny saying?  Do you deny you referred to hell as a place where you go? Do you deny you indicated it is unpleasant?  Let me know which and I will provide you with the quotes where you said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why?.....are you fresh out of pointless things to occupy your time?......hell is the antithesis of heaven.......if heaven is pleasant, the antithesis must be unpleasant.....is heaven a "place", is hell a "place"?........is either six miles north of somewhere?.....does it literally have a gate?.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reject your concept of God and I choose not to go to hell.  If you think I am going to hell regardless of my choice not to, then it is obviously not my choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am only aware of two possible choices.....you can choose to believe or choose not to believe.....anything other than choosing to believe results in consequences that you choose not to believe in.....I cannot attest that this will help you to avoid those consequences....I would say, with confidence, that if you refuse an eternity with schmucks it is not likely you will get the eternity with schmucks......thus you will get the alternative consequence whatever that might be......
Click to expand...


Yes.  Which is akin to my holding a gun to your head.....   You are free to see it differently but to me the moral issue is quite clear.  It is one of the reasons why I have never understood why anyone would be a Christian.  But it would be a funny old world if everyone saw things the same way.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> I don't know of any religion that doesn't worship or have a specific spiritual practice, but i suppose what sets atheists apart is not having an organized belief system that is required in order to be considered a religion.



Is it remotely possible that your ignorance does not define the universe? I am only asking because you seem to think it does. You have even argued that your ignorance means other people cannot argue that their religion is atheism.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Note that even a strong atheist can't be 100% sure something didn't create everything we see.  They would have to be a god themselves to say that.  They may be referring to the "god" that has supposedly visited us 5000, then 2000, then 500 and then 200 years ago.  Those gods we are 100% sure are made up because they are too unbelievable to even give a slim chance of being real.  Talking snakes, 350 year old men, virgin births, living in a whales belly for 3 days and living and of course the resurrection of Jesus.



Why do idiots insit that their beliefs limit the beliefs of other people?


----------



## Montrovant

GreenBean said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but you don't get to define me.  I'm an atheist because I don't live my life as if a God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but you don't get to rewrite the English Language and .... I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN DEFINE YOU - THERE'S NO WORD FOR IT - SLEEP TIGHT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can tell us what exactly atheists worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been there ... done that ... follow the thread . We already did the definitions thing ... Remember ?
> 
> An Atheist = a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. In the mind of an Atheist there is no God and he/she has *Faith in that conviction.*
> 
> An agnostic = a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims *neither faith nor disbelief in God.*
> Religion doesn't necessarily require that there be a God
> 
> By your own admission and definition you are not an Atheist - but more correctly defined you are an Agnostic
> 
> Atheism Is Not A Religion US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a·the·ist
> ˈāTHēəst/
> _noun_
> 
> a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
> "he is a committed atheist"
> 
> synonyms:nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas,agnostic;
> nihilist
> "why is it often assumed that a man of science is probably an atheist?"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> 
> Atheism Is Not A Religion Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So where do you place yourself on that scale ?
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cut that link off short here's the rest...
> 
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed;
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> a particular system of faith and worship.
> plural noun: *religions*
> "the world's great religions"
> *a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. "consumerism is the new religion"*
> 
> The last one seems to fit fanatical Atheism to tee - So by some definitions *Atheism can be considered a Religion *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have to stretch that far then your fanatical obsession to brand atheism as a religion would fit the definition of a religious cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not really a very important  topic ... a rose by any other name is still a rose , and a turd by any other name still smells like shit.  It's just an exercise in Semantics .
Click to expand...


I agree, the vast majority of this thread seems to be little more than a semantics argument.  Worse, it's often a semantics argument between people who don't seem to see it as such.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur aside, "usually" is not a requirement.  "Always" is a requirement.  "Must" is a requirement.  So I ask again, is worship a requirement for religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, yes.  Even in Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama is regarded as the Supreme Buddha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose that depends upon who you talk to. Buddha is not a person, it's a title.  There have been many Buddhas and one tenet of the religion is that all of us are potential Buddhas, and some hold it is inevitable that all will become Buddha.  But indeed, Buddha worship is common within Buddhism.  I personally do not worship Buddha, so would you then say that I am not in a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't worship anything, I would say you're not in a religion.  I mean, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  We have something to actually work with.  Why is worship required for something to be a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any religion that doesn't worship or have a specific spiritual practice, but i suppose what sets atheists apart is not having an organized belief system that is required in order to be considered a religion.
Click to expand...


Let me take a different approach.  Let us say we have two groups.  One believes that Jesus is about to come and gather them up into heaven.  They spend their days in prayer and preparation and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip.  Then we have another group who believes aliens are going to take them to their planet.  The work hard to prepare themselves and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip.  Now, you might say the first was religion and the second was not.  But I have to wonder what the actual practical difference is between the two might be.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, yes.  Even in Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama is regarded as the Supreme Buddha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose that depends upon who you talk to. Buddha is not a person, it's a title.  There have been many Buddhas and one tenet of the religion is that all of us are potential Buddhas, and some hold it is inevitable that all will become Buddha.  But indeed, Buddha worship is common within Buddhism.  I personally do not worship Buddha, so would you then say that I am not in a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't worship anything, I would say you're not in a religion.  I mean, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  We have something to actually work with.  Why is worship required for something to be a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any religion that doesn't worship or have a specific spiritual practice, but i suppose what sets atheists apart is not having an organized belief system that is required in order to be considered a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me take a different approach.  Let us say we have two groups.  One believes that Jesus is about to come and gather them up into heaven.  They spend their days in prayer and preparation and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip.  Then we have another group who believes aliens are going to take them to their planet.  The work hard to prepare themselves and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip.  Now, you might say the first was religion and the second was not.  But I have to wonder what the actual practical difference is between the two might be.
Click to expand...



No.  One is a cult, and one is a group of lunatics. What's that got to do with atheists?


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, yes.  Even in Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama is regarded as the Supreme Buddha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose that depends upon who you talk to. Buddha is not a person, it's a title.  There have been many Buddhas and one tenet of the religion is that all of us are potential Buddhas, and some hold it is inevitable that all will become Buddha.  But indeed, Buddha worship is common within Buddhism.  I personally do not worship Buddha, so would you then say that I am not in a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't worship anything, I would say you're not in a religion.  I mean, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  We have something to actually work with.  Why is worship required for something to be a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any religion that doesn't worship or have a specific spiritual practice, but i suppose what sets atheists apart is not having an organized belief system that is required in order to be considered a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen quite a bit of organization amongst Atheists, all around a core belief system.  There are associations, organizations, even churches.  Heck, there is even a bloody dating site.  No, that claim is not going to hold water.
> 
> Saying you don't know of a religion doesn't mean there isn't one.  I certainly consider my faith a religion and I do not worship or engage in specific spiritual practices.  If we are going to make any determination in this question we must first establish what religion is.  But I am more than willing to consider this so long as it is done without prejudice.
> 
> What actually constitutes worship?  We can go with the primary definition of showing love and respect to a god.  But does it have to be positive?  Love and hate may not be the same emotion but they are still emotions.  Would not showing hate and disrespect to a god be just as emotional an experience as love and respect?  If not, what would we call it?
Click to expand...




What are our core beliefs?


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose that depends upon who you talk to. Buddha is not a person, it's a title.  There have been many Buddhas and one tenet of the religion is that all of us are potential Buddhas, and some hold it is inevitable that all will become Buddha.  But indeed, Buddha worship is common within Buddhism.  I personally do not worship Buddha, so would you then say that I am not in a religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't worship anything, I would say you're not in a religion.  I mean, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  We have something to actually work with.  Why is worship required for something to be a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any religion that doesn't worship or have a specific spiritual practice, but i suppose what sets atheists apart is not having an organized belief system that is required in order to be considered a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me take a different approach.  Let us say we have two groups.  One believes that Jesus is about to come and gather them up into heaven.  They spend their days in prayer and preparation and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip.  Then we have another group who believes aliens are going to take them to their planet.  The work hard to prepare themselves and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip.  Now, you might say the first was religion and the second was not.  But I have to wonder what the actual practical difference is between the two might be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  One is a cult, and one is a group of lunatics. What's that got to do with atheists?
Click to expand...


It has to do with defining religion.  The fact that one group is focused on Jesus and the other on aliens really matters?  That they acted in exactly the same way makes no difference?


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose that depends upon who you talk to. Buddha is not a person, it's a title.  There have been many Buddhas and one tenet of the religion is that all of us are potential Buddhas, and some hold it is inevitable that all will become Buddha.  But indeed, Buddha worship is common within Buddhism.  I personally do not worship Buddha, so would you then say that I am not in a religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't worship anything, I would say you're not in a religion.  I mean, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  We have something to actually work with.  Why is worship required for something to be a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any religion that doesn't worship or have a specific spiritual practice, but i suppose what sets atheists apart is not having an organized belief system that is required in order to be considered a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen quite a bit of organization amongst Atheists, all around a core belief system.  There are associations, organizations, even churches.  Heck, there is even a bloody dating site.  No, that claim is not going to hold water.
> 
> Saying you don't know of a religion doesn't mean there isn't one.  I certainly consider my faith a religion and I do not worship or engage in specific spiritual practices.  If we are going to make any determination in this question we must first establish what religion is.  But I am more than willing to consider this so long as it is done without prejudice.
> 
> What actually constitutes worship?  We can go with the primary definition of showing love and respect to a god.  But does it have to be positive?  Love and hate may not be the same emotion but they are still emotions.  Would not showing hate and disrespect to a god be just as emotional an experience as love and respect?  If not, what would we call it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are our core beliefs?
Click to expand...


The belief there is no god.  I would think that obvious.  And remember, any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, so unless you suddenly have some evidence we have established that you do have beliefs.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't worship anything, I would say you're not in a religion.  I mean, really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  We have something to actually work with.  Why is worship required for something to be a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any religion that doesn't worship or have a specific spiritual practice, but i suppose what sets atheists apart is not having an organized belief system that is required in order to be considered a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me take a different approach.  Let us say we have two groups.  One believes that Jesus is about to come and gather them up into heaven.  They spend their days in prayer and preparation and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip.  Then we have another group who believes aliens are going to take them to their planet.  The work hard to prepare themselves and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip.  Now, you might say the first was religion and the second was not.  But I have to wonder what the actual practical difference is between the two might be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  One is a cult, and one is a group of lunatics. What's that got to do with atheists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has to do with defining religion.  The fact that one group is focused on Jesus and the other on aliens really matters?  That they acted in exactly the same way makes no difference?
Click to expand...


That's ridiculous, because not all atheists believe in aliens. I'm sure there's gotta be a couple out there somewhere, but there is no group. Believing in aliens is also not a religion.

I believe in illegal aliens, is that a religion?


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't worship anything, I would say you're not in a religion.  I mean, really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  We have something to actually work with.  Why is worship required for something to be a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any religion that doesn't worship or have a specific spiritual practice, but i suppose what sets atheists apart is not having an organized belief system that is required in order to be considered a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen quite a bit of organization amongst Atheists, all around a core belief system.  There are associations, organizations, even churches.  Heck, there is even a bloody dating site.  No, that claim is not going to hold water.
> 
> Saying you don't know of a religion doesn't mean there isn't one.  I certainly consider my faith a religion and I do not worship or engage in specific spiritual practices.  If we are going to make any determination in this question we must first establish what religion is.  But I am more than willing to consider this so long as it is done without prejudice.
> 
> What actually constitutes worship?  We can go with the primary definition of showing love and respect to a god.  But does it have to be positive?  Love and hate may not be the same emotion but they are still emotions.  Would not showing hate and disrespect to a god be just as emotional an experience as love and respect?  If not, what would we call it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are our core beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The belief there is no god.  I would think that obvious.  And remember, any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, so unless you suddenly have some evidence we have established that you do have beliefs.
Click to expand...




So, you're now saying that Agnosticism is a religion?


----------



## Montrovant

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't worship anything, I would say you're not in a religion.  I mean, really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  We have something to actually work with.  Why is worship required for something to be a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any religion that doesn't worship or have a specific spiritual practice, but i suppose what sets atheists apart is not having an organized belief system that is required in order to be considered a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen quite a bit of organization amongst Atheists, all around a core belief system.  There are associations, organizations, even churches.  Heck, there is even a bloody dating site.  No, that claim is not going to hold water.
> 
> Saying you don't know of a religion doesn't mean there isn't one.  I certainly consider my faith a religion and I do not worship or engage in specific spiritual practices.  If we are going to make any determination in this question we must first establish what religion is.  But I am more than willing to consider this so long as it is done without prejudice.
> 
> What actually constitutes worship?  We can go with the primary definition of showing love and respect to a god.  But does it have to be positive?  Love and hate may not be the same emotion but they are still emotions.  Would not showing hate and disrespect to a god be just as emotional an experience as love and respect?  If not, what would we call it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are our core beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The belief there is no god.  I would think that obvious.  And remember, any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, so unless you suddenly have some evidence we have established that you do have beliefs.
Click to expand...


What if the conclusion is that there is an absence of evidence?


----------



## Tuatara

Montrovant said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but you don't get to rewrite the English Language and .... I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN DEFINE YOU - THERE'S NO WORD FOR IT - SLEEP TIGHT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can tell us what exactly atheists worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been there ... done that ... follow the thread . We already did the definitions thing ... Remember ?
> 
> An Atheist = a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. In the mind of an Atheist there is no God and he/she has *Faith in that conviction.*
> 
> An agnostic = a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims *neither faith nor disbelief in God.*
> Religion doesn't necessarily require that there be a God
> 
> By your own admission and definition you are not an Atheist - but more correctly defined you are an Agnostic
> 
> Atheism Is Not A Religion US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a·the·ist
> ˈāTHēəst/
> _noun_
> 
> a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
> "he is a committed atheist"
> 
> synonyms:nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas,agnostic;
> nihilist
> "why is it often assumed that a man of science is probably an atheist?"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> 
> Atheism Is Not A Religion Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So where do you place yourself on that scale ?
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cut that link off short here's the rest...
> 
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed;
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> a particular system of faith and worship.
> plural noun: *religions*
> "the world's great religions"
> *a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. "consumerism is the new religion"*
> 
> The last one seems to fit fanatical Atheism to tee - So by some definitions *Atheism can be considered a Religion *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have to stretch that far then your fanatical obsession to brand atheism as a religion would fit the definition of a religious cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not really a very important  topic ... a rose by any other name is still a rose , and a turd by any other name still smells like shit.  It's just an exercise in Semantics .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, the vast majority of this thread seems to be little more than a semantics argument.  Worse, it's often a semantics argument between people who don't seem to see it as such.
Click to expand...

The argument on the word belief is a semantics argument but anyone calling atheism a religion is not a semantics argument. It is just plain stupidity.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watch these religion channels all the time
Click to expand...

isn't that rather strange?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> then point to it......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which part of that do you deny saying?  Do you deny you referred to hell as a place where you go? Do you deny you indicated it is unpleasant?  Let me know which and I will provide you with the quotes where you said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why?.....are you fresh out of pointless things to occupy your time?......hell is the antithesis of heaven.......if heaven is pleasant, the antithesis must be unpleasant.....is heaven a "place", is hell a "place"?........is either six miles north of somewhere?.....does it literally have a gate?.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reject your concept of God and I choose not to go to hell.  If you think I am going to hell regardless of my choice not to, then it is obviously not my choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am only aware of two possible choices.....you can choose to believe or choose not to believe.....anything other than choosing to believe results in consequences that you choose not to believe in.....I cannot attest that this will help you to avoid those consequences....I would say, with confidence, that if you refuse an eternity with schmucks it is not likely you will get the eternity with schmucks......thus you will get the alternative consequence whatever that might be......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Which is akin to my holding a gun to your head.....   You are free to see it differently but to me the moral issue is quite clear.  It is one of the reasons why I have never understood why anyone would be a Christian.  But it would be a funny old world if everyone saw things the same way.
Click to expand...

odd.....you claim its a gun to your head but say you have no trouble deciding not to believe.....apparently it isn't as frightening a gun as you say.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> then point to it......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which part of that do you deny saying?  Do you deny you referred to hell as a place where you go? Do you deny you indicated it is unpleasant?  Let me know which and I will provide you with the quotes where you said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why?.....are you fresh out of pointless things to occupy your time?......hell is the antithesis of heaven.......if heaven is pleasant, the antithesis must be unpleasant.....is heaven a "place", is hell a "place"?........is either six miles north of somewhere?.....does it literally have a gate?.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You used the phrase in one post "doomed to an eternity in hell" which doesn't sound fun to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> doesn't sound like my usual posts....was I quoting what someone else had said?.........I might have used those words if I was mocking what someone else had posted......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post #269 of the thread Faith is Born of Fear.  I will say this board has a very good search engine.
Click to expand...

I didn't bring up hell as a "place" in that thread either.....


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  We have something to actually work with.  Why is worship required for something to be a religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any religion that doesn't worship or have a specific spiritual practice, but i suppose what sets atheists apart is not having an organized belief system that is required in order to be considered a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me take a different approach.  Let us say we have two groups.  One believes that Jesus is about to come and gather them up into heaven.  They spend their days in prayer and preparation and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip.  Then we have another group who believes aliens are going to take them to their planet.  The work hard to prepare themselves and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip.  Now, you might say the first was religion and the second was not.  But I have to wonder what the actual practical difference is between the two might be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  One is a cult, and one is a group of lunatics. What's that got to do with atheists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has to do with defining religion.  The fact that one group is focused on Jesus and the other on aliens really matters?  That they acted in exactly the same way makes no difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous, because not all atheists believe in aliens. I'm sure there's gotta be a couple out there somewhere, but there is no group. Believing in aliens is also not a religion.
> 
> I believe in illegal aliens, is that a religion?
Click to expand...

 
I told you, this is about defining religion.  I'm trying to wrap my mind around the suggestion that two groups acting in exactly the same manner are different because one believes in Jesus and the other in aliens.  Because what that means is how a group acts is not important, only what they believe.  Doesn't that position sound familiar to you?


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  We have something to actually work with.  Why is worship required for something to be a religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any religion that doesn't worship or have a specific spiritual practice, but i suppose what sets atheists apart is not having an organized belief system that is required in order to be considered a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen quite a bit of organization amongst Atheists, all around a core belief system.  There are associations, organizations, even churches.  Heck, there is even a bloody dating site.  No, that claim is not going to hold water.
> 
> Saying you don't know of a religion doesn't mean there isn't one.  I certainly consider my faith a religion and I do not worship or engage in specific spiritual practices.  If we are going to make any determination in this question we must first establish what religion is.  But I am more than willing to consider this so long as it is done without prejudice.
> 
> What actually constitutes worship?  We can go with the primary definition of showing love and respect to a god.  But does it have to be positive?  Love and hate may not be the same emotion but they are still emotions.  Would not showing hate and disrespect to a god be just as emotional an experience as love and respect?  If not, what would we call it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are our core beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The belief there is no god.  I would think that obvious.  And remember, any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, so unless you suddenly have some evidence we have established that you do have beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you're now saying that Agnosticism is a religion?
Click to expand...

 
No.  But it could be treated as one.


----------



## PratchettFan

PostmodernProph said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which part of that do you deny saying?  Do you deny you referred to hell as a place where you go? Do you deny you indicated it is unpleasant?  Let me know which and I will provide you with the quotes where you said it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why?.....are you fresh out of pointless things to occupy your time?......hell is the antithesis of heaven.......if heaven is pleasant, the antithesis must be unpleasant.....is heaven a "place", is hell a "place"?........is either six miles north of somewhere?.....does it literally have a gate?.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reject your concept of God and I choose not to go to hell.  If you think I am going to hell regardless of my choice not to, then it is obviously not my choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am only aware of two possible choices.....you can choose to believe or choose not to believe.....anything other than choosing to believe results in consequences that you choose not to believe in.....I cannot attest that this will help you to avoid those consequences....I would say, with confidence, that if you refuse an eternity with schmucks it is not likely you will get the eternity with schmucks......thus you will get the alternative consequence whatever that might be......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Which is akin to my holding a gun to your head.....   You are free to see it differently but to me the moral issue is quite clear.  It is one of the reasons why I have never understood why anyone would be a Christian.  But it would be a funny old world if everyone saw things the same way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> odd.....you claim its a gun to your head but say you have no trouble deciding not to believe.....apparently it isn't as frightening a gun as you say.....
Click to expand...

 
I never said I was frightened, only that it is akin to holding a gun to your head.  In this particular case, you have to believe in the gun and I don't.  Just because it is a hollow threat changes nothing.  I also never decided to not believe.  I have never believed and was frankly rather shocked when it was finally explained to me at an age where I could understand.  I could not believe if I tried.  I suspect the appeal of Christianity will remain a mystery to me.


----------



## PratchettFan

Tuatara said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can tell us what exactly atheists worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been there ... done that ... follow the thread . We already did the definitions thing ... Remember ?
> 
> An Atheist = a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. In the mind of an Atheist there is no God and he/she has *Faith in that conviction.*
> 
> An agnostic = a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims *neither faith nor disbelief in God.*
> Religion doesn't necessarily require that there be a God
> 
> By your own admission and definition you are not an Atheist - but more correctly defined you are an Agnostic
> 
> Atheism Is Not A Religion US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a·the·ist
> ˈāTHēəst/
> _noun_
> 
> a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
> "he is a committed atheist"
> 
> synonyms:nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas,agnostic;
> nihilist
> "why is it often assumed that a man of science is probably an atheist?"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):
> 
> 
> Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
> De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
> Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
> Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
> Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
> De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
> Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
> 
> Atheism Is Not A Religion Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So where do you place yourself on that scale ?
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cut that link off short here's the rest...
> 
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed;
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> a particular system of faith and worship.
> plural noun: *religions*
> "the world's great religions"
> *a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. "consumerism is the new religion"*
> 
> The last one seems to fit fanatical Atheism to tee - So by some definitions *Atheism can be considered a Religion *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have to stretch that far then your fanatical obsession to brand atheism as a religion would fit the definition of a religious cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not really a very important  topic ... a rose by any other name is still a rose , and a turd by any other name still smells like shit.  It's just an exercise in Semantics .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, the vast majority of this thread seems to be little more than a semantics argument.  Worse, it's often a semantics argument between people who don't seem to see it as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument on the word belief is a semantics argument but anyone calling atheism a religion is not a semantics argument. It is just plain stupidity.
Click to expand...

 
So it has been written, and thus must be true.  Look up the definition of dogma when you get a chance.


----------



## GreenBean

Buddhism is a Religion 

But it is widely regarded as *an atheistic religion*. Buddhist scriptures either do not promote or actively reject the existence of a creator god, the existence of "lesser" gods who are the source of morality, and that humans owe any duties to any gods. At the same time, though, these scriptures accept the existence of supernatural beings which might be described as gods. Some Buddhists today believe in the existence of such beings and are theists. Others dismiss these beings and are atheists. Since there is nothing about Buddhism which requires belief in gods, atheism in Buddhism is easy to maintain.

The  Jain Religion

For Jains, every soul or spiritual being is worthy of the exact same praise. Because of this, Jains do not worship any "higher" spiritual beings like gods nor do they worship or pay homage to any idols. Jains believe that the universe has always existed and will always exist, so there is no need for any sort of creator god. None of this means that no spiritual beings exist which might be called "gods," however, and thus a Jain might believe in beings which might be considered gods and therefore technically be a theist.* From a Western religious perspective, though, they'd all be atheists.


*
Atheism in Confucian & Taoist Religion:

On a functional level, at least, both Confucianism and Taoism can be considered atheistic. Neither is founded on faith in a creator god like Judeo-Christian Religions are. Neither promote the existence of such a god, either.


Atheism and religion are often portrayed and treated as polar opposites; although there is a strong correlation between being an atheist and being irreligious, there is no necessary and inherent connection between the two. Atheism is not the same as being irreligious; theism is not the same as being religious. Atheists in the West tend not to belong to any religion, *but atheism is quite compatible with religion.  * *If you are Adamant in your beliefs than you have a lot of Faith in your belief and are in effect a religious Atheist
*
Adapted aboutreligion.com


----------



## PostmodernProph

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> why?.....are you fresh out of pointless things to occupy your time?......hell is the antithesis of heaven.......if heaven is pleasant, the antithesis must be unpleasant.....is heaven a "place", is hell a "place"?........is either six miles north of somewhere?.....does it literally have a gate?.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your concept of God and I choose not to go to hell.  If you think I am going to hell regardless of my choice not to, then it is obviously not my choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am only aware of two possible choices.....you can choose to believe or choose not to believe.....anything other than choosing to believe results in consequences that you choose not to believe in.....I cannot attest that this will help you to avoid those consequences....I would say, with confidence, that if you refuse an eternity with schmucks it is not likely you will get the eternity with schmucks......thus you will get the alternative consequence whatever that might be......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Which is akin to my holding a gun to your head.....   You are free to see it differently but to me the moral issue is quite clear.  It is one of the reasons why I have never understood why anyone would be a Christian.  But it would be a funny old world if everyone saw things the same way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> odd.....you claim its a gun to your head but say you have no trouble deciding not to believe.....apparently it isn't as frightening a gun as you say.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this particular case, you have to believe in the gun and I don't.
Click to expand...

then we're at an impasse, as you believe its a gun and I don't.......


----------



## PratchettFan

PostmodernProph said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your concept of God and I choose not to go to hell.  If you think I am going to hell regardless of my choice not to, then it is obviously not my choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am only aware of two possible choices.....you can choose to believe or choose not to believe.....anything other than choosing to believe results in consequences that you choose not to believe in.....I cannot attest that this will help you to avoid those consequences....I would say, with confidence, that if you refuse an eternity with schmucks it is not likely you will get the eternity with schmucks......thus you will get the alternative consequence whatever that might be......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Which is akin to my holding a gun to your head.....   You are free to see it differently but to me the moral issue is quite clear.  It is one of the reasons why I have never understood why anyone would be a Christian.  But it would be a funny old world if everyone saw things the same way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> odd.....you claim its a gun to your head but say you have no trouble deciding not to believe.....apparently it isn't as frightening a gun as you say.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this particular case, you have to believe in the gun and I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then we're at an impasse, as you believe its a gun and I don't.......
Click to expand...

 
You expected agreement?  My friend, if I thought for a second I might actually change your basic beliefs I wouldn't engage in any conversation with you.  You can take it as a given whatever I might say here is my opinion, unless I present it as a fact and provide hard evidence to back it up.  My opinion is no better than yours.  If you simply understand what I am trying to get across, that is more than enough.  I am fine with you thinking that opinion a load of garbage.


----------



## Carla_Danger

GreenBean said:


> Buddhism is a Religion
> 
> But it is widely regarded as *an atheistic religion*. Buddhist scriptures either do not promote or actively reject the existence of a creator god, the existence of "lesser" gods who are the source of morality, and that humans owe any duties to any gods. At the same time, though, these scriptures accept the existence of supernatural beings which might be described as gods. Some Buddhists today believe in the existence of such beings and are theists. Others dismiss these beings and are atheists. Since there is nothing about Buddhism which requires belief in gods, atheism in Buddhism is easy to maintain.
> 
> The  Jain Religion
> 
> For Jains, every soul or spiritual being is worthy of the exact same praise. Because of this, Jains do not worship any "higher" spiritual beings like gods nor do they worship or pay homage to any idols. Jains believe that the universe has always existed and will always exist, so there is no need for any sort of creator god. None of this means that no spiritual beings exist which might be called "gods," however, and thus a Jain might believe in beings which might be considered gods and therefore technically be a theist.* From a Western religious perspective, though, they'd all be atheists.
> 
> 
> *
> Atheism in Confucian & Taoist Religion:
> 
> On a functional level, at least, both Confucianism and Taoism can be considered atheistic. Neither is founded on faith in a creator god like Judeo-Christian Religions are. Neither promote the existence of such a god, either.
> 
> 
> Atheism and religion are often portrayed and treated as polar opposites; although there is a strong correlation between being an atheist and being irreligious, there is no necessary and inherent connection between the two. Atheism is not the same as being irreligious; theism is not the same as being religious. Atheists in the West tend not to belong to any religion, *but atheism is quite compatible with religion.  * *If you are Adamant in your beliefs than you have a lot of Faith in your belief and are in effect a religious Atheist
> *
> Adapted aboutreligion.com










Austin Cline


Instead of adding your own definition, maybe you should read more, and cherry pick less.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any religion that doesn't worship or have a specific spiritual practice, but i suppose what sets atheists apart is not having an organized belief system that is required in order to be considered a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me take a different approach.  Let us say we have two groups.  One believes that Jesus is about to come and gather them up into heaven.  They spend their days in prayer and preparation and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip.  Then we have another group who believes aliens are going to take them to their planet.  The work hard to prepare themselves and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip.  Now, you might say the first was religion and the second was not.  But I have to wonder what the actual practical difference is between the two might be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  One is a cult, and one is a group of lunatics. What's that got to do with atheists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has to do with defining religion.  The fact that one group is focused on Jesus and the other on aliens really matters?  That they acted in exactly the same way makes no difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous, because not all atheists believe in aliens. I'm sure there's gotta be a couple out there somewhere, but there is no group. Believing in aliens is also not a religion.
> 
> I believe in illegal aliens, is that a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you, this is about defining religion.  I'm trying to wrap my mind around the suggestion that two groups acting in exactly the same manner are different because one believes in Jesus and the other in aliens.  Because what that means is how a group acts is not important, only what they believe.  Doesn't that position sound familiar to you?
Click to expand...




No, that's BS.

You're trying to lump me/us into a group where we don't belong. I don't believe in God or aliens.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me take a different approach.  Let us say we have two groups.  One believes that Jesus is about to come and gather them up into heaven.  They spend their days in prayer and preparation and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip.  Then we have another group who believes aliens are going to take them to their planet.  The work hard to prepare themselves and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip.  Now, you might say the first was religion and the second was not.  But I have to wonder what the actual practical difference is between the two might be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  One is a cult, and one is a group of lunatics. What's that got to do with atheists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has to do with defining religion.  The fact that one group is focused on Jesus and the other on aliens really matters?  That they acted in exactly the same way makes no difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous, because not all atheists believe in aliens. I'm sure there's gotta be a couple out there somewhere, but there is no group. Believing in aliens is also not a religion.
> 
> I believe in illegal aliens, is that a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you, this is about defining religion.  I'm trying to wrap my mind around the suggestion that two groups acting in exactly the same manner are different because one believes in Jesus and the other in aliens.  Because what that means is how a group acts is not important, only what they believe.  Doesn't that position sound familiar to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's BS.
> 
> You're trying to lump me/us into a group where we don't belong. I don't believe in God or aliens.
Click to expand...

 
What is BS?  You differentiated between two groups and the only difference between them was what they believed.  One you saw as a cult and the other a group of lunatics.  I am dealing with what you write.  If you wish to clarify what you wrote, that is fine.


----------



## Carla_Danger

GreenBean said:


> Buddhism is a Religion
> 
> But it is widely regarded as *an atheistic religion*. Buddhist scriptures either do not promote or actively reject the existence of a creator god, the existence of "lesser" gods who are the source of morality, and that humans owe any duties to any gods. At the same time, though, these scriptures accept the existence of supernatural beings which might be described as gods. Some Buddhists today believe in the existence of such beings and are theists. Others dismiss these beings and are atheists. Since there is nothing about Buddhism which requires belief in gods, atheism in Buddhism is easy to maintain.
> 
> The  Jain Religion
> 
> For Jains, every soul or spiritual being is worthy of the exact same praise. Because of this, Jains do not worship any "higher" spiritual beings like gods nor do they worship or pay homage to any idols. Jains believe that the universe has always existed and will always exist, so there is no need for any sort of creator god. None of this means that no spiritual beings exist which might be called "gods," however, and thus a Jain might believe in beings which might be considered gods and therefore technically be a theist.* From a Western religious perspective, though, they'd all be atheists.
> 
> 
> *
> Atheism in Confucian & Taoist Religion:
> 
> On a functional level, at least, both Confucianism and Taoism can be considered atheistic. Neither is founded on faith in a creator god like Judeo-Christian Religions are. Neither promote the existence of such a god, either.
> 
> 
> Atheism and religion are often portrayed and treated as polar opposites; although there is a strong correlation between being an atheist and being irreligious, there is no necessary and inherent connection between the two. Atheism is not the same as being irreligious; theism is not the same as being religious. Atheists in the West tend not to belong to any religion, *but atheism is quite compatible with religion.  * *If you are Adamant in your beliefs than you have a lot of Faith in your belief and are in effect a religious Atheist
> *
> Adapted aboutreligion.com




I see, You're just making shit up. Obviously, you can't comprehend what you are reading. This is from your link.

*Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy*

Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.

Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  One is a cult, and one is a group of lunatics. What's that got to do with atheists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with defining religion.  The fact that one group is focused on Jesus and the other on aliens really matters?  That they acted in exactly the same way makes no difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous, because not all atheists believe in aliens. I'm sure there's gotta be a couple out there somewhere, but there is no group. Believing in aliens is also not a religion.
> 
> I believe in illegal aliens, is that a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you, this is about defining religion.  I'm trying to wrap my mind around the suggestion that two groups acting in exactly the same manner are different because one believes in Jesus and the other in aliens.  Because what that means is how a group acts is not important, only what they believe.  Doesn't that position sound familiar to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's BS.
> 
> You're trying to lump me/us into a group where we don't belong. I don't believe in God or aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is BS?  You differentiated between two groups and the only difference between them was what they believed.  One you saw as a cult and the other a group of lunatics.  I am dealing with what you write.  If you wish to clarify what you wrote, that is fine.
Click to expand...



No, the difference is that they believe, and atheist don't. Your example is completely flawed. You're using two groups that  have faith/belief in something that have no evidence of their existence.

Atheism is the exact opposite.

*Here's your comparison:*
Let us say we have two groups. One believes that Jesus is about to come and gather them up into heaven. They spend their days in prayer and preparation and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip. Then we have another group who believes aliens are going to take them to their planet. The work hard to prepare themselves and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip. Now, you might say the first was religion and the second was not. But I have to wonder what the actual practical difference is between the two might be.

*Here's an appropriate comparison:*
Let us say we have two groups. One believes that Jesus is about to come and gather them up into heaven. They spend their days in prayer and preparation and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip.

The group of atheist do not believe in God, nor do they believe in aliens, they do not spend their days in prayer and preparation, and they do not take poison together. Most atheists don't even belong to any sort of group, but the ones who do get together, are singing, having coffee cake, and chatting about the cult that just died from poison, and how they wasted their short, precious lives, because they put all their faith in a charismatic, manipulating, cult leader.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with defining religion.  The fact that one group is focused on Jesus and the other on aliens really matters?  That they acted in exactly the same way makes no difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous, because not all atheists believe in aliens. I'm sure there's gotta be a couple out there somewhere, but there is no group. Believing in aliens is also not a religion.
> 
> I believe in illegal aliens, is that a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you, this is about defining religion.  I'm trying to wrap my mind around the suggestion that two groups acting in exactly the same manner are different because one believes in Jesus and the other in aliens.  Because what that means is how a group acts is not important, only what they believe.  Doesn't that position sound familiar to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's BS.
> 
> You're trying to lump me/us into a group where we don't belong. I don't believe in God or aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is BS?  You differentiated between two groups and the only difference between them was what they believed.  One you saw as a cult and the other a group of lunatics.  I am dealing with what you write.  If you wish to clarify what you wrote, that is fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, the difference is that they believe, and atheist don't. Your example is completely flawed. You're using two groups that  have faith/belief in something that have no evidence of their existence.
> 
> Atheism is the exact opposite.
> 
> *Here's your comparison:*
> Let us say we have two groups. One believes that Jesus is about to come and gather them up into heaven. They spend their days in prayer and preparation and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip. Then we have another group who believes aliens are going to take them to their planet. The work hard to prepare themselves and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip. Now, you might say the first was religion and the second was not. But I have to wonder what the actual practical difference is between the two might be.
> 
> *Here's an appropriate comparison:*
> Let us say we have two groups. One believes that Jesus is about to come and gather them up into heaven. They spend their days in prayer and preparation and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip.
> 
> The group of atheist do not believe in God, nor do they believe in aliens, they do not spend their days in prayer and preparation, and they do not take poison together. Most atheists don't even belong to any sort of group, but the ones who do get together, are singing, having coffee cake, and chatting about the cult that just died from poison, and how they wasted their short, precious, life, because they put all their faith in a charismatic, manipulating, cult leader.
Click to expand...

 
No, I am comparing two groups to determine what factors we are looking for.  I am isolating the factors so they can either be accepted or rejected.  You have indicated what is believed is important.  If that was not your intent, then clarify it for me.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous, because not all atheists believe in aliens. I'm sure there's gotta be a couple out there somewhere, but there is no group. Believing in aliens is also not a religion.
> 
> I believe in illegal aliens, is that a religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you, this is about defining religion.  I'm trying to wrap my mind around the suggestion that two groups acting in exactly the same manner are different because one believes in Jesus and the other in aliens.  Because what that means is how a group acts is not important, only what they believe.  Doesn't that position sound familiar to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's BS.
> 
> You're trying to lump me/us into a group where we don't belong. I don't believe in God or aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is BS?  You differentiated between two groups and the only difference between them was what they believed.  One you saw as a cult and the other a group of lunatics.  I am dealing with what you write.  If you wish to clarify what you wrote, that is fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, the difference is that they believe, and atheist don't. Your example is completely flawed. You're using two groups that  have faith/belief in something that have no evidence of their existence.
> 
> Atheism is the exact opposite.
> 
> *Here's your comparison:*
> Let us say we have two groups. One believes that Jesus is about to come and gather them up into heaven. They spend their days in prayer and preparation and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip. Then we have another group who believes aliens are going to take them to their planet. The work hard to prepare themselves and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip. Now, you might say the first was religion and the second was not. But I have to wonder what the actual practical difference is between the two might be.
> 
> *Here's an appropriate comparison:*
> Let us say we have two groups. One believes that Jesus is about to come and gather them up into heaven. They spend their days in prayer and preparation and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip.
> 
> The group of atheist do not believe in God, nor do they believe in aliens, they do not spend their days in prayer and preparation, and they do not take poison together. Most atheists don't even belong to any sort of group, but the ones who do get together, are singing, having coffee cake, and chatting about the cult that just died from poison, and how they wasted their short, precious, life, because they put all their faith in a charismatic, manipulating, cult leader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am comparing two groups to determine what factors we are looking for.  I am isolating the factors so they can either be accepted or rejected.  You have indicated what is believed is important.  If that was not your intent, then clarify it for me.
Click to expand...



Sigh.  You are comparing two groups of believers.

Let me know when you come up with a comparison for one group who believes, and one group who doesn't.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note that even a strong atheist can't be 100% sure something didn't create everything we see.  They would have to be a god themselves to say that.  They may be referring to the "god" that has supposedly visited us 5000, then 2000, then 500 and then 200 years ago.  Those gods we are 100% sure are made up because they are too unbelievable to even give a slim chance of being real.  Talking snakes, 350 year old men, virgin births, living in a whales belly for 3 days and living and of course the resurrection of Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do idiots insit that their beliefs limit the beliefs of other people?
Click to expand...


They can have at it.  What else besides go to church early Sunday, pray 5 times a day, take weird vacation days for religious reasons, wash their feet in my sink or tell me I'm going to go to hell do you want them to be able to do?  

What do you think I'm limiting them on?  

When two people disagree, each side is telling the other side their beliefs are wrong.  I don't want to limit your belief.  I'm trying to help you realize you are in a fantasy world.  Especially when you try to impose it on the rest of society.  When your side stops saying this is a Judao Christian country we'll stop attacking your stupid beliefs.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you, this is about defining religion.  I'm trying to wrap my mind around the suggestion that two groups acting in exactly the same manner are different because one believes in Jesus and the other in aliens.  Because what that means is how a group acts is not important, only what they believe.  Doesn't that position sound familiar to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's BS.
> 
> You're trying to lump me/us into a group where we don't belong. I don't believe in God or aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is BS?  You differentiated between two groups and the only difference between them was what they believed.  One you saw as a cult and the other a group of lunatics.  I am dealing with what you write.  If you wish to clarify what you wrote, that is fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, the difference is that they believe, and atheist don't. Your example is completely flawed. You're using two groups that  have faith/belief in something that have no evidence of their existence.
> 
> Atheism is the exact opposite.
> 
> *Here's your comparison:*
> Let us say we have two groups. One believes that Jesus is about to come and gather them up into heaven. They spend their days in prayer and preparation and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip. Then we have another group who believes aliens are going to take them to their planet. The work hard to prepare themselves and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip. Now, you might say the first was religion and the second was not. But I have to wonder what the actual practical difference is between the two might be.
> 
> *Here's an appropriate comparison:*
> Let us say we have two groups. One believes that Jesus is about to come and gather them up into heaven. They spend their days in prayer and preparation and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip.
> 
> The group of atheist do not believe in God, nor do they believe in aliens, they do not spend their days in prayer and preparation, and they do not take poison together. Most atheists don't even belong to any sort of group, but the ones who do get together, are singing, having coffee cake, and chatting about the cult that just died from poison, and how they wasted their short, precious, life, because they put all their faith in a charismatic, manipulating, cult leader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am comparing two groups to determine what factors we are looking for.  I am isolating the factors so they can either be accepted or rejected.  You have indicated what is believed is important.  If that was not your intent, then clarify it for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  You are comparing two groups of believers.
> 
> Let me know when you come up with a comparison for one group who believes, and one group who doesn't.
Click to expand...

 
Yes.  That is how it works.  If you want to find out if what is believed matters, you have to compare two groups of believers where the only difference is what is believed.

You say you are not involved in religion, why do you insist upon keeping at the level of religion?


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't worship anything, I would say you're not in a religion.  I mean, really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  We have something to actually work with.  Why is worship required for something to be a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any religion that doesn't worship or have a specific spiritual practice, but i suppose what sets atheists apart is not having an organized belief system that is required in order to be considered a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen quite a bit of organization amongst Atheists, all around a core belief system.  There are associations, organizations, even churches.  Heck, there is even a bloody dating site.  No, that claim is not going to hold water.
> 
> Saying you don't know of a religion doesn't mean there isn't one.  I certainly consider my faith a religion and I do not worship or engage in specific spiritual practices.  If we are going to make any determination in this question we must first establish what religion is.  But I am more than willing to consider this so long as it is done without prejudice.
> 
> What actually constitutes worship?  We can go with the primary definition of showing love and respect to a god.  But does it have to be positive?  Love and hate may not be the same emotion but they are still emotions.  Would not showing hate and disrespect to a god be just as emotional an experience as love and respect?  If not, what would we call it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are our core beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The belief there is no god.  I would think that obvious.  And remember, any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, so unless you suddenly have some evidence we have established that you do have beliefs.
Click to expand...


There is a difference between believing something and not believing in something.  I've seen great videos that go into great depth explaining the difference.  Not going to waste my time finding it and posting it again.  Fact is, I may or may not believe anything you claim.  If you told me you were bald I'd believe you but what proof do I have?  If you told me you were a perfect 10 I wouldn't believe you but what proof would I have?  

Maybe this is the difference?

Believe is a verb. Belief is a noun.

"I believe in him."
"I challenge his belief."

I don't believe.  That doesn't mean I have a belief.  They do!  I'm just challenging it.  

But then I can't say IT because then I'm challenging god again:

it
_pronoun_

*1*.
used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified.


*2*.
used to identify a person.
"it's me"
But would anyone refer to God as IT?


----------



## sealybobo

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you, this is about defining religion.  I'm trying to wrap my mind around the suggestion that two groups acting in exactly the same manner are different because one believes in Jesus and the other in aliens.  Because what that means is how a group acts is not important, only what they believe.  Doesn't that position sound familiar to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's BS.
> 
> You're trying to lump me/us into a group where we don't belong. I don't believe in God or aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is BS?  You differentiated between two groups and the only difference between them was what they believed.  One you saw as a cult and the other a group of lunatics.  I am dealing with what you write.  If you wish to clarify what you wrote, that is fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, the difference is that they believe, and atheist don't. Your example is completely flawed. You're using two groups that  have faith/belief in something that have no evidence of their existence.
> 
> Atheism is the exact opposite.
> 
> *Here's your comparison:*
> Let us say we have two groups. One believes that Jesus is about to come and gather them up into heaven. They spend their days in prayer and preparation and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip. Then we have another group who believes aliens are going to take them to their planet. The work hard to prepare themselves and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip. Now, you might say the first was religion and the second was not. But I have to wonder what the actual practical difference is between the two might be.
> 
> *Here's an appropriate comparison:*
> Let us say we have two groups. One believes that Jesus is about to come and gather them up into heaven. They spend their days in prayer and preparation and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip.
> 
> The group of atheist do not believe in God, nor do they believe in aliens, they do not spend their days in prayer and preparation, and they do not take poison together. Most atheists don't even belong to any sort of group, but the ones who do get together, are singing, having coffee cake, and chatting about the cult that just died from poison, and how they wasted their short, precious, life, because they put all their faith in a charismatic, manipulating, cult leader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am comparing two groups to determine what factors we are looking for.  I am isolating the factors so they can either be accepted or rejected.  You have indicated what is believed is important.  If that was not your intent, then clarify it for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  You are comparing two groups of believers.
> 
> Let me know when you come up with a comparison for one group who believes, and one group who doesn't.
Click to expand...


Atheists are more peaceful EP07398441 c.pdf - Google Drive

doi - Google Drive

And number 11

Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy [2][3], lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.

Why there is no god


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  We have something to actually work with.  Why is worship required for something to be a religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any religion that doesn't worship or have a specific spiritual practice, but i suppose what sets atheists apart is not having an organized belief system that is required in order to be considered a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen quite a bit of organization amongst Atheists, all around a core belief system.  There are associations, organizations, even churches.  Heck, there is even a bloody dating site.  No, that claim is not going to hold water.
> 
> Saying you don't know of a religion doesn't mean there isn't one.  I certainly consider my faith a religion and I do not worship or engage in specific spiritual practices.  If we are going to make any determination in this question we must first establish what religion is.  But I am more than willing to consider this so long as it is done without prejudice.
> 
> What actually constitutes worship?  We can go with the primary definition of showing love and respect to a god.  But does it have to be positive?  Love and hate may not be the same emotion but they are still emotions.  Would not showing hate and disrespect to a god be just as emotional an experience as love and respect?  If not, what would we call it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are our core beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The belief there is no god.  I would think that obvious.  And remember, any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, so unless you suddenly have some evidence we have established that you do have beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between believing something and not believing in something.  I've seen great videos that go into great depth explaining the difference.  Not going to waste my time finding it and posting it again.  Fact is, I may or may not believe anything you claim.  If you told me you were bald I'd believe you but what proof do I have?  If you told me you were a perfect 10 I wouldn't believe you but what proof would I have?
> 
> Maybe this is the difference?
> 
> Believe is a verb. Belief is a noun.
> 
> "I believe in him."
> "I challenge his belief."
> 
> I don't believe.  That doesn't mean I have a belief.  They do!  I'm just challenging it.
> 
> But then I can't say IT because then I'm challenging god again:
> 
> it
> _pronoun_
> 
> *1*.
> used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified.
> *2*.
> used to identify a person.
> "it's me"
> But would anyone refer to God as IT?
Click to expand...

 
I refer to God all the time as an it.  If it has a sex at all, it is more likely to be female than male. 

As to the rest, bollocks.  Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief.  Not a single person on this or any other board has ever challenged that statement, because it really can't be challenged.  You have made many posts just chock full of belief.  This claim being made that belief is not belief is just dogma.  It is, in fact, the one thing which convinces me that Atheism is being treated as a religion.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's BS.
> 
> You're trying to lump me/us into a group where we don't belong. I don't believe in God or aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is BS?  You differentiated between two groups and the only difference between them was what they believed.  One you saw as a cult and the other a group of lunatics.  I am dealing with what you write.  If you wish to clarify what you wrote, that is fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, the difference is that they believe, and atheist don't. Your example is completely flawed. You're using two groups that  have faith/belief in something that have no evidence of their existence.
> 
> Atheism is the exact opposite.
> 
> *Here's your comparison:*
> Let us say we have two groups. One believes that Jesus is about to come and gather them up into heaven. They spend their days in prayer and preparation and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip. Then we have another group who believes aliens are going to take them to their planet. The work hard to prepare themselves and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip. Now, you might say the first was religion and the second was not. But I have to wonder what the actual practical difference is between the two might be.
> 
> *Here's an appropriate comparison:*
> Let us say we have two groups. One believes that Jesus is about to come and gather them up into heaven. They spend their days in prayer and preparation and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip.
> 
> The group of atheist do not believe in God, nor do they believe in aliens, they do not spend their days in prayer and preparation, and they do not take poison together. Most atheists don't even belong to any sort of group, but the ones who do get together, are singing, having coffee cake, and chatting about the cult that just died from poison, and how they wasted their short, precious, life, because they put all their faith in a charismatic, manipulating, cult leader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am comparing two groups to determine what factors we are looking for.  I am isolating the factors so they can either be accepted or rejected.  You have indicated what is believed is important.  If that was not your intent, then clarify it for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  You are comparing two groups of believers.
> 
> Let me know when you come up with a comparison for one group who believes, and one group who doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is how it works.  If you want to find out if what is believed matters, you have to compare two groups of believers where the only difference is what is believed.
> 
> You say you are not involved in religion, why do you insist upon keeping at the level of religion?
Click to expand...



That's how it works when you're trying to make up your own definition. Again, that's incorrect because atheism is the absence of one particular belief for which you are comparing.

And the question is....why do you insist upon keeping atheism on the same level as religion?


----------



## GreenBean

Carla_Danger said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buddhism is a Religion
> 
> But it is widely regarded as *an atheistic religion*. Buddhist scriptures either do not promote or actively reject the existence of a creator god, the existence of "lesser" gods who are the source of morality, and that humans owe any duties to any gods. At the same time, though, these scriptures accept the existence of supernatural beings which might be described as gods. Some Buddhists today believe in the existence of such beings and are theists. Others dismiss these beings and are atheists. Since there is nothing about Buddhism which requires belief in gods, atheism in Buddhism is easy to maintain.
> 
> The  Jain Religion
> 
> For Jains, every soul or spiritual being is worthy of the exact same praise. Because of this, Jains do not worship any "higher" spiritual beings like gods nor do they worship or pay homage to any idols. Jains believe that the universe has always existed and will always exist, so there is no need for any sort of creator god. None of this means that no spiritual beings exist which might be called "gods," however, and thus a Jain might believe in beings which might be considered gods and therefore technically be a theist.* From a Western religious perspective, though, they'd all be atheists.
> 
> 
> *
> Atheism in Confucian & Taoist Religion:
> 
> On a functional level, at least, both Confucianism and Taoism can be considered atheistic. Neither is founded on faith in a creator god like Judeo-Christian Religions are. Neither promote the existence of such a god, either.
> 
> 
> Atheism and religion are often portrayed and treated as polar opposites; although there is a strong correlation between being an atheist and being irreligious, there is no necessary and inherent connection between the two. Atheism is not the same as being irreligious; theism is not the same as being religious. Atheists in the West tend not to belong to any religion, *but atheism is quite compatible with religion.  * *If you are Adamant in your beliefs than you have a lot of Faith in your belief and are in effect a religious Atheist
> *
> Adapted aboutreligion.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, You're just making shit up. Obviously, you can't comprehend what you are reading. This is from your link.
> 
> *Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy*
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.
> 
> Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar
Click to expand...



And I see you are Cherry Picking ... HOWEVER ... you made a very good point whether you realize it or not.  From the above paragraph.

*Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. *

*Now* - here's something you will probably never hear on the USMessage boards again - You are Right - I concede - regards and congratulations on a job well done.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any religion that doesn't worship or have a specific spiritual practice, but i suppose what sets atheists apart is not having an organized belief system that is required in order to be considered a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen quite a bit of organization amongst Atheists, all around a core belief system.  There are associations, organizations, even churches.  Heck, there is even a bloody dating site.  No, that claim is not going to hold water.
> 
> Saying you don't know of a religion doesn't mean there isn't one.  I certainly consider my faith a religion and I do not worship or engage in specific spiritual practices.  If we are going to make any determination in this question we must first establish what religion is.  But I am more than willing to consider this so long as it is done without prejudice.
> 
> What actually constitutes worship?  We can go with the primary definition of showing love and respect to a god.  But does it have to be positive?  Love and hate may not be the same emotion but they are still emotions.  Would not showing hate and disrespect to a god be just as emotional an experience as love and respect?  If not, what would we call it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are our core beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The belief there is no god.  I would think that obvious.  And remember, any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, so unless you suddenly have some evidence we have established that you do have beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between believing something and not believing in something.  I've seen great videos that go into great depth explaining the difference.  Not going to waste my time finding it and posting it again.  Fact is, I may or may not believe anything you claim.  If you told me you were bald I'd believe you but what proof do I have?  If you told me you were a perfect 10 I wouldn't believe you but what proof would I have?
> 
> Maybe this is the difference?
> 
> Believe is a verb. Belief is a noun.
> 
> "I believe in him."
> "I challenge his belief."
> 
> I don't believe.  That doesn't mean I have a belief.  They do!  I'm just challenging it.
> 
> But then I can't say IT because then I'm challenging god again:
> 
> it
> _pronoun_
> 
> *1*.
> used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified.
> *2*.
> used to identify a person.
> "it's me"
> But would anyone refer to God as IT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I refer to God all the time as an it.  If it has a sex at all, *it is more likely to be female than male*.
> 
> As to the rest, bollocks.  Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief.  Not a single person on this or any other board has ever challenged that statement, because it really can't be challenged.  You have made many posts just chock full of belief.  This claim being made that belief is not belief is just dogma.  It is, in fact, the one thing which convinces me that Atheism is being treated as a religion.
Click to expand...



Is that a strong belief? Why are you treating Agnosticism like a religion?


----------



## Carla_Danger

GreenBean said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buddhism is a Religion
> 
> But it is widely regarded as *an atheistic religion*. Buddhist scriptures either do not promote or actively reject the existence of a creator god, the existence of "lesser" gods who are the source of morality, and that humans owe any duties to any gods. At the same time, though, these scriptures accept the existence of supernatural beings which might be described as gods. Some Buddhists today believe in the existence of such beings and are theists. Others dismiss these beings and are atheists. Since there is nothing about Buddhism which requires belief in gods, atheism in Buddhism is easy to maintain.
> 
> The  Jain Religion
> 
> For Jains, every soul or spiritual being is worthy of the exact same praise. Because of this, Jains do not worship any "higher" spiritual beings like gods nor do they worship or pay homage to any idols. Jains believe that the universe has always existed and will always exist, so there is no need for any sort of creator god. None of this means that no spiritual beings exist which might be called "gods," however, and thus a Jain might believe in beings which might be considered gods and therefore technically be a theist.* From a Western religious perspective, though, they'd all be atheists.
> 
> 
> *
> Atheism in Confucian & Taoist Religion:
> 
> On a functional level, at least, both Confucianism and Taoism can be considered atheistic. Neither is founded on faith in a creator god like Judeo-Christian Religions are. Neither promote the existence of such a god, either.
> 
> 
> Atheism and religion are often portrayed and treated as polar opposites; although there is a strong correlation between being an atheist and being irreligious, there is no necessary and inherent connection between the two. Atheism is not the same as being irreligious; theism is not the same as being religious. Atheists in the West tend not to belong to any religion, *but atheism is quite compatible with religion.  * *If you are Adamant in your beliefs than you have a lot of Faith in your belief and are in effect a religious Atheist
> *
> Adapted aboutreligion.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, You're just making shit up. Obviously, you can't comprehend what you are reading. This is from your link.
> 
> *Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy*
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.
> 
> Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I see you are Cherry Picking ... HOWEVER ... you made a very good point whether you realize it or not.  From the above paragraph.
> 
> *Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. *
> 
> *Now* - here's something you will probably never hear on the USMessage boards again - You are Right - I concede - regards and congratulations on a job well done.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any religion that doesn't worship or have a specific spiritual practice, but i suppose what sets atheists apart is not having an organized belief system that is required in order to be considered a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen quite a bit of organization amongst Atheists, all around a core belief system.  There are associations, organizations, even churches.  Heck, there is even a bloody dating site.  No, that claim is not going to hold water.
> 
> Saying you don't know of a religion doesn't mean there isn't one.  I certainly consider my faith a religion and I do not worship or engage in specific spiritual practices.  If we are going to make any determination in this question we must first establish what religion is.  But I am more than willing to consider this so long as it is done without prejudice.
> 
> What actually constitutes worship?  We can go with the primary definition of showing love and respect to a god.  But does it have to be positive?  Love and hate may not be the same emotion but they are still emotions.  Would not showing hate and disrespect to a god be just as emotional an experience as love and respect?  If not, what would we call it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are our core beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The belief there is no god.  I would think that obvious.  And remember, any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, so unless you suddenly have some evidence we have established that you do have beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between believing something and not believing in something.  I've seen great videos that go into great depth explaining the difference.  Not going to waste my time finding it and posting it again.  Fact is, I may or may not believe anything you claim.  If you told me you were bald I'd believe you but what proof do I have?  If you told me you were a perfect 10 I wouldn't believe you but what proof would I have?
> 
> Maybe this is the difference?
> 
> Believe is a verb. Belief is a noun.
> 
> "I believe in him."
> "I challenge his belief."
> 
> I don't believe.  That doesn't mean I have a belief.  They do!  I'm just challenging it.
> 
> But then I can't say IT because then I'm challenging god again:
> 
> it
> _pronoun_
> 
> *1*.
> used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified.
> *2*.
> used to identify a person.
> "it's me"
> But would anyone refer to God as IT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I refer to God all the time as an it.  If it has a sex at all, it is more likely to be female than male.
> 
> As to the rest, bollocks.  Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief.  Not a single person on this or any other board has ever challenged that statement, because it really can't be challenged.  You have made many posts just chock full of belief.  This claim being made that belief is not belief is just dogma.  It is, in fact, the one thing which convinces me that Atheism is being treated as a religion.
Click to expand...


So I'm your first?  

Do you have 10 minutes to learn the differences and why you are wrong? 


Once you have listened to this then argue.  In fact, just listen for 1 minute and if you aren't interested in what you are hearing then stop.


----------



## Carla_Danger

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen quite a bit of organization amongst Atheists, all around a core belief system.  There are associations, organizations, even churches.  Heck, there is even a bloody dating site.  No, that claim is not going to hold water.
> 
> Saying you don't know of a religion doesn't mean there isn't one.  I certainly consider my faith a religion and I do not worship or engage in specific spiritual practices.  If we are going to make any determination in this question we must first establish what religion is.  But I am more than willing to consider this so long as it is done without prejudice.
> 
> What actually constitutes worship?  We can go with the primary definition of showing love and respect to a god.  But does it have to be positive?  Love and hate may not be the same emotion but they are still emotions.  Would not showing hate and disrespect to a god be just as emotional an experience as love and respect?  If not, what would we call it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are our core beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The belief there is no god.  I would think that obvious.  And remember, any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, so unless you suddenly have some evidence we have established that you do have beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between believing something and not believing in something.  I've seen great videos that go into great depth explaining the difference.  Not going to waste my time finding it and posting it again.  Fact is, I may or may not believe anything you claim.  If you told me you were bald I'd believe you but what proof do I have?  If you told me you were a perfect 10 I wouldn't believe you but what proof would I have?
> 
> Maybe this is the difference?
> 
> Believe is a verb. Belief is a noun.
> 
> "I believe in him."
> "I challenge his belief."
> 
> I don't believe.  That doesn't mean I have a belief.  They do!  I'm just challenging it.
> 
> But then I can't say IT because then I'm challenging god again:
> 
> it
> _pronoun_
> 
> *1*.
> used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified.
> *2*.
> used to identify a person.
> "it's me"
> But would anyone refer to God as IT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I refer to God all the time as an it.  If it has a sex at all, it is more likely to be female than male.
> 
> As to the rest, bollocks.  Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief.  Not a single person on this or any other board has ever challenged that statement, because it really can't be challenged.  You have made many posts just chock full of belief.  This claim being made that belief is not belief is just dogma.  It is, in fact, the one thing which convinces me that Atheism is being treated as a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I'm your first?
> 
> Do you have 10 minutes to learn the differences and why you are wrong?
> 
> 
> Once you have listened to this then argue.  In fact, just listen for 1 minute and if you aren't interested in what you are hearing then stop.
Click to expand...




Now that was interesting!  Thanks!


----------



## sealybobo

Carla_Danger said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are our core beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The belief there is no god.  I would think that obvious.  And remember, any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, so unless you suddenly have some evidence we have established that you do have beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between believing something and not believing in something.  I've seen great videos that go into great depth explaining the difference.  Not going to waste my time finding it and posting it again.  Fact is, I may or may not believe anything you claim.  If you told me you were bald I'd believe you but what proof do I have?  If you told me you were a perfect 10 I wouldn't believe you but what proof would I have?
> 
> Maybe this is the difference?
> 
> Believe is a verb. Belief is a noun.
> 
> "I believe in him."
> "I challenge his belief."
> 
> I don't believe.  That doesn't mean I have a belief.  They do!  I'm just challenging it.
> 
> But then I can't say IT because then I'm challenging god again:
> 
> it
> _pronoun_
> 
> *1*.
> used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified.
> *2*.
> used to identify a person.
> "it's me"
> But would anyone refer to God as IT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I refer to God all the time as an it.  If it has a sex at all, it is more likely to be female than male.
> 
> As to the rest, bollocks.  Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief.  Not a single person on this or any other board has ever challenged that statement, because it really can't be challenged.  You have made many posts just chock full of belief.  This claim being made that belief is not belief is just dogma.  It is, in fact, the one thing which convinces me that Atheism is being treated as a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I'm your first?
> 
> Do you have 10 minutes to learn the differences and why you are wrong?
> 
> 
> Once you have listened to this then argue.  In fact, just listen for 1 minute and if you aren't interested in what you are hearing then stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that was interesting!  Thanks!
Click to expand...


Wouldn't be surprised if PratchettFan is a slower reader than you but why's it taking him longer than you to watch the video?

Maybe he's slower at typing or MAYBE he's responding with a 20 paragraph well thought out reply on why that guy in the video is wrong.  I doubt it.  Slower typing skills yes but gonna reply intelligently NO.


----------



## GreenBean

Carla_Danger said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buddhism is a Religion
> 
> But it is widely regarded as *an atheistic religion*. Buddhist scriptures either do not promote or actively reject the existence of a creator god, the existence of "lesser" gods who are the source of morality, and that humans owe any duties to any gods. At the same time, though, these scriptures accept the existence of supernatural beings which might be described as gods. Some Buddhists today believe in the existence of such beings and are theists. Others dismiss these beings and are atheists. Since there is nothing about Buddhism which requires belief in gods, atheism in Buddhism is easy to maintain.
> 
> The  Jain Religion
> 
> For Jains, every soul or spiritual being is worthy of the exact same praise. Because of this, Jains do not worship any "higher" spiritual beings like gods nor do they worship or pay homage to any idols. Jains believe that the universe has always existed and will always exist, so there is no need for any sort of creator god. None of this means that no spiritual beings exist which might be called "gods," however, and thus a Jain might believe in beings which might be considered gods and therefore technically be a theist.* From a Western religious perspective, though, they'd all be atheists.
> 
> 
> *
> Atheism in Confucian & Taoist Religion:
> 
> On a functional level, at least, both Confucianism and Taoism can be considered atheistic. Neither is founded on faith in a creator god like Judeo-Christian Religions are. Neither promote the existence of such a god, either.
> 
> 
> Atheism and religion are often portrayed and treated as polar opposites; although there is a strong correlation between being an atheist and being irreligious, there is no necessary and inherent connection between the two. Atheism is not the same as being irreligious; theism is not the same as being religious. Atheists in the West tend not to belong to any religion, *but atheism is quite compatible with religion.  * *If you are Adamant in your beliefs than you have a lot of Faith in your belief and are in effect a religious Atheist
> *
> Adapted aboutreligion.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, You're just making shit up. Obviously, you can't comprehend what you are reading. This is from your link.
> 
> *Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy*
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.
> 
> Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I see you are Cherry Picking ... HOWEVER ... you made a very good point whether you realize it or not.  From the above paragraph.
> 
> *Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. *
> 
> *Now* - here's something you will probably never hear on the USMessage boards again - You are Right - I concede - regards and congratulations on a job well done.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> They can have at it.  What else besides go to church early Sunday, pray 5 times a day, take weird vacation days for religious reasons, wash their feet in my sink or tell me I'm going to go to hell do you want them to be able to do?
> 
> What do you think I'm limiting them on?
> 
> When two people disagree, each side is telling the other side their beliefs are wrong.  I don't want to limit your belief.  I'm trying to help you realize you are in a fantasy world.  Especially when you try to impose it on the rest of society.  When your side stops saying this is a Judao Christian country we'll stop attacking your stupid beliefs.



Newsflash, you are one of the idiots that think you can tell other people what they believe. You have done it repeatedly to me, and then refused to admit you were wrong when I point out I never said what I believe. I have never tired to sell my beliefs, whatever they are, to you, yet you keep insisting that I am wrong about what I believe based on nothing more than your belief you can read my mind. Keep it up, it makes my case that you are an idiot stronger every time you do it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> There is a difference between believing something and not believing in something.  I've seen great videos that go into great depth explaining the difference.  Not going to waste my time finding it and posting it again.  Fact is, I may or may not believe anything you claim.  If you told me you were bald I'd believe you but what proof do I have?  If you told me you were a perfect 10 I wouldn't believe you but what proof would I have?
> 
> Maybe this is the difference?
> 
> Believe is a verb. Belief is a noun.
> 
> "I believe in him."
> "I challenge his belief."
> 
> I don't believe.  That doesn't mean I have a belief.  They do!  I'm just challenging it.
> 
> But then I can't say IT because then I'm challenging god again:
> 
> it
> _pronoun_
> 
> *1*.
> used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified.
> *2*.
> used to identify a person.
> "it's me"
> But would anyone refer to God as IT?



There is also a difference between being intelligent and being you.

Intelligent people do not insist that their beliefs about something apply to everyone else. You insist that being an atheist means not believing applies to everyone who says they are an atheist, even the ones who insist they know there is no god.

But, please, keep posting, it is fun watching you flounder among people who outclass you in every possible way.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

GreenBean said:


> And I see you are Cherry Picking ... HOWEVER ... you made a very good point whether you realize it or not.  From the above paragraph.
> 
> *Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. *
> 
> *Now* - here's something you will probably never hear on the USMessage boards again - You are Right - I concede - regards and congratulations on a job well done.



And some people chose to call the religion that they incorporate atheism into atheism, which is also why she is wrong.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Quantum Windbag said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I see you are Cherry Picking ... HOWEVER ... you made a very good point whether you realize it or not.  From the above paragraph.
> 
> *Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. *
> 
> *Now* - here's something you will probably never hear on the USMessage boards again - You are Right - I concede - regards and congratulations on a job well done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And some people chose to call the religion that they incorporate atheism into atheism, which is also why she is wrong.
Click to expand...




And what religion is that, Ding-dong?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> And what religion is that, Ding-dong?



Do you have trouble with parsing sentences? If so, I suggest you go back to 5th grade and learn.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can have at it.  What else besides go to church early Sunday, pray 5 times a day, take weird vacation days for religious reasons, wash their feet in my sink or tell me I'm going to go to hell do you want them to be able to do?
> 
> What do you think I'm limiting them on?
> 
> When two people disagree, each side is telling the other side their beliefs are wrong.  I don't want to limit your belief.  I'm trying to help you realize you are in a fantasy world.  Especially when you try to impose it on the rest of society.  When your side stops saying this is a Judao Christian country we'll stop attacking your stupid beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash, you are one of the idiots that think you can tell other people what they believe. You have done it repeatedly to me, and then refused to admit you were wrong when I point out I never said what I believe. I have never tired to sell my beliefs, whatever they are, to you, yet you keep insisting that I am wrong about what I believe based on nothing more than your belief you can read my mind. Keep it up, it makes my case that you are an idiot stronger every time you do it.
Click to expand...


Either you agree with me or you are wrong.  Pick one.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference between believing something and not believing in something.  I've seen great videos that go into great depth explaining the difference.  Not going to waste my time finding it and posting it again.  Fact is, I may or may not believe anything you claim.  If you told me you were bald I'd believe you but what proof do I have?  If you told me you were a perfect 10 I wouldn't believe you but what proof would I have?
> 
> Maybe this is the difference?
> 
> Believe is a verb. Belief is a noun.
> 
> "I believe in him."
> "I challenge his belief."
> 
> I don't believe.  That doesn't mean I have a belief.  They do!  I'm just challenging it.
> 
> But then I can't say IT because then I'm challenging god again:
> 
> it
> _pronoun_
> 
> *1*.
> used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified.
> *2*.
> used to identify a person.
> "it's me"
> But would anyone refer to God as IT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is also a difference between being intelligent and being you.
> 
> Intelligent people do not insist that their beliefs about something apply to everyone else. You insist that being an atheist means not believing applies to everyone who says they are an atheist, even the ones who insist they know there is no god.
> 
> But, please, keep posting, it is fun watching you flounder among people who outclass you in every possible way.
Click to expand...


How can an atheist KNOW no god(s) exists?  

See the thing is, theists lie or believe lies.  They say god visited them.  That's one reason I don't believe in god(s) but even with that I wasn't there so maybe there were talking snakes and virgin births 2000 years plus ago.  Do you believe that?

I don't care what you believe.  If you don't agree with me you probably believe the unbelievable or unprovable and I'm just trying to help you see that.  Or I'm trying to help others realize that.  Who cares about little old you and what you think?


----------



## Carla_Danger

Quantum Windbag said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what religion is that, Ding-dong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have trouble with parsing sentences? If so, I suggest you go back to 5th grade and learn.
Click to expand...




You can barely string one together, please.


----------



## PostmodernProph

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am only aware of two possible choices.....you can choose to believe or choose not to believe.....anything other than choosing to believe results in consequences that you choose not to believe in.....I cannot attest that this will help you to avoid those consequences....I would say, with confidence, that if you refuse an eternity with schmucks it is not likely you will get the eternity with schmucks......thus you will get the alternative consequence whatever that might be......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Which is akin to my holding a gun to your head.....   You are free to see it differently but to me the moral issue is quite clear.  It is one of the reasons why I have never understood why anyone would be a Christian.  But it would be a funny old world if everyone saw things the same way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> odd.....you claim its a gun to your head but say you have no trouble deciding not to believe.....apparently it isn't as frightening a gun as you say.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this particular case, you have to believe in the gun and I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then we're at an impasse, as you believe its a gun and I don't.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You expected agreement?  My friend, if I thought for a second I might actually change your basic beliefs I wouldn't engage in any conversation with you.  You can take it as a given whatever I might say here is my opinion, unless I present it as a fact and provide hard evidence to back it up.  My opinion is no better than yours.  If you simply understand what I am trying to get across, that is more than enough.  I am fine with you thinking that opinion a load of garbage.
Click to expand...

/shrugs....just pointing out the success of your argument is contingent on my believing there is a gun to my head and I don't......nor do Christians......if we perceive no threat, we are not succumbing to a threat......you perceive it as one, but you haven't succumbed either.....in short, a rather meaningless argument.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's BS.
> 
> You're trying to lump me/us into a group where we don't belong. I don't believe in God or aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is BS?  You differentiated between two groups and the only difference between them was what they believed.  One you saw as a cult and the other a group of lunatics.  I am dealing with what you write.  If you wish to clarify what you wrote, that is fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, the difference is that they believe, and atheist don't. Your example is completely flawed. You're using two groups that  have faith/belief in something that have no evidence of their existence.
> 
> Atheism is the exact opposite.
> 
> *Here's your comparison:*
> Let us say we have two groups. One believes that Jesus is about to come and gather them up into heaven. They spend their days in prayer and preparation and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip. Then we have another group who believes aliens are going to take them to their planet. The work hard to prepare themselves and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip. Now, you might say the first was religion and the second was not. But I have to wonder what the actual practical difference is between the two might be.
> 
> *Here's an appropriate comparison:*
> Let us say we have two groups. One believes that Jesus is about to come and gather them up into heaven. They spend their days in prayer and preparation and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip.
> 
> The group of atheist do not believe in God, nor do they believe in aliens, they do not spend their days in prayer and preparation, and they do not take poison together. Most atheists don't even belong to any sort of group, but the ones who do get together, are singing, having coffee cake, and chatting about the cult that just died from poison, and how they wasted their short, precious, life, because they put all their faith in a charismatic, manipulating, cult leader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am comparing two groups to determine what factors we are looking for.  I am isolating the factors so they can either be accepted or rejected.  You have indicated what is believed is important.  If that was not your intent, then clarify it for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  You are comparing two groups of believers.
> 
> Let me know when you come up with a comparison for one group who believes, and one group who doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists are more peaceful EP07398441 c.pdf - Google Drive
> 
> doi - Google Drive
> 
> And number 11
> 
> Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy [2][3], lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.
> 
> Why there is no god
Click to expand...

lol....


----------



## GreenBean

Quantum Windbag said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I see you are Cherry Picking ... HOWEVER ... you made a very good point whether you realize it or not.  From the above paragraph.
> 
> *Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. *
> 
> *Now* - here's something you will probably never hear on the USMessage boards again - You are Right - I concede - regards and congratulations on a job well done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And some people chose to call the religion that they incorporate atheism into atheism, which is also why she is wrong.
Click to expand...



windy - I didn't quite follow what you were trying to convey   "call the religion that they incorporate atheism into atheism"    ..huh ? ..I know you can write better than that - I've seen your posts - but you didn't quite nail that one.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is BS?  You differentiated between two groups and the only difference between them was what they believed.  One you saw as a cult and the other a group of lunatics.  I am dealing with what you write.  If you wish to clarify what you wrote, that is fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the difference is that they believe, and atheist don't. Your example is completely flawed. You're using two groups that  have faith/belief in something that have no evidence of their existence.
> 
> Atheism is the exact opposite.
> 
> *Here's your comparison:*
> Let us say we have two groups. One believes that Jesus is about to come and gather them up into heaven. They spend their days in prayer and preparation and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip. Then we have another group who believes aliens are going to take them to their planet. The work hard to prepare themselves and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip. Now, you might say the first was religion and the second was not. But I have to wonder what the actual practical difference is between the two might be.
> 
> *Here's an appropriate comparison:*
> Let us say we have two groups. One believes that Jesus is about to come and gather them up into heaven. They spend their days in prayer and preparation and on an appointed day, they all take poison together to facilitate the trip.
> 
> The group of atheist do not believe in God, nor do they believe in aliens, they do not spend their days in prayer and preparation, and they do not take poison together. Most atheists don't even belong to any sort of group, but the ones who do get together, are singing, having coffee cake, and chatting about the cult that just died from poison, and how they wasted their short, precious, life, because they put all their faith in a charismatic, manipulating, cult leader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am comparing two groups to determine what factors we are looking for.  I am isolating the factors so they can either be accepted or rejected.  You have indicated what is believed is important.  If that was not your intent, then clarify it for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  You are comparing two groups of believers.
> 
> Let me know when you come up with a comparison for one group who believes, and one group who doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is how it works.  If you want to find out if what is believed matters, you have to compare two groups of believers where the only difference is what is believed.
> 
> You say you are not involved in religion, why do you insist upon keeping at the level of religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's how it works when you're trying to make up your own definition. Again, that's incorrect because atheism is the absence of one particular belief for which you are comparing.
> 
> And the question is....why do you insist upon keeping atheism on the same level as religion?
Click to expand...


I'm not.  I keep trying to see it from a purely sociological perspective.  However, you insist upon dogma.  That's your right, of course.  But it does nothing but convince me Atheism is being treated as a religion.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen quite a bit of organization amongst Atheists, all around a core belief system.  There are associations, organizations, even churches.  Heck, there is even a bloody dating site.  No, that claim is not going to hold water.
> 
> Saying you don't know of a religion doesn't mean there isn't one.  I certainly consider my faith a religion and I do not worship or engage in specific spiritual practices.  If we are going to make any determination in this question we must first establish what religion is.  But I am more than willing to consider this so long as it is done without prejudice.
> 
> What actually constitutes worship?  We can go with the primary definition of showing love and respect to a god.  But does it have to be positive?  Love and hate may not be the same emotion but they are still emotions.  Would not showing hate and disrespect to a god be just as emotional an experience as love and respect?  If not, what would we call it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are our core beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The belief there is no god.  I would think that obvious.  And remember, any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, so unless you suddenly have some evidence we have established that you do have beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between believing something and not believing in something.  I've seen great videos that go into great depth explaining the difference.  Not going to waste my time finding it and posting it again.  Fact is, I may or may not believe anything you claim.  If you told me you were bald I'd believe you but what proof do I have?  If you told me you were a perfect 10 I wouldn't believe you but what proof would I have?
> 
> Maybe this is the difference?
> 
> Believe is a verb. Belief is a noun.
> 
> "I believe in him."
> "I challenge his belief."
> 
> I don't believe.  That doesn't mean I have a belief.  They do!  I'm just challenging it.
> 
> But then I can't say IT because then I'm challenging god again:
> 
> it
> _pronoun_
> 
> *1*.
> used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified.
> *2*.
> used to identify a person.
> "it's me"
> But would anyone refer to God as IT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I refer to God all the time as an it.  If it has a sex at all, *it is more likely to be female than male*.
> 
> As to the rest, bollocks.  Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief.  Not a single person on this or any other board has ever challenged that statement, because it really can't be challenged.  You have made many posts just chock full of belief.  This claim being made that belief is not belief is just dogma.  It is, in fact, the one thing which convinces me that Atheism is being treated as a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a strong belief? Why are you treating Agnosticism like a religion?
Click to expand...


Not particularly strong and it is a belief.  A being which essentially gave birth to the universe?  Which sex gives birth?  However, as I have repeatedly stated, belief does not make a religion.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen quite a bit of organization amongst Atheists, all around a core belief system.  There are associations, organizations, even churches.  Heck, there is even a bloody dating site.  No, that claim is not going to hold water.
> 
> Saying you don't know of a religion doesn't mean there isn't one.  I certainly consider my faith a religion and I do not worship or engage in specific spiritual practices.  If we are going to make any determination in this question we must first establish what religion is.  But I am more than willing to consider this so long as it is done without prejudice.
> 
> What actually constitutes worship?  We can go with the primary definition of showing love and respect to a god.  But does it have to be positive?  Love and hate may not be the same emotion but they are still emotions.  Would not showing hate and disrespect to a god be just as emotional an experience as love and respect?  If not, what would we call it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are our core beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The belief there is no god.  I would think that obvious.  And remember, any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, so unless you suddenly have some evidence we have established that you do have beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between believing something and not believing in something.  I've seen great videos that go into great depth explaining the difference.  Not going to waste my time finding it and posting it again.  Fact is, I may or may not believe anything you claim.  If you told me you were bald I'd believe you but what proof do I have?  If you told me you were a perfect 10 I wouldn't believe you but what proof would I have?
> 
> Maybe this is the difference?
> 
> Believe is a verb. Belief is a noun.
> 
> "I believe in him."
> "I challenge his belief."
> 
> I don't believe.  That doesn't mean I have a belief.  They do!  I'm just challenging it.
> 
> But then I can't say IT because then I'm challenging god again:
> 
> it
> _pronoun_
> 
> *1*.
> used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified.
> *2*.
> used to identify a person.
> "it's me"
> But would anyone refer to God as IT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I refer to God all the time as an it.  If it has a sex at all, it is more likely to be female than male.
> 
> As to the rest, bollocks.  Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief.  Not a single person on this or any other board has ever challenged that statement, because it really can't be challenged.  You have made many posts just chock full of belief.  This claim being made that belief is not belief is just dogma.  It is, in fact, the one thing which convinces me that Atheism is being treated as a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I'm your first?
> 
> Do you have 10 minutes to learn the differences and why you are wrong?
> 
> 
> Once you have listened to this then argue.  In fact, just listen for 1 minute and if you aren't interested in what you are hearing then stop.
Click to expand...


Really, you think that argued that a conclusion drawn in the absence of evidence is not a belief?  Perhaps you need to watch it again.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are our core beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The belief there is no god.  I would think that obvious.  And remember, any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, so unless you suddenly have some evidence we have established that you do have beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between believing something and not believing in something.  I've seen great videos that go into great depth explaining the difference.  Not going to waste my time finding it and posting it again.  Fact is, I may or may not believe anything you claim.  If you told me you were bald I'd believe you but what proof do I have?  If you told me you were a perfect 10 I wouldn't believe you but what proof would I have?
> 
> Maybe this is the difference?
> 
> Believe is a verb. Belief is a noun.
> 
> "I believe in him."
> "I challenge his belief."
> 
> I don't believe.  That doesn't mean I have a belief.  They do!  I'm just challenging it.
> 
> But then I can't say IT because then I'm challenging god again:
> 
> it
> _pronoun_
> 
> *1*.
> used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified.
> *2*.
> used to identify a person.
> "it's me"
> But would anyone refer to God as IT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I refer to God all the time as an it.  If it has a sex at all, *it is more likely to be female than male*.
> 
> As to the rest, bollocks.  Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief.  Not a single person on this or any other board has ever challenged that statement, because it really can't be challenged.  You have made many posts just chock full of belief.  This claim being made that belief is not belief is just dogma.  It is, in fact, the one thing which convinces me that Atheism is being treated as a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a strong belief? Why are you treating Agnosticism like a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not particularly strong and it is a belief.  A being which essentially gave birth to the universe?  Which sex gives birth?  However, as I have repeatedly stated, belief does not make a religion.
Click to expand...




And neither does atheism...


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The belief there is no god.  I would think that obvious.  And remember, any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, so unless you suddenly have some evidence we have established that you do have beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference between believing something and not believing in something.  I've seen great videos that go into great depth explaining the difference.  Not going to waste my time finding it and posting it again.  Fact is, I may or may not believe anything you claim.  If you told me you were bald I'd believe you but what proof do I have?  If you told me you were a perfect 10 I wouldn't believe you but what proof would I have?
> 
> Maybe this is the difference?
> 
> Believe is a verb. Belief is a noun.
> 
> "I believe in him."
> "I challenge his belief."
> 
> I don't believe.  That doesn't mean I have a belief.  They do!  I'm just challenging it.
> 
> But then I can't say IT because then I'm challenging god again:
> 
> it
> _pronoun_
> 
> *1*.
> used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified.
> *2*.
> used to identify a person.
> "it's me"
> But would anyone refer to God as IT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I refer to God all the time as an it.  If it has a sex at all, it is more likely to be female than male.
> 
> As to the rest, bollocks.  Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief.  Not a single person on this or any other board has ever challenged that statement, because it really can't be challenged.  You have made many posts just chock full of belief.  This claim being made that belief is not belief is just dogma.  It is, in fact, the one thing which convinces me that Atheism is being treated as a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I'm your first?
> 
> Do you have 10 minutes to learn the differences and why you are wrong?
> 
> 
> Once you have listened to this then argue.  In fact, just listen for 1 minute and if you aren't interested in what you are hearing then stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that was interesting!  Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't be surprised if PratchettFan is a slower reader than you but why's it taking him longer than you to watch the video?
> 
> Maybe he's slower at typing or MAYBE he's responding with a 20 paragraph well thought out reply on why that guy in the video is wrong.  I doubt it.  Slower typing skills yes but gonna reply intelligently NO.
Click to expand...


Or maybe he does other things than this board.  Posting your own version of the bible tract changes nothing.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The belief there is no god.  I would think that obvious.  And remember, any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, so unless you suddenly have some evidence we have established that you do have beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference between believing something and not believing in something.  I've seen great videos that go into great depth explaining the difference.  Not going to waste my time finding it and posting it again.  Fact is, I may or may not believe anything you claim.  If you told me you were bald I'd believe you but what proof do I have?  If you told me you were a perfect 10 I wouldn't believe you but what proof would I have?
> 
> Maybe this is the difference?
> 
> Believe is a verb. Belief is a noun.
> 
> "I believe in him."
> "I challenge his belief."
> 
> I don't believe.  That doesn't mean I have a belief.  They do!  I'm just challenging it.
> 
> But then I can't say IT because then I'm challenging god again:
> 
> it
> _pronoun_
> 
> *1*.
> used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified.
> *2*.
> used to identify a person.
> "it's me"
> But would anyone refer to God as IT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I refer to God all the time as an it.  If it has a sex at all, *it is more likely to be female than male*.
> 
> As to the rest, bollocks.  Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief.  Not a single person on this or any other board has ever challenged that statement, because it really can't be challenged.  You have made many posts just chock full of belief.  This claim being made that belief is not belief is just dogma.  It is, in fact, the one thing which convinces me that Atheism is being treated as a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a strong belief? Why are you treating Agnosticism like a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not particularly strong and it is a belief.  A being which essentially gave birth to the universe?  Which sex gives birth?  However, as I have repeatedly stated, belief does not make a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And neither does atheism...
Click to expand...


No, that belief does not make it religion.  I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, perhaps there is no end because ultimately the problem is the very thing which is turning it into religion - dogma.  When you toss dogma into the mix, you are into religion.  Dogma is the essence of religion - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine.  For you, that doctrine is a lack of belief.  It doesn't matter that it has been shown that you do have belief, the dogma is that you don't and that is all there is to it.  It is this absolute insistence, regardless of the evidence, that an arbitrary definition creates reality which turns what would otherwise be a perfectly valid belief into a religion.  I get you won't see that, because to do that you first need to question the dogma.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are our core beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The belief there is no god.  I would think that obvious.  And remember, any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, so unless you suddenly have some evidence we have established that you do have beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between believing something and not believing in something.  I've seen great videos that go into great depth explaining the difference.  Not going to waste my time finding it and posting it again.  Fact is, I may or may not believe anything you claim.  If you told me you were bald I'd believe you but what proof do I have?  If you told me you were a perfect 10 I wouldn't believe you but what proof would I have?
> 
> Maybe this is the difference?
> 
> Believe is a verb. Belief is a noun.
> 
> "I believe in him."
> "I challenge his belief."
> 
> I don't believe.  That doesn't mean I have a belief.  They do!  I'm just challenging it.
> 
> But then I can't say IT because then I'm challenging god again:
> 
> it
> _pronoun_
> 
> *1*.
> used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified.
> *2*.
> used to identify a person.
> "it's me"
> But would anyone refer to God as IT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I refer to God all the time as an it.  If it has a sex at all, it is more likely to be female than male.
> 
> As to the rest, bollocks.  Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief.  Not a single person on this or any other board has ever challenged that statement, because it really can't be challenged.  You have made many posts just chock full of belief.  This claim being made that belief is not belief is just dogma.  It is, in fact, the one thing which convinces me that Atheism is being treated as a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I'm your first?
> 
> Do you have 10 minutes to learn the differences and why you are wrong?
> 
> 
> Once you have listened to this then argue.  In fact, just listen for 1 minute and if you aren't interested in what you are hearing then stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, you think that argued that a conclusion drawn in the absence of evidence is not a belief?  Perhaps you need to watch it again.
Click to expand...


Just like when I watch those religious shows on tv and they pretend to have a real honest debate with an atheist, I notice you guys blow off 99% of what we say and only reply to the 1% of our argument you are comfortable discussing.  Perhaps it is you who needs to watch it again, and again, and again, until it sinks in.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference between believing something and not believing in something.  I've seen great videos that go into great depth explaining the difference.  Not going to waste my time finding it and posting it again.  Fact is, I may or may not believe anything you claim.  If you told me you were bald I'd believe you but what proof do I have?  If you told me you were a perfect 10 I wouldn't believe you but what proof would I have?
> 
> Maybe this is the difference?
> 
> Believe is a verb. Belief is a noun.
> 
> "I believe in him."
> "I challenge his belief."
> 
> I don't believe.  That doesn't mean I have a belief.  They do!  I'm just challenging it.
> 
> But then I can't say IT because then I'm challenging god again:
> 
> it
> _pronoun_
> 
> *1*.
> used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified.
> *2*.
> used to identify a person.
> "it's me"
> But would anyone refer to God as IT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I refer to God all the time as an it.  If it has a sex at all, *it is more likely to be female than male*.
> 
> As to the rest, bollocks.  Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief.  Not a single person on this or any other board has ever challenged that statement, because it really can't be challenged.  You have made many posts just chock full of belief.  This claim being made that belief is not belief is just dogma.  It is, in fact, the one thing which convinces me that Atheism is being treated as a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a strong belief? Why are you treating Agnosticism like a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not particularly strong and it is a belief.  A being which essentially gave birth to the universe?  Which sex gives birth?  However, as I have repeatedly stated, belief does not make a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And neither does atheism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that belief does not make it religion.  I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, perhaps there is no end because ultimately the problem is the very thing which is turning it into religion - dogma.  When you toss dogma into the mix, you are into religion.  Dogma is the essence of religion - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine.  For you, that doctrine is a lack of belief.  It doesn't matter that it has been shown that you do have belief, the dogma is that you don't and that is all there is to it.  It is this absolute insistence, regardless of the evidence, that an arbitrary definition creates reality which turns what would otherwise be a perfectly valid belief into a religion.  I get you won't see that, because to do that you first need to question the dogma.
Click to expand...


*Dogma* is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.

Atheists don't have Dogma.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Either you agree with me or you are wrong.  Pick one.



I missed the memo, when did you become infallible?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> How can an atheist KNOW no god(s) exists?



Wow, now you are omnipotent. I really should make sure I get the memos.



sealybobo said:


> See the thing is, theists lie or believe lies.  They say god visited them.  That's one reason I don't believe in god(s) but even with that I wasn't there so maybe there were talking snakes and virgin births 2000 years plus ago.  Do you believe that?



Did you believe Obama when he said if you like your insurance you can keep it? Does that make you a theist?



sealybobo said:


> I don't care what you believe.  If you don't agree with me you probably believe the unbelievable or unprovable and I'm just trying to help you see that.  Or I'm trying to help others realize that.  Who cares about little old you and what you think?



You must think you are god.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

GreenBean said:


> windy - I didn't quite follow what you were trying to convey   "call the religion that they incorporate atheism into atheism"    ..huh ? ..I know you can write better than that - I've seen your posts - but you didn't quite nail that one.



Can you provide an example of a sentence you think would be better? Because there are actual atheists who call their religion atheism, and the incorporate the belief that there is no god, AKA atheism, into their religion.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference between believing something and not believing in something.  I've seen great videos that go into great depth explaining the difference.  Not going to waste my time finding it and posting it again.  Fact is, I may or may not believe anything you claim.  If you told me you were bald I'd believe you but what proof do I have?  If you told me you were a perfect 10 I wouldn't believe you but what proof would I have?
> 
> Maybe this is the difference?
> 
> Believe is a verb. Belief is a noun.
> 
> "I believe in him."
> "I challenge his belief."
> 
> I don't believe.  That doesn't mean I have a belief.  They do!  I'm just challenging it.
> 
> But then I can't say IT because then I'm challenging god again:
> 
> it
> _pronoun_
> 
> *1*.
> used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified.
> *2*.
> used to identify a person.
> "it's me"
> But would anyone refer to God as IT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I refer to God all the time as an it.  If it has a sex at all, *it is more likely to be female than male*.
> 
> As to the rest, bollocks.  Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief.  Not a single person on this or any other board has ever challenged that statement, because it really can't be challenged.  You have made many posts just chock full of belief.  This claim being made that belief is not belief is just dogma.  It is, in fact, the one thing which convinces me that Atheism is being treated as a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a strong belief? Why are you treating Agnosticism like a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not particularly strong and it is a belief.  A being which essentially gave birth to the universe?  Which sex gives birth?  However, as I have repeatedly stated, belief does not make a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And neither does atheism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that belief does not make it religion.  I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, perhaps there is no end because ultimately the problem is the very thing which is turning it into religion - dogma.  When you toss dogma into the mix, you are into religion.  Dogma is the essence of religion - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine.  For you, that doctrine is a lack of belief.  It doesn't matter that it has been shown that you do have belief, the dogma is that you don't and that is all there is to it.  It is this absolute insistence, regardless of the evidence, that an arbitrary definition creates reality which turns what would otherwise be a perfectly valid belief into a religion.  I get you won't see that, because to do that you first need to question the dogma.
Click to expand...



I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a lick of sense.  There's no dogma, and lack of belief is not a religion.

*Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy*


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> *Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy*



That is the most ignorant thing you have ever said.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I refer to God all the time as an it.  If it has a sex at all, *it is more likely to be female than male*.
> 
> As to the rest, bollocks.  Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief.  Not a single person on this or any other board has ever challenged that statement, because it really can't be challenged.  You have made many posts just chock full of belief.  This claim being made that belief is not belief is just dogma.  It is, in fact, the one thing which convinces me that Atheism is being treated as a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a strong belief? Why are you treating Agnosticism like a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not particularly strong and it is a belief.  A being which essentially gave birth to the universe?  Which sex gives birth?  However, as I have repeatedly stated, belief does not make a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And neither does atheism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that belief does not make it religion.  I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, perhaps there is no end because ultimately the problem is the very thing which is turning it into religion - dogma.  When you toss dogma into the mix, you are into religion.  Dogma is the essence of religion - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine.  For you, that doctrine is a lack of belief.  It doesn't matter that it has been shown that you do have belief, the dogma is that you don't and that is all there is to it.  It is this absolute insistence, regardless of the evidence, that an arbitrary definition creates reality which turns what would otherwise be a perfectly valid belief into a religion.  I get you won't see that, because to do that you first need to question the dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a lick of sense.  There's no dogma, and lack of belief is not a religion.
> 
> *Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy*
Click to expand...


You do not lack belief, calling it a lack of belief is your dogma - which you will not question.  You're in a loop.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I refer to God all the time as an it.  If it has a sex at all, *it is more likely to be female than male*.
> 
> As to the rest, bollocks.  Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief.  Not a single person on this or any other board has ever challenged that statement, because it really can't be challenged.  You have made many posts just chock full of belief.  This claim being made that belief is not belief is just dogma.  It is, in fact, the one thing which convinces me that Atheism is being treated as a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a strong belief? Why are you treating Agnosticism like a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not particularly strong and it is a belief.  A being which essentially gave birth to the universe?  Which sex gives birth?  However, as I have repeatedly stated, belief does not make a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And neither does atheism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that belief does not make it religion.  I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, perhaps there is no end because ultimately the problem is the very thing which is turning it into religion - dogma.  When you toss dogma into the mix, you are into religion.  Dogma is the essence of religion - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine.  For you, that doctrine is a lack of belief.  It doesn't matter that it has been shown that you do have belief, the dogma is that you don't and that is all there is to it.  It is this absolute insistence, regardless of the evidence, that an arbitrary definition creates reality which turns what would otherwise be a perfectly valid belief into a religion.  I get you won't see that, because to do that you first need to question the dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Dogma* is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.
> 
> Atheists don't have Dogma.
Click to expand...


Yes, that is what dogma is.  If Atheists don't have it, then you are not an Atheist because you do have it.  If Atheists lack belief, then you are not an Atheist because you do not lack belief.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Just like when I watch those religious shows on tv and they pretend to have a real honest debate with an atheist, I notice you guys blow off 99% of what we say and only reply to the 1% of our argument you are comfortable discussing.  Perhaps it is you who needs to watch it again, and again, and again, until it sinks in.


/grins.....and you guys accuse US of brain washing......


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can an atheist KNOW no god(s) exists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, now you are omnipotent. I really should make sure I get the memos.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> See the thing is, theists lie or believe lies.  They say god visited them.  That's one reason I don't believe in god(s) but even with that I wasn't there so maybe there were talking snakes and virgin births 2000 years plus ago.  Do you believe that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you believe Obama when he said if you like your insurance you can keep it? Does that make you a theist?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what you believe.  If you don't agree with me you probably believe the unbelievable or unprovable and I'm just trying to help you see that.  Or I'm trying to help others realize that.  Who cares about little old you and what you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must think you are god.
Click to expand...


Well, I do believe in myself.  Since you guys try to confuse belief and disbelief and atheism with religion and since along with your belief comes faith, worship and god(s), I could see why you would consider me a God.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can an atheist KNOW no god(s) exists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, now you are omnipotent. I really should make sure I get the memos.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> See the thing is, theists lie or believe lies.  They say god visited them.  That's one reason I don't believe in god(s) but even with that I wasn't there so maybe there were talking snakes and virgin births 2000 years plus ago.  Do you believe that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you believe Obama when he said if you like your insurance you can keep it? Does that make you a theist?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what you believe.  If you don't agree with me you probably believe the unbelievable or unprovable and I'm just trying to help you see that.  Or I'm trying to help others realize that.  Who cares about little old you and what you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must think you are god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I do believe in myself.  Since you guys try to confuse belief and disbelief and atheism with religion and since along with your belief comes faith, worship and god(s), I could see why you would consider me a God.
Click to expand...

 
This may comes as a surprise from my screen name, but I am a great fan of the author Terry Pratchett.  He has a character in his books which really does apply here beautifully.  The character's name is just The Duck Man.  He walks around with a duck on his head and when people ask him why he always answers, "What duck?"  It is possible you don't see that you are constantly expressing opinions which are nothing but pure belief, but that doesn't mean we don't see it.  Defining yourself as not having belief does not mean all of that belief just disappears, it means the definition is wrong.


----------



## sealybobo

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I refer to God all the time as an it.  If it has a sex at all, *it is more likely to be female than male*.
> 
> As to the rest, bollocks.  Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief.  Not a single person on this or any other board has ever challenged that statement, because it really can't be challenged.  You have made many posts just chock full of belief.  This claim being made that belief is not belief is just dogma.  It is, in fact, the one thing which convinces me that Atheism is being treated as a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a strong belief? Why are you treating Agnosticism like a religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not particularly strong and it is a belief.  A being which essentially gave birth to the universe?  Which sex gives birth?  However, as I have repeatedly stated, belief does not make a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And neither does atheism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that belief does not make it religion.  I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, perhaps there is no end because ultimately the problem is the very thing which is turning it into religion - dogma.  When you toss dogma into the mix, you are into religion.  Dogma is the essence of religion - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine.  For you, that doctrine is a lack of belief.  It doesn't matter that it has been shown that you do have belief, the dogma is that you don't and that is all there is to it.  It is this absolute insistence, regardless of the evidence, that an arbitrary definition creates reality which turns what would otherwise be a perfectly valid belief into a religion.  I get you won't see that, because to do that you first need to question the dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a lick of sense.  There's no dogma, and lack of belief is not a religion.
> 
> *Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy*
Click to expand...


I think we have established that by now.  Lets get back to the real subject and that's we made up gods.  He never visited or talked to anyone.  So basically our caveman ancestors invented him sitting around a camp fire 400,000 years ago.  Hundreds if not thousands of "religions" have come and gone in our very short human history.  

I remember the guy on USMB yesterday who suggested he's a rev or pastor or preacher who said Jesus did live.  He did die.  He did rise up and he won't die again.  Something like that.  He was soooo sure of himself.  Soooo sure his religion was right.  Here's the thing.  So were the Greek's about their Greek Gods.  So were the Jews.  Hell, the Jews supposedly saw what Jesus did.  If he couldn't convert any of them except 12 guys, how are people buying it today?  Because the story wasn't written in Jesus' day.  Men wrote the bible basically 100 years after the supposed fact and no one else at the time of his supposedly life did anyone in the world write about him.  Not in Greece, Middle East, Rome.  Not at the time.  Men wrote about him later but they were newly converted Christians themselves.  

Another Christian yesterday said how the story still lives on today.  So what?  It just happens to be the current religion in our history.  

Here is a fact.  People are leaving Christianity just like they left all the other unbelievable religions.  Unless god comes back in the modern era and proves himself again, humans are going to drop the stories of 2000 years plus ago or 500 or 200 and they are going to move to a generic god.  Just like most of the theists on USMB aren't Christians who actually believe the Adam & Eve, Moses, Noah or Jonah stories, eventually they will realize Jesus is an allegory too.  I don't mind a generic god because people aren't claiming that he talks to them.  Well Boss is the exception.  

PS.  I do actually want it to be a religion.  In the sense we meet once a week to hang out with people who think like us.  Know we aren't alone.  Get the tax write offs.  You know how they said atheists don't do good deeds?  That's because we dont' have a church to point to and say look see how much we give?  lol


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> windy - I didn't quite follow what you were trying to convey   "call the religion that they incorporate atheism into atheism"    ..huh ? ..I know you can write better than that - I've seen your posts - but you didn't quite nail that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide an example of a sentence you think would be better? Because there are actual atheists who call their religion atheism, and the incorporate the belief that there is no god, AKA atheism, into their religion.
Click to expand...


One Sunday I noticed for hours and hours this TCT religious tv channel was brainwashing you dumb Americans with that Jesus talk.  I didn't see any atheist shows.  Perhaps some atheist out there wants to have a show on that religious channel.  I could see that.  I could easily start arguing that atheism should be considered a religion if I wanted it to be one.  

As of right now, we don't.  I can't speak for all atheists but for this argument, no we are not a religion.  

Atheism has no sacred texts, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Know we aren't alone.


you're out of luck there.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> One Sunday I noticed for hours and hours this TCT religious tv channel was brainwashing you dumb Americans with that Jesus talk.


why would you watch religious TV channels for hours?.......do you figure that since you don't think there's a God who's going to punish you for eternity, you should do it to yourself now?.....


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a strong belief? Why are you treating Agnosticism like a religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not particularly strong and it is a belief.  A being which essentially gave birth to the universe?  Which sex gives birth?  However, as I have repeatedly stated, belief does not make a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And neither does atheism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that belief does not make it religion.  I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, perhaps there is no end because ultimately the problem is the very thing which is turning it into religion - dogma.  When you toss dogma into the mix, you are into religion.  Dogma is the essence of religion - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine.  For you, that doctrine is a lack of belief.  It doesn't matter that it has been shown that you do have belief, the dogma is that you don't and that is all there is to it.  It is this absolute insistence, regardless of the evidence, that an arbitrary definition creates reality which turns what would otherwise be a perfectly valid belief into a religion.  I get you won't see that, because to do that you first need to question the dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Dogma* is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.
> 
> Atheists don't have Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that is what dogma is.  If Atheists don't have it, then you are not an Atheist because you do have it.  If Atheists lack belief, then you are not an Atheist because you do not lack belief.
Click to expand...


I don't lack belief?  Please explain.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> One Sunday I noticed for hours and hours this TCT religious tv channel was brainwashing you dumb Americans with that Jesus talk.
> 
> 
> 
> why would you watch religious TV channels for hours?.......do you figure that since you don't think there's a God who's going to punish you for eternity, you should do it to yourself now?.....
Click to expand...


I only stay tuned if it's good.  I mean really good.  Most of the time I stay for 15 seconds.  But if Kirk Cameron is debunking evolution or a kid show isn't really giving the real atheist side of the argument, yes I do stay tuned and torture myself.  I wish there was a number I could call or I wish they had to have a show after that gives our position just like the GOP get to do a speech after the President does the State of the Union.

If they are healing people, I watch.  If they are talking crazy, if the black preacher is particularly good.  Too many HA'S! in between words and I can't stand it.  I sit amazed at how stupid/primitive/unevolved/uneducated the masses are.  

One show I saw the guy was asking for $77 x 10 months put it on your cc.  I said to my dad, "who would pay them $" and he said my aunt does.  She's sitting around feeling bad both physically and mentally and they say send $ and a miracle will come your way.  All these years no miracle.  I feel sorry for her.  

Then there's the Arab Christians Chaldeans and they are anti ISIS and anti Obama.  Their whole schtick is Christians being persecuted in the middle east.  Then there's Jack Van Amp and that woman who's a real good speaker.  The 700 club.  

I'm sorry I wish it were all true but you people are just so dumb.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Know we aren't alone.
> 
> 
> 
> you're out of luck there.....
Click to expand...


We are all out of luck in the end.  Sorry to break the news to you.  

_“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”_ – Carl Sagan


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can an atheist KNOW no god(s) exists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, now you are omnipotent. I really should make sure I get the memos.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> See the thing is, theists lie or believe lies.  They say god visited them.  That's one reason I don't believe in god(s) but even with that I wasn't there so maybe there were talking snakes and virgin births 2000 years plus ago.  Do you believe that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you believe Obama when he said if you like your insurance you can keep it? Does that make you a theist?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what you believe.  If you don't agree with me you probably believe the unbelievable or unprovable and I'm just trying to help you see that.  Or I'm trying to help others realize that.  Who cares about little old you and what you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must think you are god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I do believe in myself.  Since you guys try to confuse belief and disbelief and atheism with religion and since along with your belief comes faith, worship and god(s), I could see why you would consider me a God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This may comes as a surprise from my screen name, but I am a great fan of the author Terry Pratchett.  He has a character in his books which really does apply here beautifully.  The character's name is just The Duck Man.  He walks around with a duck on his head and when people ask him why he always answers, "What duck?"  It is possible you don't see that you are constantly expressing opinions which are nothing but pure belief, but that doesn't mean we don't see it.  Defining yourself as not having belief does not mean all of that belief just disappears, it means the definition is wrong.
Click to expand...


I get it I guess.  But remember, I also believe you are crazy.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> One Sunday I noticed for hours and hours this TCT religious tv channel was brainwashing you dumb Americans with that Jesus talk.
> 
> 
> 
> why would you watch religious TV channels for hours?.......do you figure that since you don't think there's a God who's going to punish you for eternity, you should do it to yourself now?.....
Click to expand...


These shows are also much more fun to watch now that I'm in on the joke.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not particularly strong and it is a belief.  A being which essentially gave birth to the universe?  Which sex gives birth?  However, as I have repeatedly stated, belief does not make a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And neither does atheism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that belief does not make it religion.  I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, perhaps there is no end because ultimately the problem is the very thing which is turning it into religion - dogma.  When you toss dogma into the mix, you are into religion.  Dogma is the essence of religion - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine.  For you, that doctrine is a lack of belief.  It doesn't matter that it has been shown that you do have belief, the dogma is that you don't and that is all there is to it.  It is this absolute insistence, regardless of the evidence, that an arbitrary definition creates reality which turns what would otherwise be a perfectly valid belief into a religion.  I get you won't see that, because to do that you first need to question the dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Dogma* is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.
> 
> Atheists don't have Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that is what dogma is.  If Atheists don't have it, then you are not an Atheist because you do have it.  If Atheists lack belief, then you are not an Atheist because you do not lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't lack belief?  Please explain.
Click to expand...

 
I can explain, I'm just not sure you will see it.  If you read your own posts from a critical perspective, you might see it.  For example, just a couple of posts above this you wrote:

"I think we have established that by now. Lets get back to the real subject and that's we made up gods. He never visited or talked to anyone. So basically our caveman ancestors invented him sitting around a camp fire 400,000 years ago. Hundreds if not thousands of "religions" have come and gone in our very short human history."

You present no evidence.  You make broad claims as if they were fact with no support of any kind.  This entire paragraph is pure belief on your part.  You think it is true solely upon the basis that you think it is true.    You do not lack belief.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> One Sunday I noticed for hours and hours this TCT religious tv channel was brainwashing you dumb Americans with that Jesus talk.
> 
> 
> 
> why would you watch religious TV channels for hours?.......do you figure that since you don't think there's a God who's going to punish you for eternity, you should do it to yourself now?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only stay tuned if it's good.  I mean really good.  Most of the time I stay for 15 seconds.  But if Kirk Cameron is debunking evolution or a kid show isn't really giving the real atheist side of the argument, yes I do stay tuned and torture myself.  I wish there was a number I could call or I wish they had to have a show after that gives our position just like the GOP get to do a speech after the President does the State of the Union.
> 
> If they are healing people, I watch.  If they are talking crazy, if the black preacher is particularly good.  Too many HA'S! in between words and I can't stand it.  I sit amazed at how stupid/primitive/unevolved/uneducated the masses are.
> 
> One show I saw the guy was asking for $77 x 10 months put it on your cc.  I said to my dad, "who would pay them $" and he said my aunt does.  She's sitting around feeling bad both physically and mentally and they say send $ and a miracle will come your way.  All these years no miracle.  I feel sorry for her.
> 
> Then there's the Arab Christians Chaldeans and they are anti ISIS and anti Obama.  Their whole schtick is Christians being persecuted in the middle east.  Then there's Jack Van Amp and that woman who's a real good speaker.  The 700 club.
> 
> I'm sorry I wish it were all true but you people are just so dumb.
Click to expand...

 
We're not the one watching it.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can an atheist KNOW no god(s) exists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, now you are omnipotent. I really should make sure I get the memos.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> See the thing is, theists lie or believe lies.  They say god visited them.  That's one reason I don't believe in god(s) but even with that I wasn't there so maybe there were talking snakes and virgin births 2000 years plus ago.  Do you believe that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you believe Obama when he said if you like your insurance you can keep it? Does that make you a theist?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what you believe.  If you don't agree with me you probably believe the unbelievable or unprovable and I'm just trying to help you see that.  Or I'm trying to help others realize that.  Who cares about little old you and what you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must think you are god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I do believe in myself.  Since you guys try to confuse belief and disbelief and atheism with religion and since along with your belief comes faith, worship and god(s), I could see why you would consider me a God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This may comes as a surprise from my screen name, but I am a great fan of the author Terry Pratchett.  He has a character in his books which really does apply here beautifully.  The character's name is just The Duck Man.  He walks around with a duck on his head and when people ask him why he always answers, "What duck?"  It is possible you don't see that you are constantly expressing opinions which are nothing but pure belief, but that doesn't mean we don't see it.  Defining yourself as not having belief does not mean all of that belief just disappears, it means the definition is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it I guess.  But remember, I also believe you are crazy.
Click to expand...

 
And I believe you're a Christian whose just pissed with God.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Quantum Windbag said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> windy - I didn't quite follow what you were trying to convey   "call the religion that they incorporate atheism into atheism"    ..huh ? ..I know you can write better than that - I've seen your posts - but you didn't quite nail that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide an example of a sentence you think would be better? Because there are actual atheists who call their religion atheism, and the incorporate the belief that there is no god, AKA atheism, into their religion.
Click to expand...



This is one of the most ignorant statements you've ever typed.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a strong belief? Why are you treating Agnosticism like a religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not particularly strong and it is a belief.  A being which essentially gave birth to the universe?  Which sex gives birth?  However, as I have repeatedly stated, belief does not make a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And neither does atheism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that belief does not make it religion.  I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, perhaps there is no end because ultimately the problem is the very thing which is turning it into religion - dogma.  When you toss dogma into the mix, you are into religion.  Dogma is the essence of religion - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine.  For you, that doctrine is a lack of belief.  It doesn't matter that it has been shown that you do have belief, the dogma is that you don't and that is all there is to it.  It is this absolute insistence, regardless of the evidence, that an arbitrary definition creates reality which turns what would otherwise be a perfectly valid belief into a religion.  I get you won't see that, because to do that you first need to question the dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Dogma* is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.
> 
> Atheists don't have Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that is what dogma is.  If Atheists don't have it, then you are not an Atheist because you do have it.  If Atheists lack belief, then you are not an Atheist because you do not lack belief.
Click to expand...



Making shit up as you go along...


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not particularly strong and it is a belief.  A being which essentially gave birth to the universe?  Which sex gives birth?  However, as I have repeatedly stated, belief does not make a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And neither does atheism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that belief does not make it religion.  I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, perhaps there is no end because ultimately the problem is the very thing which is turning it into religion - dogma.  When you toss dogma into the mix, you are into religion.  Dogma is the essence of religion - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine.  For you, that doctrine is a lack of belief.  It doesn't matter that it has been shown that you do have belief, the dogma is that you don't and that is all there is to it.  It is this absolute insistence, regardless of the evidence, that an arbitrary definition creates reality which turns what would otherwise be a perfectly valid belief into a religion.  I get you won't see that, because to do that you first need to question the dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Dogma* is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.
> 
> Atheists don't have Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that is what dogma is.  If Atheists don't have it, then you are not an Atheist because you do have it.  If Atheists lack belief, then you are not an Atheist because you do not lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Making shit up as you go along...
Click to expand...

 
Oh, come on.  Go ahead and call me a blasphemer.  You know you want to.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a strong belief? Why are you treating Agnosticism like a religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not particularly strong and it is a belief.  A being which essentially gave birth to the universe?  Which sex gives birth?  However, as I have repeatedly stated, belief does not make a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And neither does atheism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that belief does not make it religion.  I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, perhaps there is no end because ultimately the problem is the very thing which is turning it into religion - dogma.  When you toss dogma into the mix, you are into religion.  Dogma is the essence of religion - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine.  For you, that doctrine is a lack of belief.  It doesn't matter that it has been shown that you do have belief, the dogma is that you don't and that is all there is to it.  It is this absolute insistence, regardless of the evidence, that an arbitrary definition creates reality which turns what would otherwise be a perfectly valid belief into a religion.  I get you won't see that, because to do that you first need to question the dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a lick of sense.  There's no dogma, and lack of belief is not a religion.
> 
> *Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not lack belief, calling it a lack of belief is your dogma - which you will not question.  You're in a loop.
Click to expand...



Again, you are incorrect with your mind reading. When presented with new facts and information, I certainly do question my beliefs. I really think you need to work on your terminology.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not particularly strong and it is a belief.  A being which essentially gave birth to the universe?  Which sex gives birth?  However, as I have repeatedly stated, belief does not make a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And neither does atheism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that belief does not make it religion.  I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, perhaps there is no end because ultimately the problem is the very thing which is turning it into religion - dogma.  When you toss dogma into the mix, you are into religion.  Dogma is the essence of religion - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine.  For you, that doctrine is a lack of belief.  It doesn't matter that it has been shown that you do have belief, the dogma is that you don't and that is all there is to it.  It is this absolute insistence, regardless of the evidence, that an arbitrary definition creates reality which turns what would otherwise be a perfectly valid belief into a religion.  I get you won't see that, because to do that you first need to question the dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a lick of sense.  There's no dogma, and lack of belief is not a religion.
> 
> *Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not lack belief, calling it a lack of belief is your dogma - which you will not question.  You're in a loop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are incorrect with your mind reading. When presented with new facts and information, I certainly do question my beliefs. I really think you need to work on your terminology.
Click to expand...

 
Not based upon what you write here.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> And neither does atheism...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that belief does not make it religion.  I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, perhaps there is no end because ultimately the problem is the very thing which is turning it into religion - dogma.  When you toss dogma into the mix, you are into religion.  Dogma is the essence of religion - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine.  For you, that doctrine is a lack of belief.  It doesn't matter that it has been shown that you do have belief, the dogma is that you don't and that is all there is to it.  It is this absolute insistence, regardless of the evidence, that an arbitrary definition creates reality which turns what would otherwise be a perfectly valid belief into a religion.  I get you won't see that, because to do that you first need to question the dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a lick of sense.  There's no dogma, and lack of belief is not a religion.
> 
> *Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not lack belief, calling it a lack of belief is your dogma - which you will not question.  You're in a loop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are incorrect with your mind reading. When presented with new facts and information, I certainly do question my beliefs. I really think you need to work on your terminology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not based upon what you write here.
Click to expand...


There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> And neither does atheism...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that belief does not make it religion.  I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, perhaps there is no end because ultimately the problem is the very thing which is turning it into religion - dogma.  When you toss dogma into the mix, you are into religion.  Dogma is the essence of religion - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine.  For you, that doctrine is a lack of belief.  It doesn't matter that it has been shown that you do have belief, the dogma is that you don't and that is all there is to it.  It is this absolute insistence, regardless of the evidence, that an arbitrary definition creates reality which turns what would otherwise be a perfectly valid belief into a religion.  I get you won't see that, because to do that you first need to question the dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Dogma* is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.
> 
> Atheists don't have Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that is what dogma is.  If Atheists don't have it, then you are not an Atheist because you do have it.  If Atheists lack belief, then you are not an Atheist because you do not lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't lack belief?  Please explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can explain, I'm just not sure you will see it.  If you read your own posts from a critical perspective, you might see it.  For example, just a couple of posts above this you wrote:
> 
> "I think we have established that by now. Lets get back to the real subject and that's we made up gods. He never visited or talked to anyone. So basically our caveman ancestors invented him sitting around a camp fire 400,000 years ago. Hundreds if not thousands of "religions" have come and gone in our very short human history."
> 
> You present no evidence.  You make broad claims as if they were fact with no support of any kind.  This entire paragraph is pure belief on your part.  You think it is true solely upon the basis that you think it is true.    You do not lack belief.
Click to expand...


So you believe god did visit and talk with us?  I don't even take people like you seriously.  That's why I need to know if you are a die hard Christian, Christian apologist or just someone who believes in a generic god before I can even address you.  If you believe in talking snakes and 350 year old men and talking snakes then I don't know wha to tell you.

I forgot Muslims, Mormons & Jews.  You could also be one of them.  Very hard to keep track of all of you and all your different beliefs you have come up with in your little heads/minds.

You don't know that long before the Abrahamic religions people believed in many other gods?  Science has unearthed evidence of spirituality dating back hundreds of thousands of years.  

OR, I've heard theists say that we can't know for sure that science is correct with their carbon dating.  I guess that's true.  But I'll take their word and reasoning over your priests any day of the week.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Well, I do believe in myself.  Since you guys try to confuse belief and disbelief and atheism with religion and since along with your belief comes faith, worship and god(s), I could see why you would consider me a God.



We are not the ones trying to confuse the definitions, you are. Disbelief is different from a lack of belief, yet you insist they are syn ominous. FYi, the definition of agnostic actually includes the word disbelief used according to its definition.

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; *a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.*​Feel free to continue ignoring reality in favor of your personal beliefs, it amuses the entire planet that exists outside your head.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> One Sunday I noticed for hours and hours this TCT religious tv channel was brainwashing you dumb Americans with that Jesus talk.  I didn't see any atheist shows.  Perhaps some atheist out there wants to have a show on that religious channel.  I could see that.  I could easily start arguing that atheism should be considered a religion if I wanted it to be one.
> 
> As of right now, we don't.  I can't speak for all atheists but for this argument, no we are not a religion.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion.



I love it when idiots say stupid things.

FYI, very few people watch TCT. From this thread it seems that more people who calim to be atheists watch it than people who don't,I don't recall ever watching even a minute of its programming in my entire life. In other words, of anyone is brainwashed, it is you.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> One Sunday I noticed for hours and hours this TCT religious tv channel was brainwashing you dumb Americans with that Jesus talk.  I didn't see any atheist shows.  Perhaps some atheist out there wants to have a show on that religious channel.  I could see that.  I could easily start arguing that atheism should be considered a religion if I wanted it to be one.
> 
> As of right now, we don't.  I can't speak for all atheists but for this argument, no we are not a religion.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when idiots say stupid things.
> 
> FYI, very few people watch TCT. From this thread it seems that more people who calim to be atheists watch it than people who don't,I don't recall ever watching even a minute of its programming in my entire life. In other words, of anyone is brainwashed, it is you.
Click to expand...


You mean even Christians have a problem with TCT?  Do tell?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.



Can I ask you why you ignore the fact that some atheists consider atheism a religion if your claim that you are willing to change your views when presented new facts is true? If I insisted that no Christian believes that the Earth is 6000 years old, and you presented evidence that contradicted me, which is abundantly available, and I continued to insist that no one believes that, wouldn't you argue, rightfully, that proves I am a religious zealot? Why do your actions not merit the same label? The only real difference is that you are the one doing it, after all.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> You mean even Christians have a problem with TCT?  Do tell?



The fact that you even typed that sentence proves that you are a complete ignoramus about religion in the modern world.


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I ask you why you ignore the fact that some atheists consider atheism a religion if your claim that you are willing to change your views when presented new facts is true? If I insisted that no Christian believes that the Earth is 6000 years old, and you presented evidence that contradicted me, which is abundantly available, and I continued to insist that no one believes that, wouldn't you argue, rightfully, that proves I am a religious zealot? Why do your actions not merit the same label? The only real difference is that you are the one doing it, after all.
Click to expand...

If some atheists consider atheism a religion they are wrong.
If some Christians believe that the Earth is 6000 years old they are wrong.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I ask you why you ignore the fact that some atheists consider atheism a religion if your claim that you are willing to change your views when presented new facts is true? If I insisted that no Christian believes that the Earth is 6000 years old, and you presented evidence that contradicted me, which is abundantly available, and I continued to insist that no one believes that, wouldn't you argue, rightfully, that proves I am a religious zealot? Why do your actions not merit the same label? The only real difference is that you are the one doing it, after all.
Click to expand...


Don't Muslims convert to Christianity everyday and visa versa?  Don't atheists sometimes (rarely) convert to Christianity or the Islam faith or even the Jewish faith?  

I don't care what some atheists do.  We are not a collective "one".  This isn't the Borg on Star Trek.  LOL.  

If Jesus or God came and talked to me I'd no longer be an atheist.  That is the exact thing us atheists require to believe in God(s).  God(s) would have to show themselves to us.  No more thinking thunder is Zeus for us.


----------



## Tuatara

Is this how you guys see the definition of religion.

Religion : The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: Also anyone who does not have these beliefs


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean even Christians have a problem with TCT?  Do tell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you even typed that sentence proves that you are a complete ignoramus about religion in the modern world.
Click to expand...


Oh now it's religion "in the modern world", which is different than what people believed just 200 years ago and as we see more and more people are leaving organized religions every day.  

Maybe not in Iran or the Deep Dirty Bible Belt South but everywhere else.  It use to be the North West was the most atheistic but now we see the north east is starting to enlighten and I'm sure a lot of people are atheists in California.  It is the secluded middle America that will probably remain bible thumpers for centuries just like the crazies in the middle east.  And I don't see Mormon's going away anytime soon.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that belief does not make it religion.  I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, perhaps there is no end because ultimately the problem is the very thing which is turning it into religion - dogma.  When you toss dogma into the mix, you are into religion.  Dogma is the essence of religion - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine.  For you, that doctrine is a lack of belief.  It doesn't matter that it has been shown that you do have belief, the dogma is that you don't and that is all there is to it.  It is this absolute insistence, regardless of the evidence, that an arbitrary definition creates reality which turns what would otherwise be a perfectly valid belief into a religion.  I get you won't see that, because to do that you first need to question the dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dogma* is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.
> 
> Atheists don't have Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that is what dogma is.  If Atheists don't have it, then you are not an Atheist because you do have it.  If Atheists lack belief, then you are not an Atheist because you do not lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't lack belief?  Please explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can explain, I'm just not sure you will see it.  If you read your own posts from a critical perspective, you might see it.  For example, just a couple of posts above this you wrote:
> 
> "I think we have established that by now. Lets get back to the real subject and that's we made up gods. He never visited or talked to anyone. So basically our caveman ancestors invented him sitting around a camp fire 400,000 years ago. Hundreds if not thousands of "religions" have come and gone in our very short human history."
> 
> You present no evidence.  You make broad claims as if they were fact with no support of any kind.  This entire paragraph is pure belief on your part.  You think it is true solely upon the basis that you think it is true.    You do not lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe god did visit and talk with us?  I don't even take people like you seriously.  That's why I need to know if you are a die hard Christian, Christian apologist or just someone who believes in a generic god before I can even address you.  If you believe in talking snakes and 350 year old men and talking snakes then I don't know wha to tell you.
> 
> I forgot Muslims, Mormons & Jews.  You could also be one of them.  Very hard to keep track of all of you and all your different beliefs you have come up with in your little heads/minds.
> 
> You don't know that long before the Abrahamic religions people believed in many other gods?  Science has unearthed evidence of spirituality dating back hundreds of thousands of years.
> 
> OR, I've heard theists say that we can't know for sure that science is correct with their carbon dating.  I guess that's true.  But I'll take their word and reasoning over your priests any day of the week.
Click to expand...

 
Either you have evidence to support your claims or you do not.  Asking me to prove you wrong is just a cop out.  If you don't have evidence, then what you expressed is pure belief.  If you have belief, you do not lack belief.  Insisting you lack belief, while clearly demonstrating you do have belief, solely on the basis of a definition is dogma.  Which means you have shown you have both belief and dogma.

If the definition is correct, then you are not an Atheist.  If you are an Atheist, then the definition is wrong.  It's one or the other.  You don't get it both ways.


----------



## PratchettFan

Tuatara said:


> Is this how you guys see the definition of religion.
> 
> Religion : The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: Also anyone who does not have these beliefs


 
So Buddhism, fully recognized as a religion, is not a religion.  Is that what you are saying?  Taoism is not a religion.  Shintoism is not a religion.  Shall I go on?


----------



## PratchettFan

Tuatara said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I ask you why you ignore the fact that some atheists consider atheism a religion if your claim that you are willing to change your views when presented new facts is true? If I insisted that no Christian believes that the Earth is 6000 years old, and you presented evidence that contradicted me, which is abundantly available, and I continued to insist that no one believes that, wouldn't you argue, rightfully, that proves I am a religious zealot? Why do your actions not merit the same label? The only real difference is that you are the one doing it, after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If some atheists consider atheism a religion they are wrong.
> If some Christians believe that the Earth is 6000 years old they are wrong.
Click to expand...

 
Uh huh.  I get you.  They're not real Atheists.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that belief does not make it religion.  I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, perhaps there is no end because ultimately the problem is the very thing which is turning it into religion - dogma.  When you toss dogma into the mix, you are into religion.  Dogma is the essence of religion - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine.  For you, that doctrine is a lack of belief.  It doesn't matter that it has been shown that you do have belief, the dogma is that you don't and that is all there is to it.  It is this absolute insistence, regardless of the evidence, that an arbitrary definition creates reality which turns what would otherwise be a perfectly valid belief into a religion.  I get you won't see that, because to do that you first need to question the dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a lick of sense.  There's no dogma, and lack of belief is not a religion.
> 
> *Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not lack belief, calling it a lack of belief is your dogma - which you will not question.  You're in a loop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are incorrect with your mind reading. When presented with new facts and information, I certainly do question my beliefs. I really think you need to work on your terminology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not based upon what you write here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.
Click to expand...

 
I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes.  You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6).  I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs.  Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief.  Thus, you have beliefs.  Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ...  belief.

This contradicts what you just said.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Dogma* is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.
> 
> Atheists don't have Dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is what dogma is.  If Atheists don't have it, then you are not an Atheist because you do have it.  If Atheists lack belief, then you are not an Atheist because you do not lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't lack belief?  Please explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can explain, I'm just not sure you will see it.  If you read your own posts from a critical perspective, you might see it.  For example, just a couple of posts above this you wrote:
> 
> "I think we have established that by now. Lets get back to the real subject and that's we made up gods. He never visited or talked to anyone. So basically our caveman ancestors invented him sitting around a camp fire 400,000 years ago. Hundreds if not thousands of "religions" have come and gone in our very short human history."
> 
> You present no evidence.  You make broad claims as if they were fact with no support of any kind.  This entire paragraph is pure belief on your part.  You think it is true solely upon the basis that you think it is true.    You do not lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe god did visit and talk with us?  I don't even take people like you seriously.  That's why I need to know if you are a die hard Christian, Christian apologist or just someone who believes in a generic god before I can even address you.  If you believe in talking snakes and 350 year old men and talking snakes then I don't know wha to tell you.
> 
> I forgot Muslims, Mormons & Jews.  You could also be one of them.  Very hard to keep track of all of you and all your different beliefs you have come up with in your little heads/minds.
> 
> You don't know that long before the Abrahamic religions people believed in many other gods?  Science has unearthed evidence of spirituality dating back hundreds of thousands of years.
> 
> OR, I've heard theists say that we can't know for sure that science is correct with their carbon dating.  I guess that's true.  But I'll take their word and reasoning over your priests any day of the week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you have evidence to support your claims or you do not.  Asking me to prove you wrong is just a cop out.  If you don't have evidence, then what you expressed is pure belief.  If you have belief, you do not lack belief.  Insisting you lack belief, while clearly demonstrating you do have belief, solely on the basis of a definition is dogma.  Which means you have shown you have both belief and dogma.
> 
> If the definition is correct, then you are not an Atheist.  If you are an Atheist, then the definition is wrong.  It's one or the other.  You don't get it both ways.
Click to expand...


What do you want it to be?  I'll go with that.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is what dogma is.  If Atheists don't have it, then you are not an Atheist because you do have it.  If Atheists lack belief, then you are not an Atheist because you do not lack belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't lack belief?  Please explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can explain, I'm just not sure you will see it.  If you read your own posts from a critical perspective, you might see it.  For example, just a couple of posts above this you wrote:
> 
> "I think we have established that by now. Lets get back to the real subject and that's we made up gods. He never visited or talked to anyone. So basically our caveman ancestors invented him sitting around a camp fire 400,000 years ago. Hundreds if not thousands of "religions" have come and gone in our very short human history."
> 
> You present no evidence.  You make broad claims as if they were fact with no support of any kind.  This entire paragraph is pure belief on your part.  You think it is true solely upon the basis that you think it is true.    You do not lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe god did visit and talk with us?  I don't even take people like you seriously.  That's why I need to know if you are a die hard Christian, Christian apologist or just someone who believes in a generic god before I can even address you.  If you believe in talking snakes and 350 year old men and talking snakes then I don't know wha to tell you.
> 
> I forgot Muslims, Mormons & Jews.  You could also be one of them.  Very hard to keep track of all of you and all your different beliefs you have come up with in your little heads/minds.
> 
> You don't know that long before the Abrahamic religions people believed in many other gods?  Science has unearthed evidence of spirituality dating back hundreds of thousands of years.
> 
> OR, I've heard theists say that we can't know for sure that science is correct with their carbon dating.  I guess that's true.  But I'll take their word and reasoning over your priests any day of the week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you have evidence to support your claims or you do not.  Asking me to prove you wrong is just a cop out.  If you don't have evidence, then what you expressed is pure belief.  If you have belief, you do not lack belief.  Insisting you lack belief, while clearly demonstrating you do have belief, solely on the basis of a definition is dogma.  Which means you have shown you have both belief and dogma.
> 
> If the definition is correct, then you are not an Atheist.  If you are an Atheist, then the definition is wrong.  It's one or the other.  You don't get it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you want it to be?  I'll go with that.
Click to expand...

 
Accurate.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this how you guys see the definition of religion.
> 
> Religion : The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: Also anyone who does not have these beliefs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Buddhism, fully recognized as a religion, is not a religion.  Is that what you are saying?  Taoism is not a religion.  Shintoism is not a religion.  Shall I go on?
Click to expand...


Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a lick of sense.  There's no dogma, and lack of belief is not a religion.
> 
> *Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not lack belief, calling it a lack of belief is your dogma - which you will not question.  You're in a loop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are incorrect with your mind reading. When presented with new facts and information, I certainly do question my beliefs. I really think you need to work on your terminology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not based upon what you write here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes.  You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6).  I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs.  Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief.  Thus, you have beliefs.  Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ...  belief.
> 
> This contradicts what you just said.
Click to expand...


Plenty of evidence.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Dogma* is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.
> 
> Atheists don't have Dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is what dogma is.  If Atheists don't have it, then you are not an Atheist because you do have it.  If Atheists lack belief, then you are not an Atheist because you do not lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't lack belief?  Please explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can explain, I'm just not sure you will see it.  If you read your own posts from a critical perspective, you might see it.  For example, just a couple of posts above this you wrote:
> 
> "I think we have established that by now. Lets get back to the real subject and that's we made up gods. He never visited or talked to anyone. So basically our caveman ancestors invented him sitting around a camp fire 400,000 years ago. Hundreds if not thousands of "religions" have come and gone in our very short human history."
> 
> You present no evidence.  You make broad claims as if they were fact with no support of any kind.  This entire paragraph is pure belief on your part.  You think it is true solely upon the basis that you think it is true.    You do not lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe god did visit and talk with us?  I don't even take people like you seriously.  That's why I need to know if you are a die hard Christian, Christian apologist or just someone who believes in a generic god before I can even address you.  If you believe in talking snakes and 350 year old men and talking snakes then I don't know wha to tell you.
> 
> I forgot Muslims, Mormons & Jews.  You could also be one of them.  Very hard to keep track of all of you and all your different beliefs you have come up with in your little heads/minds.
> 
> You don't know that long before the Abrahamic religions people believed in many other gods?  Science has unearthed evidence of spirituality dating back hundreds of thousands of years.
> 
> OR, I've heard theists say that we can't know for sure that science is correct with their carbon dating.  I guess that's true.  But I'll take their word and reasoning over your priests any day of the week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you have evidence to support your claims or you do not.  Asking me to prove you wrong is just a cop out.  If you don't have evidence, then what you expressed is pure belief.  If you have belief, you do not lack belief.  Insisting you lack belief, while clearly demonstrating you do have belief, solely on the basis of a definition is dogma.  Which means you have shown you have both belief and dogma.
> 
> If the definition is correct, then you are not an Atheist.  If you are an Atheist, then the definition is wrong.  It's one or the other.  You don't get it both ways.
Click to expand...


Check out all the evidence an atheist might give for their being no god.  Go to number 25 first. 

Most atheists, including famous ones such as Richard Dawkins, fall into the category of ‘Agnostic Atheism’ – they don’t claim to know with certainty that god does not exist. Conversely, most theists are ‘Gnostic Theists’ – they claim to know with certainty that their particular god exists.
When most atheists say “God does not exist” they are generally speaking in the same manner as when people say “Leprechauns/Santa Claus/Fairies/Unicorns don’t exist” – those things do not appear exist within contextual reality in which we find ourselves but, importantly, the statement is not necessarily an absolute one.

There are, however, gnostic atheists who are certain no god exists and they generally point to logical problems that would arise from said god’s existence or evidence this universe is inconsistent with a god, for example:


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a lick of sense.  There's no dogma, and lack of belief is not a religion.
> 
> *Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not lack belief, calling it a lack of belief is your dogma - which you will not question.  You're in a loop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are incorrect with your mind reading. When presented with new facts and information, I certainly do question my beliefs. I really think you need to work on your terminology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not based upon what you write here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes.  You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6).  I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs.  Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief.  Thus, you have beliefs.  Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ...  belief.
> 
> This contradicts what you just said.
Click to expand...



I like how you change up your wording. I NEVER, NOT ONCE said I had no beliefs.  How ridiculous.

What I lack is a belief in God.  I have no faith.  That is not a religion.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this how you guys see the definition of religion.
> 
> Religion : The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: Also anyone who does not have these beliefs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Buddhism, fully recognized as a religion, is not a religion.  Is that what you are saying?  Taoism is not a religion.  Shintoism is not a religion.  Shall I go on?
Click to expand...



That's already been addressed.


Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. *It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself.* They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.

Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar


----------



## sealybobo

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not lack belief, calling it a lack of belief is your dogma - which you will not question.  You're in a loop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are incorrect with your mind reading. When presented with new facts and information, I certainly do question my beliefs. I really think you need to work on your terminology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not based upon what you write here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes.  You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6).  I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs.  Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief.  Thus, you have beliefs.  Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ...  belief.
> 
> This contradicts what you just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you change up your wording. I NEVER, NOT ONCE said I had no beliefs.  How ridiculous.
> 
> What I lack is a belief in God.  I have no faith.  That is not a religion.
Click to expand...


Science has demonstrably produced the most accurate and reliable models of the universe that mankind has ever known and it is upon these models that all modern technology, medicine and industry are based.  Science only appears to be erratic when it contradicts theists. 

Science keeps changing because the tools used to perform science keep improving. When the universe of available evidence changes, scientific theories must be re-evaluated. There are no absolute truths in science; all laws, theories and conclusions can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new evidence. However, a scientific theory is the highest honor any scientific principle can obtain, for they comprise all the evidence, laws and models relevant to an observed phenomena. Theories are rarely proven incorrect and are usually refined on a time-scale measured in centuries.

The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, intuition, and creativity. It is an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods, but not necessarily discarding old ones. For example, when Einstein developed the General and Special Theories of Relativity, he did not in any way refute or discount Newton’s _Principia_. On the contrary, if the astronomically large, vanishingly small and extremely fast are removed from Einstein’s theories — phenomena Newton could not have observed — Newton’s equations are what remain. Einstein’s theories are simply expansions and refinements of Newton’s theories and thus increase our confidence in Newton’s work while providing a _deeper understanding_. The very same relationship applies to Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics, and to Evolution and Genetics.

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.


----------



## sealybobo

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this how you guys see the definition of religion.
> 
> Religion : The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: Also anyone who does not have these beliefs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Buddhism, fully recognized as a religion, is not a religion.  Is that what you are saying?  Taoism is not a religion.  Shintoism is not a religion.  Shall I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's already been addressed.
> 
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. *It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself.* They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.
> 
> Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar
Click to expand...


Atheists say, "I don't believe in god but I'll change my mind if I see one".

Theists say they believe in gods even though they have no evidence and no matter how many arguments there are against their god, they're going to just continue following this cult i was either born or sucked into.  

Fuck science and logic!


----------



## sealybobo

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not lack belief, calling it a lack of belief is your dogma - which you will not question.  You're in a loop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are incorrect with your mind reading. When presented with new facts and information, I certainly do question my beliefs. I really think you need to work on your terminology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not based upon what you write here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes.  You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6).  I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs.  Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief.  Thus, you have beliefs.  Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ...  belief.
> 
> This contradicts what you just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you change up your wording. I NEVER, NOT ONCE said I had no beliefs.  How ridiculous.
> 
> What I lack is a belief in God.  I have no faith.  That is not a religion.
Click to expand...


This is what they don't get:

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because _none are made_. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of _justified belief_ grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an _unjustified belief_ based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality.

Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this how you guys see the definition of religion.
> 
> Religion : The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: Also anyone who does not have these beliefs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Buddhism, fully recognized as a religion, is not a religion.  Is that what you are saying?  Taoism is not a religion.  Shintoism is not a religion.  Shall I go on?
Click to expand...


Look up the difference between justifiable and unjustifiable beliefs.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Dogma* is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.
> 
> Atheists don't have Dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is what dogma is.  If Atheists don't have it, then you are not an Atheist because you do have it.  If Atheists lack belief, then you are not an Atheist because you do not lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't lack belief?  Please explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can explain, I'm just not sure you will see it.  If you read your own posts from a critical perspective, you might see it.  For example, just a couple of posts above this you wrote:
> 
> "I think we have established that by now. Lets get back to the real subject and that's we made up gods. He never visited or talked to anyone. So basically our caveman ancestors invented him sitting around a camp fire 400,000 years ago. Hundreds if not thousands of "religions" have come and gone in our very short human history."
> 
> You present no evidence.  You make broad claims as if they were fact with no support of any kind.  This entire paragraph is pure belief on your part.  You think it is true solely upon the basis that you think it is true.    You do not lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe god did visit and talk with us?  I don't even take people like you seriously.  That's why I need to know if you are a die hard Christian, Christian apologist or just someone who believes in a generic god before I can even address you.  If you believe in talking snakes and 350 year old men and talking snakes then I don't know wha to tell you.
> 
> I forgot Muslims, Mormons & Jews.  You could also be one of them.  Very hard to keep track of all of you and all your different beliefs you have come up with in your little heads/minds.
> 
> You don't know that long before the Abrahamic religions people believed in many other gods?  Science has unearthed evidence of spirituality dating back hundreds of thousands of years.
> 
> OR, I've heard theists say that we can't know for sure that science is correct with their carbon dating.  I guess that's true.  But I'll take their word and reasoning over your priests any day of the week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you have evidence to support your claims or you do not.  Asking me to prove you wrong is just a cop out.  If you don't have evidence, then what you expressed is pure belief.  If you have belief, you do not lack belief.  Insisting you lack belief, while clearly demonstrating you do have belief, solely on the basis of a definition is dogma.  Which means you have shown you have both belief and dogma.
> 
> If the definition is correct, then you are not an Atheist.  If you are an Atheist, then the definition is wrong.  It's one or the other.  You don't get it both ways.
Click to expand...


Philosophers distinguish between justified and unjustified beliefs. The former are beliefs a cognizer is entitled to hold by virtue of his or her evidence or cognitive operations. The latter are beliefs he or she is unwarranted in holding, for example, beliefs based on sheer fantasy, popular superstition, or sloppy thinking.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Dogma* is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.
> 
> Atheists don't have Dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is what dogma is.  If Atheists don't have it, then you are not an Atheist because you do have it.  If Atheists lack belief, then you are not an Atheist because you do not lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't lack belief?  Please explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can explain, I'm just not sure you will see it.  If you read your own posts from a critical perspective, you might see it.  For example, just a couple of posts above this you wrote:
> 
> "I think we have established that by now. Lets get back to the real subject and that's we made up gods. He never visited or talked to anyone. So basically our caveman ancestors invented him sitting around a camp fire 400,000 years ago. Hundreds if not thousands of "religions" have come and gone in our very short human history."
> 
> You present no evidence.  You make broad claims as if they were fact with no support of any kind.  This entire paragraph is pure belief on your part.  You think it is true solely upon the basis that you think it is true.    You do not lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe god did visit and talk with us?  I don't even take people like you seriously.  That's why I need to know if you are a die hard Christian, Christian apologist or just someone who believes in a generic god before I can even address you.  If you believe in talking snakes and 350 year old men and talking snakes then I don't know wha to tell you.
> 
> I forgot Muslims, Mormons & Jews.  You could also be one of them.  Very hard to keep track of all of you and all your different beliefs you have come up with in your little heads/minds.
> 
> You don't know that long before the Abrahamic religions people believed in many other gods?  Science has unearthed evidence of spirituality dating back hundreds of thousands of years.
> 
> OR, I've heard theists say that we can't know for sure that science is correct with their carbon dating.  I guess that's true.  But I'll take their word and reasoning over your priests any day of the week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you have evidence to support your claims or you do not.  Asking me to prove you wrong is just a cop out.  If you don't have evidence, then what you expressed is pure belief.  If you have belief, you do not lack belief.  Insisting you lack belief, while clearly demonstrating you do have belief, solely on the basis of a definition is dogma.  Which means you have shown you have both belief and dogma.
> 
> If the definition is correct, then you are not an Atheist.  If you are an Atheist, then the definition is wrong.  It's one or the other.  You don't get it both ways.
Click to expand...


Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this how you guys see the definition of religion.
> 
> Religion : The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: Also anyone who does not have these beliefs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Buddhism, fully recognized as a religion, is not a religion.  Is that what you are saying?  Taoism is not a religion.  Shintoism is not a religion.  Shall I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
Click to expand...


Religion requires none of those things to be religion.  Religion is a human activity and it is not identified by definition but by attributes.  Tuatara made a statement about attributes, which was at least on the right track, but the attributes themselves were clearly inaccurate because they failed to include multiple religions as religion.  So if you are going to establish attributes as requirements, then they must apply to all religions.  If they do not, then the are not requirements.  The attributes I have identified are:

Group identity - as indicated religion is social.  There must be a sense of "us".
Belief based - the reason for the group is a shared belief
Dogma - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine

If you wish to dispute any of those I am happy to discuss them.  If you want some added, that is open as well but if there is a religion which does not the attribute then it will not stand.

I see you are still holding to the "lack of belief" claim despite your clearly having belief.  That makes your particular version of Atheism in line with the three attributes I have indicated.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is what dogma is.  If Atheists don't have it, then you are not an Atheist because you do have it.  If Atheists lack belief, then you are not an Atheist because you do not lack belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't lack belief?  Please explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can explain, I'm just not sure you will see it.  If you read your own posts from a critical perspective, you might see it.  For example, just a couple of posts above this you wrote:
> 
> "I think we have established that by now. Lets get back to the real subject and that's we made up gods. He never visited or talked to anyone. So basically our caveman ancestors invented him sitting around a camp fire 400,000 years ago. Hundreds if not thousands of "religions" have come and gone in our very short human history."
> 
> You present no evidence.  You make broad claims as if they were fact with no support of any kind.  This entire paragraph is pure belief on your part.  You think it is true solely upon the basis that you think it is true.    You do not lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe god did visit and talk with us?  I don't even take people like you seriously.  That's why I need to know if you are a die hard Christian, Christian apologist or just someone who believes in a generic god before I can even address you.  If you believe in talking snakes and 350 year old men and talking snakes then I don't know wha to tell you.
> 
> I forgot Muslims, Mormons & Jews.  You could also be one of them.  Very hard to keep track of all of you and all your different beliefs you have come up with in your little heads/minds.
> 
> You don't know that long before the Abrahamic religions people believed in many other gods?  Science has unearthed evidence of spirituality dating back hundreds of thousands of years.
> 
> OR, I've heard theists say that we can't know for sure that science is correct with their carbon dating.  I guess that's true.  But I'll take their word and reasoning over your priests any day of the week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you have evidence to support your claims or you do not.  Asking me to prove you wrong is just a cop out.  If you don't have evidence, then what you expressed is pure belief.  If you have belief, you do not lack belief.  Insisting you lack belief, while clearly demonstrating you do have belief, solely on the basis of a definition is dogma.  Which means you have shown you have both belief and dogma.
> 
> If the definition is correct, then you are not an Atheist.  If you are an Atheist, then the definition is wrong.  It's one or the other.  You don't get it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time.
Click to expand...


You are not using science.  Not even close.  Science requires you support your claims with evidence.  What you are doing is invoking the word, as if it were a talisman.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is what dogma is.  If Atheists don't have it, then you are not an Atheist because you do have it.  If Atheists lack belief, then you are not an Atheist because you do not lack belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't lack belief?  Please explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can explain, I'm just not sure you will see it.  If you read your own posts from a critical perspective, you might see it.  For example, just a couple of posts above this you wrote:
> 
> "I think we have established that by now. Lets get back to the real subject and that's we made up gods. He never visited or talked to anyone. So basically our caveman ancestors invented him sitting around a camp fire 400,000 years ago. Hundreds if not thousands of "religions" have come and gone in our very short human history."
> 
> You present no evidence.  You make broad claims as if they were fact with no support of any kind.  This entire paragraph is pure belief on your part.  You think it is true solely upon the basis that you think it is true.    You do not lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe god did visit and talk with us?  I don't even take people like you seriously.  That's why I need to know if you are a die hard Christian, Christian apologist or just someone who believes in a generic god before I can even address you.  If you believe in talking snakes and 350 year old men and talking snakes then I don't know wha to tell you.
> 
> I forgot Muslims, Mormons & Jews.  You could also be one of them.  Very hard to keep track of all of you and all your different beliefs you have come up with in your little heads/minds.
> 
> You don't know that long before the Abrahamic religions people believed in many other gods?  Science has unearthed evidence of spirituality dating back hundreds of thousands of years.
> 
> OR, I've heard theists say that we can't know for sure that science is correct with their carbon dating.  I guess that's true.  But I'll take their word and reasoning over your priests any day of the week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you have evidence to support your claims or you do not.  Asking me to prove you wrong is just a cop out.  If you don't have evidence, then what you expressed is pure belief.  If you have belief, you do not lack belief.  Insisting you lack belief, while clearly demonstrating you do have belief, solely on the basis of a definition is dogma.  Which means you have shown you have both belief and dogma.
> 
> If the definition is correct, then you are not an Atheist.  If you are an Atheist, then the definition is wrong.  It's one or the other.  You don't get it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Philosophers distinguish between justified and unjustified beliefs. The former are beliefs a cognizer is entitled to hold by virtue of his or her evidence or cognitive operations. The latter are beliefs he or she is unwarranted in holding, for example, beliefs based on sheer fantasy, popular superstition, or sloppy thinking.
Click to expand...


A statement made as fact in the absence of supporting evidence is belief.  You do not lack beliefs.  Trying to justify it does not change it.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this how you guys see the definition of religion.
> 
> Religion : The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: Also anyone who does not have these beliefs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Buddhism, fully recognized as a religion, is not a religion.  Is that what you are saying?  Taoism is not a religion.  Shintoism is not a religion.  Shall I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look up the difference between justifiable and unjustifiable beliefs.
Click to expand...


A belief is not a lack of belief.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this how you guys see the definition of religion.
> 
> Religion : The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: Also anyone who does not have these beliefs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Buddhism, fully recognized as a religion, is not a religion.  Is that what you are saying?  Taoism is not a religion.  Shintoism is not a religion.  Shall I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's already been addressed.
> 
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. *It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself.* They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.
> 
> Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar
Click to expand...


I'm not a Christian.  It is obviously possible to call Atheism a religion.  It has been done many times in the thread alone.  Saying it can't be by definition is dogma.

As to what has been addressed, tell Tuatara.  He brought it up.  If a false argument is being made, then I will point out it is false.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not lack belief, calling it a lack of belief is your dogma - which you will not question.  You're in a loop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are incorrect with your mind reading. When presented with new facts and information, I certainly do question my beliefs. I really think you need to work on your terminology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not based upon what you write here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes.  You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6).  I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs.  Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief.  Thus, you have beliefs.  Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ...  belief.
> 
> This contradicts what you just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plenty of evidence.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
Click to expand...


Giving me a definition, which has been repeatedly demonstrated to be inaccurate, which I am to accept without question.  This is not evidence, it is dogma.  You do not lack belief, so either the definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.  Carla does not lack belief, same situation.  In fact, I have yet to meet an Atheist that meets that definition. 

BTW, your understanding of how that word works is also wrong.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not lack belief, calling it a lack of belief is your dogma - which you will not question.  You're in a loop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are incorrect with your mind reading. When presented with new facts and information, I certainly do question my beliefs. I really think you need to work on your terminology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not based upon what you write here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes.  You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6).  I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs.  Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief.  Thus, you have beliefs.  Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ...  belief.
> 
> This contradicts what you just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you change up your wording. I NEVER, NOT ONCE said I had no beliefs.  How ridiculous.
> 
> What I lack is a belief in God.  I have no faith.  That is not a religion.
Click to expand...


You do have belief in God.  You have made that clear and I pointed it out above.  The fact it is a negative belief does not make it any less a belief.  You do not lack belief.  It is this insistence that an arbitrary definition, an inaccurate definition at that, creates reality which is making it religion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> If some atheists consider atheism a religion they are wrong.
> If some Christians believe that the Earth is 6000 years old they are wrong.



Why are they wrong? Is it because you refuse to believe that religion does not have to be centered around a God, or do you have an actual argument to support your position? What evidence can you present to refute their position? 

In other words, put up or shut the fuck up.

By the way, oh he who thinks he has a brain, if you had read my post you would have clearly seen why you are wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Don't Muslims convert to Christianity everyday and visa versa?  Don't atheists sometimes (rarely) convert to Christianity or the Islam faith or even the Jewish faith?



What the fuck does this have to do with what I said?

Wait, I am asking an idiot to explain his idiocy, my mistake.



sealybobo said:


> I don't care what some atheists do.  We are not a collective "one".  This isn't the Borg on Star Trek.  LOL.



I am sure you are able to justify this by pointing to some post where I said something remotely resembling th claim that you just made.

Not.

Do you think you can stop being an idiot for the time it takes to type a single sentence?



sealybobo said:


> If Jesus or God came and talked to me I'd no longer be an atheist.  That is the exact thing us atheists require to believe in God(s).  God(s) would have to show themselves to us.  No more thinking thunder is Zeus for us.



Wait a second here, I thought you said atheist were not a collective, yet you just defined them as such by declaring the level of proof every single atheist needs to change their minds.

Silly child.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> Is this how you guys see the definition of religion.
> 
> Religion : The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: Also anyone who does not have these beliefs



No, that is how you see it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Oh now it's religion "in the modern world", which is different than what people believed just 200 years ago and as we see more and more people are leaving organized religions every day.
> 
> Maybe not in Iran or the Deep Dirty Bible Belt South but everywhere else.  It use to be the North West was the most atheistic but now we see the north east is starting to enlighten and I'm sure a lot of people are atheists in California.  It is the secluded middle America that will probably remain bible thumpers for centuries just like the crazies in the middle east.  And I don't see Mormon's going away anytime soon.



Funny, I don't recall saying any of that. What I said is that you are ignorant, you reinforced my point by posting this drivel.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.



None of this changes the fact that some people see atheism as their religion, a fact you ignore because it upsets your belief system.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> That's already been addressed.
> 
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. *It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself.* They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.
> 
> Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar



Until you admit that some people see atheism as their personal religion all you are doing is ignoring reality, just like the idiots who think the Earth is only 6000 years old.

By the way, that is part of the beliefs of some Hindus, so don't pretend that is exclusively on the Bible in an attempt to deflect from your personal refusal to deal with reality,


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PratchettFan said:


> Religion requires none of those things to be religion.  Religion is a human activity and it is not identified by definition but by attributes.  Tuatara made a statement about attributes, which was at least on the right track, but the attributes themselves were clearly inaccurate because they failed to include multiple religions as religion.  So if you are going to establish attributes as requirements, then they must apply to all religions.  If they do not, then the are not requirements.  The attributes I have identified are:
> 
> Group identity - as indicated religion is social.  There must be a sense of "us".
> Belief based - the reason for the group is a shared belief
> Dogma - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine
> 
> If you wish to dispute any of those I am happy to discuss them.  If you want some added, that is open as well but if there is a religion which does not the attribute then it will not stand.
> 
> I see you are still holding to the "lack of belief" claim despite your clearly having belief.  That makes your particular version of Atheism in line with the three attributes I have indicated.



Personally, I object to the inclusion of dogma as an attribute of religion. Many religions are dogmatic, but some are open to change if their beliefs are proven to be wrong. Many Christians actually accept evolution, and even argue that things defined as sin in the Bible are not, in and of themselves, wrong. 

This is why I would use the word doctrine to denote that a religion has teachings, and perhaps even a set of rules, but I am not sure all religions would fit if we used the word rules.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this how you guys see the definition of religion.
> 
> Religion : The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: Also anyone who does not have these beliefs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Buddhism, fully recognized as a religion, is not a religion.  Is that what you are saying?  Taoism is not a religion.  Shintoism is not a religion.  Shall I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion requires none of those things to be religion.  Religion is a human activity and it is not identified by definition but by attributes.  Tuatara made a statement about attributes, which was at least on the right track, but the attributes themselves were clearly inaccurate because they failed to include multiple religions as religion.  So if you are going to establish attributes as requirements, then they must apply to all religions.  If they do not, then the are not requirements.  The attributes I have identified are:
> 
> Group identity - as indicated religion is social.  There must be a sense of "us".
> Belief based - the reason for the group is a shared belief
> Dogma - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine
> 
> If you wish to dispute any of those I am happy to discuss them.  If you want some added, that is open as well but if there is a religion which does not the attribute then it will not stand.
> 
> I see you are still holding to the "lack of belief" claim despite your clearly having belief.  That makes your particular version of Atheism in line with the three attributes I have indicated.
Click to expand...


We don't have Dogma.  Atheists and science don't accept anything without question.  

I have no group to go meet with.

I don't believe in god or Leprechans.  So what?


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion requires none of those things to be religion.  Religion is a human activity and it is not identified by definition but by attributes.  Tuatara made a statement about attributes, which was at least on the right track, but the attributes themselves were clearly inaccurate because they failed to include multiple religions as religion.  So if you are going to establish attributes as requirements, then they must apply to all religions.  If they do not, then the are not requirements.  The attributes I have identified are:
> 
> Group identity - as indicated religion is social.  There must be a sense of "us".
> Belief based - the reason for the group is a shared belief
> Dogma - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine
> 
> If you wish to dispute any of those I am happy to discuss them.  If you want some added, that is open as well but if there is a religion which does not the attribute then it will not stand.
> 
> I see you are still holding to the "lack of belief" claim despite your clearly having belief.  That makes your particular version of Atheism in line with the three attributes I have indicated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I object to the inclusion of dogma as an attribute of religion. Many religions are dogmatic, but some are open to change if their beliefs are proven to be wrong. Many Christians actually accept evolution, and even argue that things defined as sin in the Bible are not, in and of themselves, wrong.
> 
> This is why I would use the word doctrine to denote that a religion has teachings, and perhaps even a set of rules, but I am not sure all religions would fit if we used the word rules.
Click to expand...


Then they aren't really Christians.  It won't be long before people who think like that leave the church.  OR, the church itself will change with society.  So in that sense you are right.  Religions are not above changing their beliefs.  Sure the Catholics hold out a long time but soon they'll have women priests and birth control will be acceptable.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> I'm sorry I wish it were all true but you people are just so dumb.


/shrugs.....yet you're the one watching it and I'm not......


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> One Sunday I noticed for hours and hours this TCT religious tv channel was brainwashing you dumb Americans with that Jesus talk.  I didn't see any atheist shows.  Perhaps some atheist out there wants to have a show on that religious channel.  I could see that.  I could easily start arguing that atheism should be considered a religion if I wanted it to be one.
> 
> As of right now, we don't.  I can't speak for all atheists but for this argument, no we are not a religion.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when idiots say stupid things.
> 
> FYI, very few people watch TCT. From this thread it seems that more people who calim to be atheists watch it than people who don't,I don't recall ever watching even a minute of its programming in my entire life. In other words, of anyone is brainwashed, it is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean even Christians have a problem with TCT?  Do tell?
Click to expand...

wouldn't know.....never have seen it.......


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Then they aren't really Christians.  It won't be long before people who think like that leave the church.  OR, the church itself will change with society.  So in that sense you are right.  Religions are not above changing their beliefs.  Sure the Catholics hold out a long time but soon they'll have women priests and birth control will be acceptable.



I forgot I was speaking to god himself, who is the only real authority on who is, and is not, a Christian, as well of the personal beliefs of everyone on the planet.


----------



## Montrovant

Quantum Windbag said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion requires none of those things to be religion.  Religion is a human activity and it is not identified by definition but by attributes.  Tuatara made a statement about attributes, which was at least on the right track, but the attributes themselves were clearly inaccurate because they failed to include multiple religions as religion.  So if you are going to establish attributes as requirements, then they must apply to all religions.  If they do not, then the are not requirements.  The attributes I have identified are:
> 
> Group identity - as indicated religion is social.  There must be a sense of "us".
> Belief based - the reason for the group is a shared belief
> Dogma - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine
> 
> If you wish to dispute any of those I am happy to discuss them.  If you want some added, that is open as well but if there is a religion which does not the attribute then it will not stand.
> 
> I see you are still holding to the "lack of belief" claim despite your clearly having belief.  That makes your particular version of Atheism in line with the three attributes I have indicated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I object to the inclusion of dogma as an attribute of religion. Many religions are dogmatic, but some are open to change if their beliefs are proven to be wrong. Many Christians actually accept evolution, and even argue that things defined as sin in the Bible are not, in and of themselves, wrong.
> 
> This is why I would use the word doctrine to denote that a religion has teachings, and perhaps even a set of rules, but I am not sure all religions would fit if we used the word rules.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure there must be a sense of "us", either.  I think that if a person had a set of beliefs about a god or gods, rules by which those deities required the person to live, etc. yet no one else shared those beliefs, it could still qualify as a religion.

I also think there can be a lot of gray area between religion and philosophy.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are incorrect with your mind reading. When presented with new facts and information, I certainly do question my beliefs. I really think you need to work on your terminology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not based upon what you write here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes.  You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6).  I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs.  Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief.  Thus, you have beliefs.  Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ...  belief.
> 
> This contradicts what you just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plenty of evidence.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Giving me a definition, which has been repeatedly demonstrated to be inaccurate, which I am to accept without question.  This is not evidence, it is dogma.  You do not lack belief, so either the definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.  Carla does not lack belief, same situation.  In fact, I have yet to meet an Atheist that meets that definition.
> 
> BTW, your understanding of how that word works is also wrong.
Click to expand...


So your feelings about Islam is Dogma?  Your feeling about Jehova or Joseph Smith is Dogma?  

Assuming your a christian, is your disbelief in Bigfoot dogma?  

 I simply don't believe god(s) exist.  I think you are either making too much over it or you are trying to bring us down to your level of stupid dogma that you clearly have.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they aren't really Christians.  It won't be long before people who think like that leave the church.  OR, the church itself will change with society.  So in that sense you are right.  Religions are not above changing their beliefs.  Sure the Catholics hold out a long time but soon they'll have women priests and birth control will be acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I forgot I was speaking to god himself, who is the only real authority on who is, and is not, a Christian, as well of the personal beliefs of everyone on the planet.
Click to expand...


How you gonna be a christian and then say you don't believe Jonah lived in the belly of a whale for 3 days when Jesus himself supposedly said it.  And from what Christians say, he wasn't speaking metaphorically or in allegories or whatever they called it.  He supposedly said it happened as a matter of fact.  So either Jesus is a liar, you believe in living in the belly of a whale and living after 3 days.

Of course they told that story!!!  Now I get why.  Because if you are going to believe Jesus came back to life after 3 days, you first have to be dumb enough to believe the Jonah story, which I'm sure you don't.  So stop calling yourself a Christian if you know it's all a lie.

I use to do the same thing.  Had my own spin on Christianity.  Just followed "Jesus" not the religion because he seemed like a good guy.  But its still a lie.  It's why I no longer call myself a Christian.  If there is a god he can't like me lying and saying I believe when I don't.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Quantum Windbag said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's already been addressed.
> 
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. *It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself.* They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.
> 
> Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until you admit that some people see atheism as their personal religion all you are doing is ignoring reality, just like the idiots who think the Earth is only 6000 years old.
> 
> By the way, that is part of the beliefs of some Hindus, so don't pretend that is exclusively on the Bible in an attempt to deflect from your personal refusal to deal with reality,
Click to expand...



If some people view their atheism as a religion, they're doing it wrong. We've already covered the Hindus, and have determined that atheism is not a religion by itself.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are incorrect with your mind reading. When presented with new facts and information, I certainly do question my beliefs. I really think you need to work on your terminology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not based upon what you write here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes.  You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6).  I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs.  Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief.  Thus, you have beliefs.  Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ...  belief.
> 
> This contradicts what you just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you change up your wording. I NEVER, NOT ONCE said I had no beliefs.  How ridiculous.
> 
> What I lack is a belief in God.  I have no faith.  That is not a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do have belief in God.  You have made that clear and I pointed it out above.  The fact it is a negative belief does not make it any less a belief.  You do not lack belief.  It is this insistence that an arbitrary definition, an inaccurate definition at that, creates reality which is making it religion.
Click to expand...



Nonsense! I don't care how you word it. There in no religion for simply not believing.


----------



## sealybobo

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not based upon what you write here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes.  You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6).  I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs.  Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief.  Thus, you have beliefs.  Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ...  belief.
> 
> This contradicts what you just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you change up your wording. I NEVER, NOT ONCE said I had no beliefs.  How ridiculous.
> 
> What I lack is a belief in God.  I have no faith.  That is not a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do have belief in God.  You have made that clear and I pointed it out above.  The fact it is a negative belief does not make it any less a belief.  You do not lack belief.  It is this insistence that an arbitrary definition, an inaccurate definition at that, creates reality which is making it religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense! I don't care how you word it. There in no religion for simply not believing.
Click to expand...


They keep bouncing back between the words belief, faith and religion.  They want atheism to be all three.  Doesn't matter that we don't have a Vatican or Grand Poobah leading us.  In fact nothing we post will matter so I'm moving on.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> How you gonna be a christian and then say you don't believe Jonah lived in the belly of a whale for 3 days when Jesus himself supposedly said it.  And from what Christians say, he wasn't speaking metaphorically or in allegories or whatever they called it.  He supposedly said it happened as a matter of fact.  So either Jesus is a liar, you believe in living in the belly of a whale and living after 3 days.
> 
> Of course they told that story!!!  Now I get why.  Because if you are going to believe Jesus came back to life after 3 days, you first have to be dumb enough to believe the Jonah story, which I'm sure you don't.  So stop calling yourself a Christian if you know it's all a lie.
> 
> I use to do the same thing.  Had my own spin on Christianity.  Just followed "Jesus" not the religion because he seemed like a good guy.  But its still a lie.  It's why I no longer call myself a Christian.  If there is a god he can't like me lying and saying I believe when I don't.



There you go telling people what they believe again.

By the way, Jesus never used the word whale, that is just how we translate it. That means that no one is obligated to believe that Jesus said that Jonah despite your ignorant demands.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> If some people view their atheism as a religion, they're doing it wrong. We've already covered the Hindus, and have determined that atheism is not a religion by itself.



What makes them wrong, other than your refusal to admit you could be wrong?


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How you gonna be a christian and then say you don't believe Jonah lived in the belly of a whale for 3 days when Jesus himself supposedly said it.  And from what Christians say, he wasn't speaking metaphorically or in allegories or whatever they called it.  He supposedly said it happened as a matter of fact.  So either Jesus is a liar, you believe in living in the belly of a whale and living after 3 days.
> 
> Of course they told that story!!!  Now I get why.  Because if you are going to believe Jesus came back to life after 3 days, you first have to be dumb enough to believe the Jonah story, which I'm sure you don't.  So stop calling yourself a Christian if you know it's all a lie.
> 
> I use to do the same thing.  Had my own spin on Christianity.  Just followed "Jesus" not the religion because he seemed like a good guy.  But its still a lie.  It's why I no longer call myself a Christian.  If there is a god he can't like me lying and saying I believe when I don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go telling people what they believe again.
> 
> By the way, Jesus never used the word whale, that is just how we translate it. That means that no one is obligated to believe that Jesus said that Jonah despite your ignorant demands.
Click to expand...


Well if you can explain this away or re interpret it I guess you'll be able to edit the bible however and whenever you please so just admit it's a book that changes and doesn't really mean what it says.

First, let me say that the historicity of this account is vital to the Christian. Believing it is not an option, for Jesus Christ Himself believed it and made it a model for the doctrine of His resurrection. "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40).

Did Jonah Really Get Swallowed by a Whale 

This is the second time me looking into this where the Christian site I use says Christians MUST believe this because Jesus himself said it.

Oh???  The story of Jonah is one of those Scripture passages that we as Catholics would say is a TRUE story, but not necessarily FACT. Catholics believe that _everything_ in the Bible is TRUE in a religious sense. However, when it comes to scientific and historical truth (facts), there are times that the Bible is not totally accurate.

Was Jonah literally swallowed by the Whale - Busted Halo

You guys are a hoot!


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How you gonna be a christian and then say you don't believe Jonah lived in the belly of a whale for 3 days when Jesus himself supposedly said it.  And from what Christians say, he wasn't speaking metaphorically or in allegories or whatever they called it.  He supposedly said it happened as a matter of fact.  So either Jesus is a liar, you believe in living in the belly of a whale and living after 3 days.
> 
> Of course they told that story!!!  Now I get why.  Because if you are going to believe Jesus came back to life after 3 days, you first have to be dumb enough to believe the Jonah story, which I'm sure you don't.  So stop calling yourself a Christian if you know it's all a lie.
> 
> I use to do the same thing.  Had my own spin on Christianity.  Just followed "Jesus" not the religion because he seemed like a good guy.  But its still a lie.  It's why I no longer call myself a Christian.  If there is a god he can't like me lying and saying I believe when I don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go telling people what they believe again.
> 
> By the way, Jesus never used the word whale, that is just how we translate it. That means that no one is obligated to believe that Jesus said that Jonah despite your ignorant demands.
Click to expand...


Here is another nut bag theist who believes it to be literally true.

Jonah whale fish bible book of Jonah Scientifically Plausible can a man fit in a whales stomach giant fish great fish

Please find me a link to your position or the "right" way to translate it.  How do you translate it?


----------



## sealybobo

If Jonah can stand living in a whales belly for 3 days, I can take the cross for 3 too.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Well if you can explain this away or re interpret it I guess you'll be able to edit the bible however and whenever you please so just admit it's a book that changes and doesn't really mean what it says.



Funny, I don't recall doing either, all I said was that Jesus did not say whale. The translation went from Aramaic into Greek and then into English. If you knew anything about language you would realize why you look stupid for insisting that he said whale.



sealybobo said:


> First, let me say that the historicity of this account is vital to the Christian. Believing it is not an option, for Jesus Christ Himself believed it and made it a model for the doctrine of His resurrection. "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40).



Because you are the arbiter of everything, and never wrong.

Did I get that right?



sealybobo said:


> Did Jonah Really Get Swallowed by a Whale
> 
> This is the second time me looking into this where the Christian site I use says Christians MUST believe this because Jesus himself said it.
> 
> Oh???  The story of Jonah is one of those Scripture passages that we as Catholics would say is a TRUE story, but not necessarily FACT. Catholics believe that _everything_ in the Bible is TRUE in a religious sense. However, when it comes to scientific and historical truth (facts), there are times that the Bible is not totally accurate.
> 
> Was Jonah literally swallowed by the Whale - Busted Halo
> 
> You guys are a hoot!



Funny thing, I have never once told you thay I believe the Bible is 100% accurate, yet you insist that I do only on the basis of your belief that you know what I believe. How many times have I pointed this little fact out to you now?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> If Jonah can stand living in a whales belly for 3 days, I can take the cross for 3 too.



Do you enjoy looking stupid?


----------



## Tuatara

PratchettFan said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I ask you why you ignore the fact that some atheists consider atheism a religion if your claim that you are willing to change your views when presented new facts is true? If I insisted that no Christian believes that the Earth is 6000 years old, and you presented evidence that contradicted me, which is abundantly available, and I continued to insist that no one believes that, wouldn't you argue, rightfully, that proves I am a religious zealot? Why do your actions not merit the same label? The only real difference is that you are the one doing it, after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If some atheists consider atheism a religion they are wrong.
> If some Christians believe that the Earth is 6000 years old they are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh.  I get you.  They're not real Atheists.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. They are just wrong on their definition of atheism.


----------



## Carla_Danger

sealybobo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes.  You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6).  I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs.  Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief.  Thus, you have beliefs.  Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ...  belief.
> 
> This contradicts what you just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you change up your wording. I NEVER, NOT ONCE said I had no beliefs.  How ridiculous.
> 
> What I lack is a belief in God.  I have no faith.  That is not a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do have belief in God.  You have made that clear and I pointed it out above.  The fact it is a negative belief does not make it any less a belief.  You do not lack belief.  It is this insistence that an arbitrary definition, an inaccurate definition at that, creates reality which is making it religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense! I don't care how you word it. There in no religion for simply not believing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They keep bouncing back between the words belief, faith and religion.  They want atheism to be all three.  Doesn't matter that we don't have a Vatican or Grand Poobah leading us.  In fact nothing we post will matter so I'm moving on.
Click to expand...




I"M GETTING THE LAST WORD IN!!!  LOL!


----------



## Tuatara

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this how you guys see the definition of religion.
> 
> Religion : The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: Also anyone who does not have these beliefs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Buddhism, fully recognized as a religion, is not a religion.  Is that what you are saying?  Taoism is not a religion.  Shintoism is not a religion.  Shall I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's already been addressed.
> 
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. *It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself.* They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.
> 
> Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian.  It is obviously possible to call Atheism a religion.  It has been done many times in the thread alone.  Saying it can't be by definition is dogma.
> 
> As to what has been addressed, tell Tuatara.  He brought it up.  If a false argument is being made, then I will point out it is false.
Click to expand...

I only gave you the first definition. Do you guys really not understand what a religion is? 

2.  A particular system of faith and worship:

This is the 2nd definition which would include Buddhism, Taoism & Shintoism.
Atheism still doesn't belong here.


----------



## PratchettFan

Quantum Windbag said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion requires none of those things to be religion.  Religion is a human activity and it is not identified by definition but by attributes.  Tuatara made a statement about attributes, which was at least on the right track, but the attributes themselves were clearly inaccurate because they failed to include multiple religions as religion.  So if you are going to establish attributes as requirements, then they must apply to all religions.  If they do not, then the are not requirements.  The attributes I have identified are:
> 
> Group identity - as indicated religion is social.  There must be a sense of "us".
> Belief based - the reason for the group is a shared belief
> Dogma - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine
> 
> If you wish to dispute any of those I am happy to discuss them.  If you want some added, that is open as well but if there is a religion which does not the attribute then it will not stand.
> 
> I see you are still holding to the "lack of belief" claim despite your clearly having belief.  That makes your particular version of Atheism in line with the three attributes I have indicated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I object to the inclusion of dogma as an attribute of religion. Many religions are dogmatic, but some are open to change if their beliefs are proven to be wrong. Many Christians actually accept evolution, and even argue that things defined as sin in the Bible are not, in and of themselves, wrong.
> 
> This is why I would use the word doctrine to denote that a religion has teachings, and perhaps even a set of rules, but I am not sure all religions would fit if we used the word rules.
Click to expand...

 
Dogma need not relate to any specific doctrine, but I can't think of any religion which doesn't have it.  Can you be a Christian if you don't accept that Jesus was the son of God?  Can you be a Buddhist if you don't accept the concept of enlightenment?  Can you be a Muslim if you don't accept that Mohammed was a prophet of God?  I can't think of any religion which does not eventually boil down to "if you don't believe this then you are not in the club".  But I could be wrong.  Do you know of one?


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not based upon what you write here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes.  You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6).  I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs.  Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief.  Thus, you have beliefs.  Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ...  belief.
> 
> This contradicts what you just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plenty of evidence.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Giving me a definition, which has been repeatedly demonstrated to be inaccurate, which I am to accept without question.  This is not evidence, it is dogma.  You do not lack belief, so either the definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.  Carla does not lack belief, same situation.  In fact, I have yet to meet an Atheist that meets that definition.
> 
> BTW, your understanding of how that word works is also wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your feelings about Islam is Dogma?  Your feeling about Jehova or Joseph Smith is Dogma?
> 
> Assuming your a christian, is your disbelief in Bigfoot dogma?
> 
> I simply don't believe god(s) exist.  I think you are either making too much over it or you are trying to bring us down to your level of stupid dogma that you clearly have.
Click to expand...

 


Tuatara said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this how you guys see the definition of religion.
> 
> Religion : The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: Also anyone who does not have these beliefs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Buddhism, fully recognized as a religion, is not a religion.  Is that what you are saying?  Taoism is not a religion.  Shintoism is not a religion.  Shall I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's already been addressed.
> 
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. *It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself.* They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.
> 
> Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian.  It is obviously possible to call Atheism a religion.  It has been done many times in the thread alone.  Saying it can't be by definition is dogma.
> 
> As to what has been addressed, tell Tuatara.  He brought it up.  If a false argument is being made, then I will point out it is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only gave you the first definition. Do you guys really not understand what a religion is?
> 
> 2.  A particular system of faith and worship:
> 
> This is the 2nd definition which would include Buddhism, Taoism & Shintoism.
> Atheism still doesn't belong here.
Click to expand...

 
Are you going to just spoon feed definitions to us?  If you want to do this by definition this is Websters:

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

Please note the last item and welcome to the club.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes.  You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6).  I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs.  Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief.  Thus, you have beliefs.  Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ...  belief.
> 
> This contradicts what you just said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you change up your wording. I NEVER, NOT ONCE said I had no beliefs.  How ridiculous.
> 
> What I lack is a belief in God.  I have no faith.  That is not a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do have belief in God.  You have made that clear and I pointed it out above.  The fact it is a negative belief does not make it any less a belief.  You do not lack belief.  It is this insistence that an arbitrary definition, an inaccurate definition at that, creates reality which is making it religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense! I don't care how you word it. There in no religion for simply not believing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They keep bouncing back between the words belief, faith and religion.  They want atheism to be all three.  Doesn't matter that we don't have a Vatican or Grand Poobah leading us.  In fact nothing we post will matter so I'm moving on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I"M GETTING THE LAST WORD IN!!!  LOL!
Click to expand...

 
Happy to let you have it.  And I am not counting this as the last word.


----------



## PratchettFan

Montrovant said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion requires none of those things to be religion.  Religion is a human activity and it is not identified by definition but by attributes.  Tuatara made a statement about attributes, which was at least on the right track, but the attributes themselves were clearly inaccurate because they failed to include multiple religions as religion.  So if you are going to establish attributes as requirements, then they must apply to all religions.  If they do not, then the are not requirements.  The attributes I have identified are:
> 
> Group identity - as indicated religion is social.  There must be a sense of "us".
> Belief based - the reason for the group is a shared belief
> Dogma - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine
> 
> If you wish to dispute any of those I am happy to discuss them.  If you want some added, that is open as well but if there is a religion which does not the attribute then it will not stand.
> 
> I see you are still holding to the "lack of belief" claim despite your clearly having belief.  That makes your particular version of Atheism in line with the three attributes I have indicated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I object to the inclusion of dogma as an attribute of religion. Many religions are dogmatic, but some are open to change if their beliefs are proven to be wrong. Many Christians actually accept evolution, and even argue that things defined as sin in the Bible are not, in and of themselves, wrong.
> 
> This is why I would use the word doctrine to denote that a religion has teachings, and perhaps even a set of rules, but I am not sure all religions would fit if we used the word rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure there must be a sense of "us", either.  I think that if a person had a set of beliefs about a god or gods, rules by which those deities required the person to live, etc. yet no one else shared those beliefs, it could still qualify as a religion.
> 
> I also think there can be a lot of gray area between religion and philosophy.
Click to expand...

 
I don't see religion and belief as the same thing.  You have a belief, you are a member of a religion.  In fact, you can be a member of a religion and not believe.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion requires none of those things to be religion.  Religion is a human activity and it is not identified by definition but by attributes.  Tuatara made a statement about attributes, which was at least on the right track, but the attributes themselves were clearly inaccurate because they failed to include multiple religions as religion.  So if you are going to establish attributes as requirements, then they must apply to all religions.  If they do not, then the are not requirements.  The attributes I have identified are:
> 
> Group identity - as indicated religion is social.  There must be a sense of "us".
> Belief based - the reason for the group is a shared belief
> Dogma - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine
> 
> If you wish to dispute any of those I am happy to discuss them.  If you want some added, that is open as well but if there is a religion which does not the attribute then it will not stand.
> 
> I see you are still holding to the "lack of belief" claim despite your clearly having belief.  That makes your particular version of Atheism in line with the three attributes I have indicated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I object to the inclusion of dogma as an attribute of religion. Many religions are dogmatic, but some are open to change if their beliefs are proven to be wrong. Many Christians actually accept evolution, and even argue that things defined as sin in the Bible are not, in and of themselves, wrong.
> 
> This is why I would use the word doctrine to denote that a religion has teachings, and perhaps even a set of rules, but I am not sure all religions would fit if we used the word rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure there must be a sense of "us", either.  I think that if a person had a set of beliefs about a god or gods, rules by which those deities required the person to live, etc. yet no one else shared those beliefs, it could still qualify as a religion.
> 
> I also think there can be a lot of gray area between religion and philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see religion and belief as the same thing.  You have a belief, you are a member of a religion.  In fact, you can be a member of a religion and not believe.
Click to expand...





What religion do you belong to?


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion requires none of those things to be religion.  Religion is a human activity and it is not identified by definition but by attributes.  Tuatara made a statement about attributes, which was at least on the right track, but the attributes themselves were clearly inaccurate because they failed to include multiple religions as religion.  So if you are going to establish attributes as requirements, then they must apply to all religions.  If they do not, then the are not requirements.  The attributes I have identified are:
> 
> Group identity - as indicated religion is social.  There must be a sense of "us".
> Belief based - the reason for the group is a shared belief
> Dogma - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine
> 
> If you wish to dispute any of those I am happy to discuss them.  If you want some added, that is open as well but if there is a religion which does not the attribute then it will not stand.
> 
> I see you are still holding to the "lack of belief" claim despite your clearly having belief.  That makes your particular version of Atheism in line with the three attributes I have indicated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I object to the inclusion of dogma as an attribute of religion. Many religions are dogmatic, but some are open to change if their beliefs are proven to be wrong. Many Christians actually accept evolution, and even argue that things defined as sin in the Bible are not, in and of themselves, wrong.
> 
> This is why I would use the word doctrine to denote that a religion has teachings, and perhaps even a set of rules, but I am not sure all religions would fit if we used the word rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure there must be a sense of "us", either.  I think that if a person had a set of beliefs about a god or gods, rules by which those deities required the person to live, etc. yet no one else shared those beliefs, it could still qualify as a religion.
> 
> I also think there can be a lot of gray area between religion and philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see religion and belief as the same thing.  You have a belief, you are a member of a religion.  In fact, you can be a member of a religion and not believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What religion do you belong to?
Click to expand...

 
I am a Buddhist. 

I'm going to qualify that statement I made, because it is a bit misleading.  You can be a member of a religion and not believe, but you have to keep that to yourself.  If you announce you don't believe, you won't accepted as a member.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn't exist." 

Sounds like how atheists really aren't trying to make their religion the one and only accepted religion in the USA


----------



## PratchettFan

CrusaderFrank said:


> "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn't exist."
> 
> Sounds like how atheists really aren't trying to make their religion the one and only accepted religion in the USA


 
That is absurd.


----------



## Tuatara

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes.  You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6).  I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs.  Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief.  Thus, you have beliefs.  Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ...  belief.
> 
> This contradicts what you just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plenty of evidence.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Giving me a definition, which has been repeatedly demonstrated to be inaccurate, which I am to accept without question.  This is not evidence, it is dogma.  You do not lack belief, so either the definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.  Carla does not lack belief, same situation.  In fact, I have yet to meet an Atheist that meets that definition.
> 
> BTW, your understanding of how that word works is also wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your feelings about Islam is Dogma?  Your feeling about Jehova or Joseph Smith is Dogma?
> 
> Assuming your a christian, is your disbelief in Bigfoot dogma?
> 
> I simply don't believe god(s) exist.  I think you are either making too much over it or you are trying to bring us down to your level of stupid dogma that you clearly have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this how you guys see the definition of religion.
> 
> Religion : The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: Also anyone who does not have these beliefs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Buddhism, fully recognized as a religion, is not a religion.  Is that what you are saying?  Taoism is not a religion.  Shintoism is not a religion.  Shall I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's already been addressed.
> 
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. *It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself.* They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.
> 
> Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian.  It is obviously possible to call Atheism a religion.  It has been done many times in the thread alone.  Saying it can't be by definition is dogma.
> 
> As to what has been addressed, tell Tuatara.  He brought it up.  If a false argument is being made, then I will point out it is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only gave you the first definition. Do you guys really not understand what a religion is?
> 
> 2.  A particular system of faith and worship:
> 
> This is the 2nd definition which would include Buddhism, Taoism & Shintoism.
> Atheism still doesn't belong here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you going to just spoon feed definitions to us?  If you want to do this by definition this is Websters:
> 
> : the belief in a god or in a group of gods
> : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
> : an *interest*, a belief, or an *activity* that is very important to a person or group
> 
> Please note the last item and welcome to the club.
Click to expand...

You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.


----------



## Carla_Danger

CrusaderFrank said:


> "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn't exist."
> 
> Sounds like how atheists really aren't trying to make their religion the one and only accepted religion in the USA





Here's your hat...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> I didn't say that. They are just wrong on their definition of atheism.




What makes them wrong? Last time I looked the definition did not include absolute rejection of religious rituals.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Carla_Danger said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn't exist."
> 
> Sounds like how atheists really aren't trying to make their religion the one and only accepted religion in the USA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's your hat...
Click to expand...


*Atheism is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. It's a firm belief that the Ego is the most powerful force in the Universe. Further, Islamic Jihadist look like pussies when compared to the fervor with which Fundamentalist Atheists are attempting to eradicate all religions and establish atheism as the Official and Only accepted religion in America*


----------



## PratchettFan

Tuatara said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes.  You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6).  I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs.  Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief.  Thus, you have beliefs.  Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ...  belief.
> 
> This contradicts what you just said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of evidence.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Giving me a definition, which has been repeatedly demonstrated to be inaccurate, which I am to accept without question.  This is not evidence, it is dogma.  You do not lack belief, so either the definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.  Carla does not lack belief, same situation.  In fact, I have yet to meet an Atheist that meets that definition.
> 
> BTW, your understanding of how that word works is also wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your feelings about Islam is Dogma?  Your feeling about Jehova or Joseph Smith is Dogma?
> 
> Assuming your a christian, is your disbelief in Bigfoot dogma?
> 
> I simply don't believe god(s) exist.  I think you are either making too much over it or you are trying to bring us down to your level of stupid dogma that you clearly have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Buddhism, fully recognized as a religion, is not a religion.  Is that what you are saying?  Taoism is not a religion.  Shintoism is not a religion.  Shall I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's already been addressed.
> 
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. *It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself.* They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.
> 
> Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian.  It is obviously possible to call Atheism a religion.  It has been done many times in the thread alone.  Saying it can't be by definition is dogma.
> 
> As to what has been addressed, tell Tuatara.  He brought it up.  If a false argument is being made, then I will point out it is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only gave you the first definition. Do you guys really not understand what a religion is?
> 
> 2.  A particular system of faith and worship:
> 
> This is the 2nd definition which would include Buddhism, Taoism & Shintoism.
> Atheism still doesn't belong here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you going to just spoon feed definitions to us?  If you want to do this by definition this is Websters:
> 
> : the belief in a god or in a group of gods
> : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
> : an *interest*, a belief, or an *activity* that is very important to a person or group
> 
> Please note the last item and welcome to the club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
> Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.
Click to expand...


By spoon feed I referred to providing one definition and then another after the first didn't work out for you.  So I just did what you did, except gave it to you all at the same time.  But that didn't fit what you wanted so now we don't want to use definitions.  Not surprising.

Could it fit those, sure.  You're the one who wanted to use dictionaries.


----------



## PratchettFan

CrusaderFrank said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn't exist."
> 
> Sounds like how atheists really aren't trying to make their religion the one and only accepted religion in the USA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's your hat...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Atheism is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. It's a firm belief that the Ego is the most powerful force in the Universe. Further, Islamic Jihadist look like pussies when compared to the fervor with which Fundamentalist Atheists are attempting to eradicate all religions and establish atheism as the Official and Only accepted religion in America*
Click to expand...


I can only repeat....  that is absurd.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Tuatara said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes.  You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6).  I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs.  Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief.  Thus, you have beliefs.  Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ...  belief.
> 
> This contradicts what you just said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of evidence.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Giving me a definition, which has been repeatedly demonstrated to be inaccurate, which I am to accept without question.  This is not evidence, it is dogma.  You do not lack belief, so either the definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.  Carla does not lack belief, same situation.  In fact, I have yet to meet an Atheist that meets that definition.
> 
> BTW, your understanding of how that word works is also wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your feelings about Islam is Dogma?  Your feeling about Jehova or Joseph Smith is Dogma?
> 
> Assuming your a christian, is your disbelief in Bigfoot dogma?
> 
> I simply don't believe god(s) exist.  I think you are either making too much over it or you are trying to bring us down to your level of stupid dogma that you clearly have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Buddhism, fully recognized as a religion, is not a religion.  Is that what you are saying?  Taoism is not a religion.  Shintoism is not a religion.  Shall I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's already been addressed.
> 
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. *It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself.* They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.
> 
> Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian.  It is obviously possible to call Atheism a religion.  It has been done many times in the thread alone.  Saying it can't be by definition is dogma.
> 
> As to what has been addressed, tell Tuatara.  He brought it up.  If a false argument is being made, then I will point out it is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only gave you the first definition. Do you guys really not understand what a religion is?
> 
> 2.  A particular system of faith and worship:
> 
> This is the 2nd definition which would include Buddhism, Taoism & Shintoism.
> Atheism still doesn't belong here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you going to just spoon feed definitions to us?  If you want to do this by definition this is Websters:
> 
> : the belief in a god or in a group of gods
> : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
> : an *interest*, a belief, or an *activity* that is very important to a person or group
> 
> Please note the last item and welcome to the club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
> Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.
Click to expand...




It depends on how you treat watching TV and screwing.  I mean, have you ever yelled out "God?"  LOL!


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion requires none of those things to be religion.  Religion is a human activity and it is not identified by definition but by attributes.  Tuatara made a statement about attributes, which was at least on the right track, but the attributes themselves were clearly inaccurate because they failed to include multiple religions as religion.  So if you are going to establish attributes as requirements, then they must apply to all religions.  If they do not, then the are not requirements.  The attributes I have identified are:
> 
> Group identity - as indicated religion is social.  There must be a sense of "us".
> Belief based - the reason for the group is a shared belief
> Dogma - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine
> 
> If you wish to dispute any of those I am happy to discuss them.  If you want some added, that is open as well but if there is a religion which does not the attribute then it will not stand.
> 
> I see you are still holding to the "lack of belief" claim despite your clearly having belief.  That makes your particular version of Atheism in line with the three attributes I have indicated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I object to the inclusion of dogma as an attribute of religion. Many religions are dogmatic, but some are open to change if their beliefs are proven to be wrong. Many Christians actually accept evolution, and even argue that things defined as sin in the Bible are not, in and of themselves, wrong.
> 
> This is why I would use the word doctrine to denote that a religion has teachings, and perhaps even a set of rules, but I am not sure all religions would fit if we used the word rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure there must be a sense of "us", either.  I think that if a person had a set of beliefs about a god or gods, rules by which those deities required the person to live, etc. yet no one else shared those beliefs, it could still qualify as a religion.
> 
> I also think there can be a lot of gray area between religion and philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see religion and belief as the same thing.  You have a belief, you are a member of a religion.  In fact, you can be a member of a religion and not believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What religion do you belong to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a Buddhist.
> 
> I'm going to qualify that statement I made, because it is a bit misleading.  You can be a member of a religion and not believe, but you have to keep that to yourself.  If you announce you don't believe, you won't accepted as a member.
Click to expand...


I was that kind of Christian for years.


----------



## sealybobo

CrusaderFrank said:


> "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn't exist."
> 
> Sounds like how atheists really aren't trying to make their religion the one and only accepted religion in the USA



Atheism would win if all religions went away.  But you guys claim that one religion would remain and that religion is atheism.

If the world woke up and stopped believing in imaginary invisible men, that would not be a religion, that would be the end of religions.

If Democrats are the "godless" party, doesn't that infer we are also void of religion?


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of evidence.
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Giving me a definition, which has been repeatedly demonstrated to be inaccurate, which I am to accept without question.  This is not evidence, it is dogma.  You do not lack belief, so either the definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.  Carla does not lack belief, same situation.  In fact, I have yet to meet an Atheist that meets that definition.
> 
> BTW, your understanding of how that word works is also wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your feelings about Islam is Dogma?  Your feeling about Jehova or Joseph Smith is Dogma?
> 
> Assuming your a christian, is your disbelief in Bigfoot dogma?
> 
> I simply don't believe god(s) exist.  I think you are either making too much over it or you are trying to bring us down to your level of stupid dogma that you clearly have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's already been addressed.
> 
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. *It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself.* They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.
> 
> Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian.  It is obviously possible to call Atheism a religion.  It has been done many times in the thread alone.  Saying it can't be by definition is dogma.
> 
> As to what has been addressed, tell Tuatara.  He brought it up.  If a false argument is being made, then I will point out it is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only gave you the first definition. Do you guys really not understand what a religion is?
> 
> 2.  A particular system of faith and worship:
> 
> This is the 2nd definition which would include Buddhism, Taoism & Shintoism.
> Atheism still doesn't belong here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you going to just spoon feed definitions to us?  If you want to do this by definition this is Websters:
> 
> : the belief in a god or in a group of gods
> : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
> : an *interest*, a belief, or an *activity* that is very important to a person or group
> 
> Please note the last item and welcome to the club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
> Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on how you treat watching TV and screwing.  I mean, have you ever yelled out "God?"  LOL!
Click to expand...


You have a definite point.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I object to the inclusion of dogma as an attribute of religion. Many religions are dogmatic, but some are open to change if their beliefs are proven to be wrong. Many Christians actually accept evolution, and even argue that things defined as sin in the Bible are not, in and of themselves, wrong.
> 
> This is why I would use the word doctrine to denote that a religion has teachings, and perhaps even a set of rules, but I am not sure all religions would fit if we used the word rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure there must be a sense of "us", either.  I think that if a person had a set of beliefs about a god or gods, rules by which those deities required the person to live, etc. yet no one else shared those beliefs, it could still qualify as a religion.
> 
> I also think there can be a lot of gray area between religion and philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see religion and belief as the same thing.  You have a belief, you are a member of a religion.  In fact, you can be a member of a religion and not believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What religion do you belong to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a Buddhist.
> 
> I'm going to qualify that statement I made, because it is a bit misleading.  You can be a member of a religion and not believe, but you have to keep that to yourself.  If you announce you don't believe, you won't accepted as a member.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was that kind of Christian for years.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  Religion and belief do not need to go hand in hand.  You can engage in religion all your life and never believe, you can believe all your life and never be in a religion.


----------



## Montrovant

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure there must be a sense of "us", either.  I think that if a person had a set of beliefs about a god or gods, rules by which those deities required the person to live, etc. yet no one else shared those beliefs, it could still qualify as a religion.
> 
> I also think there can be a lot of gray area between religion and philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see religion and belief as the same thing.  You have a belief, you are a member of a religion.  In fact, you can be a member of a religion and not believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What religion do you belong to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a Buddhist.
> 
> I'm going to qualify that statement I made, because it is a bit misleading.  You can be a member of a religion and not believe, but you have to keep that to yourself.  If you announce you don't believe, you won't accepted as a member.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was that kind of Christian for years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Religion and belief do not need to go hand in hand.  You can engage in religion all your life and never believe, you can believe all your life and never be in a religion.
Click to expand...


Is it fair to say a person is religious based on their actions if they don't actually believe, though?  Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that person puts on a facade of being religious?


----------



## Carla_Danger

CrusaderFrank said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn't exist."
> 
> Sounds like how atheists really aren't trying to make their religion the one and only accepted religion in the USA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's your hat...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Atheism is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. It's a firm belief that the Ego is the most powerful force in the Universe. Further, Islamic Jihadist look like pussies when compared to the fervor with which Fundamentalist Atheists are attempting to eradicate all religions and establish atheism as the Official and Only accepted religion in America*
Click to expand...




There's no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist.


----------



## PratchettFan

Montrovant said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see religion and belief as the same thing.  You have a belief, you are a member of a religion.  In fact, you can be a member of a religion and not believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What religion do you belong to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a Buddhist.
> 
> I'm going to qualify that statement I made, because it is a bit misleading.  You can be a member of a religion and not believe, but you have to keep that to yourself.  If you announce you don't believe, you won't accepted as a member.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was that kind of Christian for years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Religion and belief do not need to go hand in hand.  You can engage in religion all your life and never believe, you can believe all your life and never be in a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it fair to say a person is religious based on their actions if they don't actually believe, though?  Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that person puts on a facade of being religious?
Click to expand...


That would not be for me to judge.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure there must be a sense of "us", either.  I think that if a person had a set of beliefs about a god or gods, rules by which those deities required the person to live, etc. yet no one else shared those beliefs, it could still qualify as a religion.
> 
> I also think there can be a lot of gray area between religion and philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see religion and belief as the same thing.  You have a belief, you are a member of a religion.  In fact, you can be a member of a religion and not believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What religion do you belong to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a Buddhist.
> 
> I'm going to qualify that statement I made, because it is a bit misleading.  You can be a member of a religion and not believe, but you have to keep that to yourself.  If you announce you don't believe, you won't accepted as a member.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was that kind of Christian for years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Religion and belief do not need to go hand in hand.  You can engage in religion all your life and never believe, you can believe all your life and never be in a religion.
Click to expand...


Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?  

See the difference?  So it is only after one of you theist tells us about your particular god(s) that we say every single time, "we don't believe in that god".  So not believing your version of god is not a belief.  Each one of you has your own little spin.  We across the board reject every one of your definitions of god.  Or we see no proof and remain skeptical.  

So basically don't give yourself so much credit.  Just because I don't believe you does not make my judgement a "belief".  I believe your shit probably stinks more than most people's but I don't pray every day about it.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see religion and belief as the same thing.  You have a belief, you are a member of a religion.  In fact, you can be a member of a religion and not believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What religion do you belong to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a Buddhist.
> 
> I'm going to qualify that statement I made, because it is a bit misleading.  You can be a member of a religion and not believe, but you have to keep that to yourself.  If you announce you don't believe, you won't accepted as a member.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was that kind of Christian for years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Religion and belief do not need to go hand in hand.  You can engage in religion all your life and never believe, you can believe all your life and never be in a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> See the difference?  So it is only after one of you theist tells us about your particular god(s) that we say every single time, "we don't believe in that god".  So not believing your version of god is not a belief.  Each one of you has your own little spin.  We across the board reject every one of your definitions of god.  Or we see no proof and remain skeptical.
> 
> So basically don't give yourself so much credit.  Just because I don't believe you does not make my judgement a "belief".  I believe your shit probably stinks more than most people's but I don't pray every day about it.
Click to expand...

 
If I grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s) then I would not have an opinion on it one way or the other.  That would be a lack of belief.  You clearly do hold opinions and you have no evidence to support those opinions, so you do have a belief.  Do you see the difference?

Unless you have evidence to support it, your "judgment" can only be belief.  It can't be anything else.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?


logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......


----------



## Taz

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
Click to expand...

He'd be agnostic, because he'd see no proof either way for or against a god. The only logical position to hold.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He'd be agnostic, because he'd see no proof either way for or against a god. The only logical position to hold.
Click to expand...

I think no......if he grew up on an island and never heard the idea of god(s) and you asked him if he believed in god(s) he would not say he'd seen no proof either way.....he would say "huh?".......


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
Click to expand...

You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He'd be agnostic, because he'd see no proof either way for or against a god. The only logical position to hold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think no......if he grew up on an island and never heard the idea of god(s) and you asked him if he believed in god(s) he would not say he'd seen no proof either way.....he would say "huh?".......
Click to expand...

Exactly. All religious belief is behavior that is a product of cultural and geographic happenstance. Fear based religions such as christianity are learned behaviors.


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that. They are just wrong on their definition of atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes them wrong? Last time I looked the definition did not include absolute rejection of religious rituals.
Click to expand...

The definition also did not include absolute rejection of ear wax sandwiches.


----------



## Tuatara

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
Click to expand...

The important thing is since PostmodernProph is a christian, he is already rejecting appeals to superstitious fears in lieu of all the other gods.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
Click to expand...

but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He'd be agnostic, because he'd see no proof either way for or against a god. The only logical position to hold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think no......if he grew up on an island and never heard the idea of god(s) and you asked him if he believed in god(s) he would not say he'd seen no proof either way.....he would say "huh?".......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. All religious belief is behavior that is a product of cultural and geographic happenstance. Fear based religions such as christianity are learned behaviors.
Click to expand...

of course.....which means that all your ancestors were atheists.......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Tuatara said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The important thing is since PostmodernProph is a christian, he is already rejecting appeals to superstitious fears in lieu of all the other gods.
Click to expand...

did YOU find it difficult to make choices?......


----------



## Taz

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
Click to expand...

That's why being agnostic is the only logical position to hold, as there is no proof that a god exists, just as there's no proof that a god can't exist.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
Click to expand...

There is no requirement for "belief" to conclude that your gods were nothing more than reinventions of earlier gods. Unless you can make a case that your gods are any less a human invention to explain phenomenon than the Greek gods, you suffer from the very thing you accuse others of: believing something without proof.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He'd be agnostic, because he'd see no proof either way for or against a god. The only logical position to hold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think no......if he grew up on an island and never heard the idea of god(s) and you asked him if he believed in god(s) he would not say he'd seen no proof either way.....he would say "huh?".......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. All religious belief is behavior that is a product of cultural and geographic happenstance. Fear based religions such as christianity are learned behaviors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> of course.....which means that all your ancestors were atheists.......
Click to expand...

So we're yours, and so are you, relative to belief in the gods of others.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no requirement for "belief" to conclude
Click to expand...


"concluding" in the absence of proof.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> 
> 
> He'd be agnostic, because he'd see no proof either way for or against a god. The only logical position to hold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think no......if he grew up on an island and never heard the idea of god(s) and you asked him if he believed in god(s) he would not say he'd seen no proof either way.....he would say "huh?".......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. All religious belief is behavior that is a product of cultural and geographic happenstance. Fear based religions such as christianity are learned behaviors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> of course.....which means that all your ancestors were atheists.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So we're yours, and so are you, relative to belief in the gods of others.
Click to expand...

choosing to believe one thing rather than another is not atheism, it is simply making a choice.......choosing to believe there is no god is atheism.....


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> The definition also did not include absolute rejection of ear wax sandwiches.



They are wrong because they don't eat ear wax?


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
Click to expand...


So no matter what stupid thing you tell me, if I don't believe you, just because I heard your stupid belief, that makes my skepticism about your belief a belief?

Don't be so stubborn that you can't admit when the other side makes a good point or when you are proven to be wrong.  I have a big dick.  If you believe me, does that mean that is a "belief"?  A BELIEF?  You may believe me but is it something that you would consider "a belief"?  Is it also your religion?  Do you worship my package?

Also, if you do not believe me, does that mean your skepticism is a belief?  So then it's a religion?  Do you worship my penis no matter if it's big or small?


----------



## sealybobo

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He'd be agnostic, because he'd see no proof either way for or against a god. The only logical position to hold.
Click to expand...


That depends on if you are talking about a generic god or Jesus/Mohammad god?  There is tons of evidence that the Mohammad/Jesus gods are fake.  Unless you can show me a virgin who gets pregnant, people living 350 years, parting water, a boat that carries 2 of every animal, etc.

The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.


----------



## sealybobo

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He'd be agnostic, because he'd see no proof either way for or against a god. The only logical position to hold.
Click to expand...


No evidence against there being a god?  Really???

Why there is no god


----------



## Taz

sealybobo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He'd be agnostic, because he'd see no proof either way for or against a god. The only logical position to hold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No evidence against there being a god?  Really???
> 
> Why there is no god
Click to expand...

What I meant is that there's no proof that a god can't exist. And your link didn't address that view.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He'd be agnostic, because he'd see no proof either way for or against a god. The only logical position to hold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think no......if he grew up on an island and never heard the idea of god(s) and you asked him if he believed in god(s) he would not say he'd seen no proof either way.....he would say "huh?".......
Click to expand...


What if after you told him the Adam, Eve, Moses, Jesus & Jonah stories and he said you were making it all up, stupid, a liar or crazy?  

Would him not believing in this god you talk about make him an atheist?  Would him not believing YOU mean this is his religion?  Would him not believing you mean this is a belief system he holds? 

No No & No.  

Remember as far as organized religions go, we are all atheists.  I just happen to not believe in one more god than you.  If you are a Christian, like me you don't buy the Mohammad bullshit, right?  So is your disbelief in Islam a faith you hold?  No again.

Now you may be talking about a generic god.  If you go on the island and discuss generic god with this person for a year and at the end of the year they don't belief in any god(s), does this mean that is his religion?  

You guys can't seem to understand us not believing you is not the same thing as you swallowing a fairy tale your church put in your head.  I think your church is corrupt, foolish and stupid but I don't pray about it and us atheists don't get together once a week to discuss how dumb you all are


----------



## sealybobo

Taz said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He'd be agnostic, because he'd see no proof either way for or against a god. The only logical position to hold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No evidence against there being a god?  Really???
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I meant is that there's no proof that a god can't exist. And your link didn't address that view.
Click to expand...


Yes it does.  No way you could have read through it that fast.

Number 25

Most atheists, including famous ones such as Richard Dawkins, fall into the category of ‘Agnostic Atheism’ – they don’t claim to know with certainty that god does not exist. Conversely, most theists are ‘Gnostic Theists’ – they claim to know with certainty that their particular god exists.
When most atheists say “God does not exist” they are generally speaking in the same manner as when people say “Leprechauns/Santa Claus/Fairies/Unicorns don’t exist” – those things do not appear exist within contextual reality in which we find ourselves but, importantly, the statement is not necessarily an absolute one.

There are, however, gnostic atheists who are certain no god exists and they generally point to logical problems that would arise from said god’s existence or evidence this universe is inconsistent with a god, for example:


Infinite Regression
Argument from Poor Design
The Atheist’s Wager
Non-belief Paradox
Omnipotence Paradox
Free Will Paradox
Argument from locality
Argument from Non-reason
Argument from incompatible properties
Fate of the Unlearned
Problem of Evil and Problem of Hell
See also: The Dragon in my Garage by Carl Sagan.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
Click to expand...


Without proof?  You are telling us stories that scientifically can't be possible and tell us if we don't believe we won't go to heaven in fact we'll go to hell.  That heaven and hell stuff might have worked on your but clearly we ain't buying it. 

Ok, so the proof we have is your proof sucks.  Or can you show me how a virgin can give birth?  I didn't think so.  Ok moving on...

Anyways, if I told you that I had a $1 sitting in front of me, would you believe me?  You would have no reason not to believe me.  So you may believe me but you don't really have proof, right????

Ok, so then lets say I tell you I have $1 million dollars sitting in front of me right now.  Would you believe me?  Why would you not believe me? You have no proof either way, right?

Ok, so we have established that if you tell me something I can believe, I may believe you and not even need any proof.  You could be lying but I have no reason to doubt you.  But I'm not going to believe something that is unbelievable without proof.  Do you have faith I have a million dollars?  Is this a belief you hold?


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> He'd be agnostic, because he'd see no proof either way for or against a god. The only logical position to hold.
> 
> 
> 
> I think no......if he grew up on an island and never heard the idea of god(s) and you asked him if he believed in god(s) he would not say he'd seen no proof either way.....he would say "huh?".......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. All religious belief is behavior that is a product of cultural and geographic happenstance. Fear based religions such as christianity are learned behaviors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> of course.....which means that all your ancestors were atheists.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So we're yours, and so are you, relative to belief in the gods of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> choosing to believe one thing rather than another is not atheism, it is simply making a choice.......choosing to believe there is no god is atheism.....
Click to expand...


Choosing to believe there is no god is atheism true.

But it turns out you can be agnostic about a lot of things.  

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims is unknown or unknowable. It is a philosophical position not necessarily tied to god’s existence or non-existence. One can be agnostic about any claim.


----------



## sealybobo

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]



I was reading about Dogma and read this:

As a possible reaction to skepticism, dogmatism is a set of beliefs or doctrines that are established as undoubtedly in truth. They are regarded as (religious) truths relating closely to the nature of faith.

So I'm thinking so far atheism doesn't fit this definition but then I read on to read:  

The term "dogmatic" can be used disparagingly to refer to any belief that is held stubbornly, including political and scientific beliefs.  

But then again, what are we being stubborn about? 

I also read where it included us atheists when it said:  atheists, for whom he employs Aristotelian logic and dialectics.


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> The definition also did not include absolute rejection of ear wax sandwiches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are wrong because they don't eat ear wax?
Click to expand...

Basing your argument on what a definition does not include is ridiculous.


----------



## Tuatara

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
Click to expand...

Exactly what are these things we believe in that there is no proof of.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Also, if you do not believe me, does that mean your skepticism is a belief?  So then it's a religion?


if it is something which can neither be proven or disproven and I make a choice about whether or not to believe it, regardless of the fact that it can be neither proven or disproven, then obviously yes......if that belief is elevated to the point that one takes extraordinary steps to uphold that belief, such as filing law suits and arguing them up to the supreme court, or even logging on daily to argue what you believe with those who don't agree with you, then yes......it can become a religion.......

on the other hand, I may believe you don't have a penis.......given that I devote little or no time contemplating that belief, that belief would not be elevated to a religion........


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He'd be agnostic, because he'd see no proof either way for or against a god. The only logical position to hold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think no......if he grew up on an island and never heard the idea of god(s) and you asked him if he believed in god(s) he would not say he'd seen no proof either way.....he would say "huh?".......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if after you told him the Adam, Eve, Moses, Jesus & Jonah stories and he said you were making it all up, stupid, a liar or crazy?
Click to expand...

then he would be choosing what he believed.....  



> Would him not believing in this god you talk about make him an atheist?


obviously not.....him saying "there is no god" would make him an atheist......



> Remember as far as organized religions go, we are all atheists.


not true....I believe that a god exists.....



> I just happen to not believe in one more god than you.


which logically makes you an atheist and me a Christian.....(you see why I consider atheists to be ignorant and illogical?).......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly what are these things we believe in that there is no proof of.
Click to expand...

that there is no god....are you one of those atheists who is unaware what atheists believe in?......


----------



## Tuatara

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly what are these things we believe in that there is no proof of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that there is no god....are you one of those atheists who is unaware what atheists believe in?......
Click to expand...

Now if someone were to ask you what you believe in, you would have to say everything and then put the qualifier things that that exist and things that don't. This is how ridiculous your logic leads to.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> He'd be agnostic, because he'd see no proof either way for or against a god. The only logical position to hold.
> 
> 
> 
> I think no......if he grew up on an island and never heard the idea of god(s) and you asked him if he believed in god(s) he would not say he'd seen no proof either way.....he would say "huh?".......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. All religious belief is behavior that is a product of cultural and geographic happenstance. Fear based religions such as christianity are learned behaviors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> of course.....which means that all your ancestors were atheists.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So we're yours, and so are you, relative to belief in the gods of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> choosing to believe one thing rather than another is not atheism, it is simply making a choice.......choosing to believe there is no god is atheism.....
Click to expand...

You're perpetually confused. There is no need to choose to not-believe. Concluding that your multi-gods, Vishnu, Jupiter, Zeus, etc., are inventions of mankind is a perfectly rational conclusion.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly what are these things we believe in that there is no proof of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that there is no god....are you one of those atheists who is unaware what atheists believe in?......
Click to expand...

We can thus assume that you are an atheist with regard to claims of gods that are competing with your gods. It appears that it is you who is unaware  of what you atheists believe in.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no requirement for "belief" to conclude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "concluding" in the absence of proof.....
Click to expand...

False. Concluding based upon the completely unsupportable claims that Supernaturalists use to promote their sectarian versions of gods. It's not that your claims to polytheistic gods are inconsistent and contradictory, the claims require acceptance of absurd miracles, suspension of a reality based worldview and allowance for the complete abandonment of rational thought processes.  “The gods did it" is an utter surrender to fear and ignorance. You have predefined that talking snakes, spontaneous combustion of shrubbery, a 6,000 year old planet and other absurdities of nature are a part of contingent reality when they are not. 

It's not merely a lack of proof that you supernaturalists fail to provide, it's your appeals to magic and other absurdities of nature that utterly confounds your arguments.

Secondly, the final arbiter of what we define as truth is evidence, and I see nothing on the supernaturalist side except supposition. Show some evidence. Prove your gods.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> 
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly what are these things we believe in that there is no proof of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that there is no god....are you one of those atheists who is unaware what atheists believe in?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now if someone were to ask you what you believe in, you would have to say everything and then put the qualifier things that that exist and things that don't. This is how ridiculous your logic leads to.
Click to expand...

to the contrary.....I have no problem identifying those things I believe in and those things I don't........atheists, on the other hand, seem to have trouble admitting what it is they believe........


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> There is no need to choose to not-believe.



no one has said atheists NEED to believe no gods exist.....they choose to believe that of their own free will......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> 
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly what are these things we believe in that there is no proof of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that there is no god....are you one of those atheists who is unaware what atheists believe in?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can thus assume that you are an atheist with regard to claims of gods that are competing with your gods. It appears that it is you who is unaware  of what you atheists believe in.
Click to expand...

if you do, it is out of foolishness......I do not say there are no gods......I choose to believe in he who is God....I therefore cannot be described as an atheist......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> 
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no requirement for "belief" to conclude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "concluding" in the absence of proof.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. Concluding based upon the completely unsupportable claims
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing that what choice you made isn't obvious.....I'm just pointing out that it remains a choice, nonetheless.....


----------



## Tuatara

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> 
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly what are these things we believe in that there is no proof of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that there is no god....are you one of those atheists who is unaware what atheists believe in?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now if someone were to ask you what you believe in, you would have to say everything and then put the qualifier things that that exist and things that don't. This is how ridiculous your logic leads to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to the contrary.....I have no problem identifying those things I believe in and those things I don't........atheists, on the other hand, seem to have trouble admitting what it is they believe........
Click to expand...

Every single atheist has stated they don't believe in god/gods. How is this any diffrent from what you identify as things you don't believe in.


----------



## Hollie

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly what are these things we believe in that there is no proof of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that there is no god....are you one of those atheists who is unaware what atheists believe in?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can thus assume that you are an atheist with regard to claims of gods that are competing with your gods. It appears that it is you who is unaware  of what you atheists believe in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you do, it is out of foolishness......I do not say there are no gods......I choose to believe in he who is God....I therefore cannot be described as an atheist......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you can. You A-theistic belief regarding the gods of others.
Click to expand...




PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> 
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly what are these things we believe in that there is no proof of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that there is no god....are you one of those atheists who is unaware what atheists believe in?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can thus assume that you are an atheist with regard to claims of gods that are competing with your gods. It appears that it is you who is unaware  of what you atheists believe in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you do, it is out of foolishness......I do not say there are no gods......I choose to believe in he who is God....I therefore cannot be described as an atheist......
Click to expand...

Of course you can. You are A-theistic belief in regards to the other gods. You most certainly are an atheist.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> 
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no requirement for "belief" to conclude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "concluding" in the absence of proof.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. Concluding based upon the completely unsupportable claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not arguing that what choice you made isn't obvious.....I'm just pointing out that it remains a choice, nonetheless.....
Click to expand...

And it's been pointed out that concluding your multi-gods are no less a human invention than Leprechauns is a rational conclusion. 

You may have a desperate, emotional need to believe in spirit realms and magical gods which you are free to believe are real and extant. However, your beliefs are trivial acceptance of tales and fables you were given as a child, not a meaningful evaluation of the facts and evidence that concludes your gods are mere hand-me-down reinventions of earlier gods.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> 
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly what are these things we believe in that there is no proof of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that there is no god....are you one of those atheists who is unaware what atheists believe in?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can thus assume that you are an atheist with regard to claims of gods that are competing with your gods. It appears that it is you who is unaware  of what you atheists believe in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you do, it is out of foolishness......I do not say there are no gods......I choose to believe in he who is God....I therefore cannot be described as an atheist......
Click to expand...

"He" who is God? That's interesting in that you you have carelessly accepted the plethora of human attributes assigned to these gods.

There's a common theme connecting the gods that are of human invention  and that is the propensity of religionists to assign human attributes to an entity they claim is ultimately incomprehensible. Paul, the inventor of your gods simply followed the traditions established by earlier inventors of gods  as he assigned human attributes to your gods.


----------



## the_human_being

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think no......if he grew up on an island and never heard the idea of god(s) and you asked him if he believed in god(s) he would not say he'd seen no proof either way.....he would say "huh?".......
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. All religious belief is behavior that is a product of cultural and geographic happenstance. Fear based religions such as christianity are learned behaviors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> of course.....which means that all your ancestors were atheists.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So we're yours, and so are you, relative to belief in the gods of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> choosing to believe one thing rather than another is not atheism, it is simply making a choice.......choosing to believe there is no god is atheism.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're perpetually confused. There is no need to choose to not-believe. Concluding that your multi-gods, Vishnu, Jupiter, Zeus, etc., are inventions of mankind is a perfectly rational conclusion.
Click to expand...


The belief in "gods" had to have had its beginning in the belief of one god.


----------



## Hollie

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. All religious belief is behavior that is a product of cultural and geographic happenstance. Fear based religions such as christianity are learned behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> of course.....which means that all your ancestors were atheists.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So we're yours, and so are you, relative to belief in the gods of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> choosing to believe one thing rather than another is not atheism, it is simply making a choice.......choosing to believe there is no god is atheism.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're perpetually confused. There is no need to choose to not-believe. Concluding that your multi-gods, Vishnu, Jupiter, Zeus, etc., are inventions of mankind is a perfectly rational conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The belief in "gods" had to have had its beginning in the belief of one god.
Click to expand...

Not at all. There were many religions and many gods fronting for those religions that pre-date Judaism and Christianity for example. We have the Greek and Roman pantheons as examples of religions that existed prior to or coincident with Christianity. We see in those religions the morphing of characteristics that define the gods. You need only read the OT (Hebrew scriptures stolen by christianity), and the NT to understand the morphing of the gods. Zeus was descended from earlier ancient entities, the Titans. Zeus was the son of Kronos and Rhea. Kronos was himself the child of Ouranos and Gaia. The inventors of religions tend to steal ruthlessly from earlier belief systems and earlier inventions of supernatural characters. That's evident in his formulation of christianity. This is not at all uncommon with religions. There actually are recognizable patterns where various religions tend to define their gods as simply grander and more powerful versions of their own political or social constructs. Zeus was little more than just another Greek tyrant.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> Basing your argument on what a definition does not include is ridiculous.



Funny thing, I am not doing that, I am challenging you to defend your assertion that atheists who view atheism as their religion are wrong. So far, all you have done is to deflect into earwax.

Lets try this again, why are they wrong?


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basing your argument on what a definition does not include is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing, I am not doing that, I am challenging you to defend your assertion that atheists who view atheism as their religion are wrong. So far, all you have done is to deflect into earwax.
> 
> Lets try this again, why are they wrong?
Click to expand...

There have been definition after definition shown that atheism does not fit into any category of the term religion. When you start including what is not in a definition then you have no argument anymore. A definition only provies what the meaning of the word is, not what the meaning of the word isn't.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly what are these things we believe in that there is no proof of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that there is no god....are you one of those atheists who is unaware what atheists believe in?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now if someone were to ask you what you believe in, you would have to say everything and then put the qualifier things that that exist and things that don't. This is how ridiculous your logic leads to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to the contrary.....I have no problem identifying those things I believe in and those things I don't........atheists, on the other hand, seem to have trouble admitting what it is they believe........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every single atheist has stated they don't believe in god/gods. How is this any diffrent from what you identify as things you don't believe in.
Click to expand...


softball....the difference is that I admit its my belief.....atheists pretend its the product of rational thought.....that's what proves they are irrational......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly what are these things we believe in that there is no proof of.
> 
> 
> 
> that there is no god....are you one of those atheists who is unaware what atheists believe in?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can thus assume that you are an atheist with regard to claims of gods that are competing with your gods. It appears that it is you who is unaware  of what you atheists believe in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you do, it is out of foolishness......I do not say there are no gods......I choose to believe in he who is God....I therefore cannot be described as an atheist......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you can. You A-theistic belief regarding the gods of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly what are these things we believe in that there is no proof of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that there is no god....are you one of those atheists who is unaware what atheists believe in?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can thus assume that you are an atheist with regard to claims of gods that are competing with your gods. It appears that it is you who is unaware  of what you atheists believe in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you do, it is out of foolishness......I do not say there are no gods......I choose to believe in he who is God....I therefore cannot be described as an atheist......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you can. You are A-theistic belief in regards to the other gods. You most certainly are an atheist.
Click to expand...

obviously not....I do not deny the existence of deity......I believe in a God......the fact I have chosen to not believe in Zeus does not make me an atheist......it makes me someone who has chosen not to believe in Zeus......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> 
> 
> There is no requirement for "belief" to conclude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "concluding" in the absence of proof.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. Concluding based upon the completely unsupportable claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not arguing that what choice you made isn't obvious.....I'm just pointing out that it remains a choice, nonetheless.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it's been pointed out that concluding your multi-gods are no less a human invention than Leprechauns is a rational conclusion.
Click to expand...

lol....yes it has.....and that has caused no end of amusement......there are many things that you think are a rational conclusion......that's what proves your irrationality.....


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> that there is no god....are you one of those atheists who is unaware what atheists believe in?......
> 
> 
> 
> We can thus assume that you are an atheist with regard to claims of gods that are competing with your gods. It appears that it is you who is unaware  of what you atheists believe in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you do, it is out of foolishness......I do not say there are no gods......I choose to believe in he who is God....I therefore cannot be described as an atheist......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you can. You A-theistic belief regarding the gods of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly what are these things we believe in that there is no proof of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that there is no god....are you one of those atheists who is unaware what atheists believe in?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can thus assume that you are an atheist with regard to claims of gods that are competing with your gods. It appears that it is you who is unaware  of what you atheists believe in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you do, it is out of foolishness......I do not say there are no gods......I choose to believe in he who is God....I therefore cannot be described as an atheist......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you can. You are A-theistic belief in regards to the other gods. You most certainly are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously not....I do not deny the existence of deity......I believe in a God......the fact I have chosen to not believe in Zeus does not make me an atheist......it makes me someone who has chosen not to believe in Zeus......
Click to expand...

Obviously yes. Being A-theistic regarding belief in Zeus makes you an atheist.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no requirement for "belief" to conclude
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "concluding" in the absence of proof.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. Concluding based upon the completely unsupportable claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not arguing that what choice you made isn't obvious.....I'm just pointing out that it remains a choice, nonetheless.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it's been pointed out that concluding your multi-gods are no less a human invention than Leprechauns is a rational conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol....yes it has.....and that has caused no end of amusement......there are many things that you think are a rational conclusion......that's what proves your irrationality.....
Click to expand...

How strange that you define accepting a rationally based worldview as irrational. Perhaps it's just me, but your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition. 

Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> There have been definition after definition shown that atheism does not fit into any category of the term religion. When you start including what is not in a definition then you have no argument anymore. A definition only provies what the meaning of the word is, not what the meaning of the word isn't.



There has? 

When you start ignoring what is in a definition you have no argument whatever. (Dayam that sounds stupid, but it is the only way to address your idiotic claims.)

I must have missed you refuting the charge of cherry picking definitions instead of posting the entire definition.

Webster
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group​Dictionary dot com

1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.​
2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.
4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.
5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:​
So, once again, other than you insistence that the only way to define the word religion is in defense of your position, why are they wrong?


----------



## Tuatara

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> that there is no god....are you one of those atheists who is unaware what atheists believe in?......
> 
> 
> 
> We can thus assume that you are an atheist with regard to claims of gods that are competing with your gods. It appears that it is you who is unaware  of what you atheists believe in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you do, it is out of foolishness......I do not say there are no gods......I choose to believe in he who is God....I therefore cannot be described as an atheist......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you can. You A-theistic belief regarding the gods of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly what are these things we believe in that there is no proof of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that there is no god....are you one of those atheists who is unaware what atheists believe in?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can thus assume that you are an atheist with regard to claims of gods that are competing with your gods. It appears that it is you who is unaware  of what you atheists believe in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you do, it is out of foolishness......I do not say there are no gods......I choose to believe in he who is God....I therefore cannot be described as an atheist......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you can. You are A-theistic belief in regards to the other gods. You most certainly are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously not....I do not deny the existence of deity......I believe in a God......the fact I have chosen to not believe in Zeus does not make me an atheist......it makes me someone who has chosen not to believe in Zeus......
Click to expand...

As far a Zeus is concerned, you are an atheist. Also, as you and others put it you believe Zeus does not exist, therefore it is a belief.


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been definition after definition shown that atheism does not fit into any category of the term religion. When you start including what is not in a definition then you have no argument anymore. A definition only provies what the meaning of the word is, not what the meaning of the word isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There has?
> 
> When you start ignoring what is in a definition you have no argument whatever. (Dayam that sounds stupid, but it is the only way to address your idiotic claims.)
> 
> I must have missed you refuting the charge of cherry picking definitions instead of posting the entire definition.
> 
> Webster
> : the belief in a god or in a group of gods
> 
> : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
> 
> : an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group​Dictionary dot com
> 
> 1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.​
> 2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
> the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
> 3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
> a world council of religions.
> 4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
> to enter religion.
> 5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
> 6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:​
> So, once again, other than you insistence that the only way to define the word religion is in defense of your position, why are they wrong?
Click to expand...

None of these definitions cover atheism. As for the third definition in Webster's I already pointed out the fallacy of that definition.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> None of these definitions cover atheism. As for the third definition in Webster's I already pointed out the fallacy of that definition.



Umm...

They are definitions of religion, just like the partial definitions you posted, genius.

Fallacies exist in logic, not definitions.

What, pray tell, makes you more knowledgeable than every dictionary editor in the world? Arrogance?


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of these definitions cover atheism. As for the third definition in Webster's I already pointed out the fallacy of that definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm...
> 
> They are definitions of religion, just like the partial definitions you posted, genius.
> 
> Fallacies exist in logic, not definitions.
> 
> What, pray tell, makes you more knowledgeable than every dictionary editor in the world? Arrogance?
Click to expand...

Yes they are definitions of religion which does not include atheism. If there was a way for me to contact Webster's about the error of their definition on their definition I would.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can thus assume that you are an atheist with regard to claims of gods that are competing with your gods. It appears that it is you who is unaware  of what you atheists believe in.
> 
> 
> 
> if you do, it is out of foolishness......I do not say there are no gods......I choose to believe in he who is God....I therefore cannot be described as an atheist......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you can. You A-theistic belief regarding the gods of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> that there is no god....are you one of those atheists who is unaware what atheists believe in?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can thus assume that you are an atheist with regard to claims of gods that are competing with your gods. It appears that it is you who is unaware  of what you atheists believe in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you do, it is out of foolishness......I do not say there are no gods......I choose to believe in he who is God....I therefore cannot be described as an atheist......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you can. You are A-theistic belief in regards to the other gods. You most certainly are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously not....I do not deny the existence of deity......I believe in a God......the fact I have chosen to not believe in Zeus does not make me an atheist......it makes me someone who has chosen not to believe in Zeus......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously yes. Being A-theistic regarding belief in Zeus makes you an atheist.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, that is obviously an ignorant conclusion......believing in a god, I could not possibly be an atheist......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> "concluding" in the absence of proof.....
> 
> 
> 
> False. Concluding based upon the completely unsupportable claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not arguing that what choice you made isn't obvious.....I'm just pointing out that it remains a choice, nonetheless.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it's been pointed out that concluding your multi-gods are no less a human invention than Leprechauns is a rational conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol....yes it has.....and that has caused no end of amusement......there are many things that you think are a rational conclusion......that's what proves your irrationality.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps it's just me
Click to expand...

and there you have it....


----------



## PostmodernProph

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can thus assume that you are an atheist with regard to claims of gods that are competing with your gods. It appears that it is you who is unaware  of what you atheists believe in.
> 
> 
> 
> if you do, it is out of foolishness......I do not say there are no gods......I choose to believe in he who is God....I therefore cannot be described as an atheist......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you can. You A-theistic belief regarding the gods of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> that there is no god....are you one of those atheists who is unaware what atheists believe in?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can thus assume that you are an atheist with regard to claims of gods that are competing with your gods. It appears that it is you who is unaware  of what you atheists believe in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you do, it is out of foolishness......I do not say there are no gods......I choose to believe in he who is God....I therefore cannot be described as an atheist......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you can. You are A-theistic belief in regards to the other gods. You most certainly are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously not....I do not deny the existence of deity......I believe in a God......the fact I have chosen to not believe in Zeus does not make me an atheist......it makes me someone who has chosen not to believe in Zeus......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As far a Zeus is concerned, you are an atheist. Also, as you and others put it you believe Zeus does not exist, therefore it is a belief.
Click to expand...

its simply silly to argue that someone is a partial atheist......yes, you are right.....I believe Zeus does not exist......can I prove Zeus does not exist?.....no.....I choose to believe Zeus does not exist......however, to claim that therefore I am someone who denies the existence of deities is illogical, as I specifically proclaim a belief in one deity......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.


a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........


----------



## Carla_Danger

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
Click to expand...



That's a steaming hot pile of crap.  Is it ignorant to not believe in the tooth fairy?  I don't have proof one way or another, whether the tooth fairy exists.

The stories in the Bible are just as unbelievable as the tooth fairy. The only difference is that most people have the stories from the Bible pounded into their little heads.  If everyone read the Bible for the first time as adults, there would be very few believers.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> 
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly what are these things we believe in that there is no proof of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that there is no god....are you one of those atheists who is unaware what atheists believe in?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can thus assume that you are an atheist with regard to claims of gods that are competing with your gods. It appears that it is you who is unaware  of what you atheists believe in.
Click to expand...


So what they are saying is that if she does not believe in Zeus that her disbelief is a faith, religion and/or belief structure?


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you do, it is out of foolishness......I do not say there are no gods......I choose to believe in he who is God....I therefore cannot be described as an atheist......
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can. You A-theistic belief regarding the gods of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can thus assume that you are an atheist with regard to claims of gods that are competing with your gods. It appears that it is you who is unaware  of what you atheists believe in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you do, it is out of foolishness......I do not say there are no gods......I choose to believe in he who is God....I therefore cannot be described as an atheist......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you can. You are A-theistic belief in regards to the other gods. You most certainly are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously not....I do not deny the existence of deity......I believe in a God......the fact I have chosen to not believe in Zeus does not make me an atheist......it makes me someone who has chosen not to believe in Zeus......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously yes. Being A-theistic regarding belief in Zeus makes you an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry, that is obviously an ignorant conclusion......believing in a god, I could not possibly be an atheist......
Click to expand...

Your ignorance is of your own making. Believing that gods other than your gods do not exist is A-theistic belief. Therefore, your are an atheist with regard to the gods competing with your gods.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you do, it is out of foolishness......I do not say there are no gods......I choose to believe in he who is God....I therefore cannot be described as an atheist......
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can. You A-theistic belief regarding the gods of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can thus assume that you are an atheist with regard to claims of gods that are competing with your gods. It appears that it is you who is unaware  of what you atheists believe in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you do, it is out of foolishness......I do not say there are no gods......I choose to believe in he who is God....I therefore cannot be described as an atheist......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you can. You are A-theistic belief in regards to the other gods. You most certainly are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously not....I do not deny the existence of deity......I believe in a God......the fact I have chosen to not believe in Zeus does not make me an atheist......it makes me someone who has chosen not to believe in Zeus......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As far a Zeus is concerned, you are an atheist. Also, as you and others put it you believe Zeus does not exist, therefore it is a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its simply silly to argue that someone is a partial atheist......yes, you are right.....I believe Zeus does not exist......can I prove Zeus does not exist?.....no.....I choose to believe Zeus does not exist......however, to claim that therefore I am someone who denies the existence of deities is illogical, as I specifically proclaim a belief in one deity......
Click to expand...



If you had Zeus pounded into your head, you'd be a firm believer in Zeus.  Aren't you glad we didn't name God, "Bob the Builder?"  LOL!


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> 
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
Click to expand...




PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> 
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
Click to expand...




PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> 
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
Click to expand...

It's really a fine example of your complete befuddlement. You hoped to sidestep the absurdities of nature delineated in the bibles: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., because accepting such literal events is a fool's paradise, (or a religious zealot's fantastical imagination). So don't sidestep, obfuscate and backstroke. Tell us about those talking snakes.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> 
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really a fine example of your complete befuddlement. You hoped to sidestep the absurdities of nature delineated in the bibles: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., because accepting such literal events is a fool's paradise, (or a religious zealot's fantastical imagination). So don't sidestep, obfuscate and backstroke. Tell us about those talking snakes.
Click to expand...



I've always wondered if the fundamentalists know about the two creation stories, or if they just carry that book for show???


----------



## Hollie

Carla_Danger said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> 
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really a fine example of your complete befuddlement. You hoped to sidestep the absurdities of nature delineated in the bibles: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., because accepting such literal events is a fool's paradise, (or a religious zealot's fantastical imagination). So don't sidestep, obfuscate and backstroke. Tell us about those talking snakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've always wondered if the fundamentalists know about the two creation stories, or if they just carry that book for show???
Click to expand...

I would say "no" to the multiple creation tales and suggest that the books are used as props to hold in one hand - thump with other hand. Being at the business end of a fundies furiously wagging finger is a laughable joke.

 It's rare that that the fundies have more than a middling knowledge of the tales and fables they were hammered into them as children. In this case, the FIQ( Fundie in Question), creates for himself a genuinely unsolvable dilemma. He claims there are source materials (the various bibles), that delineate the belief system. He claims this source material has a level of "believability" and functionality which supports that belief system as well. How it is that talking snakes, 350 year old men, a 6,000 year old earth are believable is never addressed. He further claims that a book, which we know was written by men, somehow conveys the direction and intent of some alleged supernatural entity who the believers acknowledge is beyond human understanding is, if course, never addressed.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> Yes they are definitions of religion which does not include atheism. If there was a way for me to contact Webster's about the error of their definition on their definition I would.



You don't know how to write a letter?

That pathetic excuse dealt with, what makes them wrong? Keep in mind that your arrogant assumption you know more than they do is not evidence they are wrong.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, if you do not believe me, does that mean your skepticism is a belief?  So then it's a religion?
> 
> 
> 
> if it is something which can neither be proven or disproven and I make a choice about whether or not to believe it, regardless of the fact that it can be neither proven or disproven, then obviously yes......if that belief is elevated to the point that one takes extraordinary steps to uphold that belief, such as filing law suits and arguing them up to the supreme court, or even logging on daily to argue what you believe with those who don't agree with you, then yes......it can become a religion.......
> 
> on the other hand, I may believe you don't have a penis.......given that I devote little or no time contemplating that belief, that belief would not be elevated to a religion........
Click to expand...


Why is it a religion if we argue against what your religion is doing all the way up to the Supreme Court?  If it went that far, clearly your religion is doing something unconstitutional.  Do you not get that?  

Maybe this will help you understand.  Lets say Muslims get a law passed to impose Sharia law on everyone in Dearborn Michigan?  Dearborn is the Muslim capital of America so they have the votes.  

If you lived in that city and sued the school district, would you being against what they are trying to do be considered a religion?

We aren't against Churches doing anything they want as long as it's Constitutional.  You do understand that, right?


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He'd be agnostic, because he'd see no proof either way for or against a god. The only logical position to hold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think no......if he grew up on an island and never heard the idea of god(s) and you asked him if he believed in god(s) he would not say he'd seen no proof either way.....he would say "huh?".......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if after you told him the Adam, Eve, Moses, Jesus & Jonah stories and he said you were making it all up, stupid, a liar or crazy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then he would be choosing what he believed.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would him not believing in this god you talk about make him an atheist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously not.....him saying "there is no god" would make him an atheist......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember as far as organized religions go, we are all atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true....I believe that a god exists.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just happen to not believe in one more god than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which logically makes you an atheist and me a Christian.....(you see why I consider atheists to be ignorant and illogical?).......
Click to expand...


Wait a minute.  If I've never heard about god(s) before and a Christian walks up to me and tells me their story and I don't believe it, they aren't going to consider me an atheist?  I guess you are right.  If I said I was a Muslim they wouldn't consider me an "atheist".  Good point.  

But remember, Christians don't believe in the Muslim's version of god or a generic god either.  Remember, you are an athiest too.  You just happen to believe in one more god than I do.  Do you believe in the Greek Gods?  

You're saying I first have to hear and reject every person on earth's version of god before I can honestly be called an athiest?  I guess that is true too.  A person who believes in generic god isn't considered an atheist.  Ok, you got me.  

I've heard the Jew, Muslim, Mormon & Christian stories and I don't believe any of them.  Maybe there is a spin on god I will like but just haven't heard it yet?  Maybe that's why we say Agnostic Atheism is the most rational position.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they are definitions of religion which does not include atheism. If there was a way for me to contact Webster's about the error of their definition on their definition I would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know how to write a letter?
> 
> That pathetic excuse dealt with, what makes them wrong? Keep in mind that your arrogant assumption you know more than they do is not evidence they are wrong.
Click to expand...


We all assume we know more than you.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Carla_Danger said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a steaming hot pile of crap.  Is it ignorant to not believe in the tooth fairy?
Click to expand...


I googled it.....I find no where that atheism is defined as 'those who deny the existence of tooth fairies'........


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can. You A-theistic belief regarding the gods of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you do, it is out of foolishness......I do not say there are no gods......I choose to believe in he who is God....I therefore cannot be described as an atheist......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you can. You are A-theistic belief in regards to the other gods. You most certainly are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously not....I do not deny the existence of deity......I believe in a God......the fact I have chosen to not believe in Zeus does not make me an atheist......it makes me someone who has chosen not to believe in Zeus......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously yes. Being A-theistic regarding belief in Zeus makes you an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry, that is obviously an ignorant conclusion......believing in a god, I could not possibly be an atheist......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your ignorance is of your own making. Believing that gods other than your gods do not exist is A-theistic belief. Therefore, your are an atheist with regard to the gods competing with your gods.
Click to expand...

in actuality, my 'ignorance' is only of your imagination.....look at the structure of your sentence......"Believing that gods other than *your gods *do not exist is A-theistic belief"....if I have gods I am by definition NOT an atheist.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

Carla_Danger said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can. You A-theistic belief regarding the gods of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you do, it is out of foolishness......I do not say there are no gods......I choose to believe in he who is God....I therefore cannot be described as an atheist......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you can. You are A-theistic belief in regards to the other gods. You most certainly are an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously not....I do not deny the existence of deity......I believe in a God......the fact I have chosen to not believe in Zeus does not make me an atheist......it makes me someone who has chosen not to believe in Zeus......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As far a Zeus is concerned, you are an atheist. Also, as you and others put it you believe Zeus does not exist, therefore it is a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its simply silly to argue that someone is a partial atheist......yes, you are right.....I believe Zeus does not exist......can I prove Zeus does not exist?.....no.....I choose to believe Zeus does not exist......however, to claim that therefore I am someone who denies the existence of deities is illogical, as I specifically proclaim a belief in one deity......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you had Zeus pounded into your head, you'd be a firm believer in Zeus.
Click to expand...


I know, right?....that's why Seally isn't really an atheist......he can't be, because he was raised by Christians and nobody is allowed to think for themselves, right?......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> 
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really a fine example of your complete befuddlement. You hoped to sidestep the absurdities of nature delineated in the bibles: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., because accepting such literal events is a fool's paradise, (or a religious zealot's fantastical imagination). So don't sidestep, obfuscate and backstroke. Tell us about those talking snakes.
Click to expand...

nothing but atheist evangelism......Hollie,. seeking sainthood in the atheist church......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Carla_Danger said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> 
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really a fine example of your complete befuddlement. You hoped to sidestep the absurdities of nature delineated in the bibles: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., because accepting such literal events is a fool's paradise, (or a religious zealot's fantastical imagination). So don't sidestep, obfuscate and backstroke. Tell us about those talking snakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've always wondered if the fundamentalists know about the two creation stories, or if they just carry that book for show???
Click to expand...

four.....Genesis 1:1 is seperate from Genesis 1:2......and the book of Job....


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> they aren't going to consider me an atheist?


is your response "There are no  gods" or is your response "I'm confused, what are you talking about?".......


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, if you do not believe me, does that mean your skepticism is a belief?  So then it's a religion?
> 
> 
> 
> if it is something which can neither be proven or disproven and I make a choice about whether or not to believe it, regardless of the fact that it can be neither proven or disproven, then obviously yes......if that belief is elevated to the point that one takes extraordinary steps to uphold that belief, such as filing law suits and arguing them up to the supreme court, or even logging on daily to argue what you believe with those who don't agree with you, then yes......it can become a religion.......
> 
> on the other hand, I may believe you don't have a penis.......given that I devote little or no time contemplating that belief, that belief would not be elevated to a religion........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it a religion if we argue against what your religion is doing all the way up to the Supreme Court?
Click to expand...

it demonstrates how passionately you hold your beliefs.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they are definitions of religion which does not include atheism. If there was a way for me to contact Webster's about the error of their definition on their definition I would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know how to write a letter?
> 
> That pathetic excuse dealt with, what makes them wrong? Keep in mind that your arrogant assumption you know more than they do is not evidence they are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all assume we know more than you.
Click to expand...

not your first mistake.....


----------



## Carla_Danger

PostmodernProph said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can. You are A-theistic belief in regards to the other gods. You most certainly are an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> obviously not....I do not deny the existence of deity......I believe in a God......the fact I have chosen to not believe in Zeus does not make me an atheist......it makes me someone who has chosen not to believe in Zeus......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As far a Zeus is concerned, you are an atheist. Also, as you and others put it you believe Zeus does not exist, therefore it is a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its simply silly to argue that someone is a partial atheist......yes, you are right.....I believe Zeus does not exist......can I prove Zeus does not exist?.....no.....I choose to believe Zeus does not exist......however, to claim that therefore I am someone who denies the existence of deities is illogical, as I specifically proclaim a belief in one deity......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you had Zeus pounded into your head, you'd be a firm believer in Zeus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, right?....that's why Seally isn't really an atheist......he can't be, because he was raised by Christians and nobody is allowed to think for themselves, right?......
Click to expand...




Some people are able to develop critical thinking skills, some aren't.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PostmodernProph said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a steaming hot pile of crap.  Is it ignorant to not believe in the tooth fairy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I googled it.....I find no where that atheism is defined as 'those who deny the existence of tooth fairies'........
Click to expand...




That's funny, because all over this thread I've been told that a non belief is really a belief, and therefore a religion.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> 
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really a fine example of your complete befuddlement. You hoped to sidestep the absurdities of nature delineated in the bibles: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., because accepting such literal events is a fool's paradise, (or a religious zealot's fantastical imagination). So don't sidestep, obfuscate and backstroke. Tell us about those talking snakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but atheist evangelism......Hollie,. seeking sainthood in the atheist church......
Click to expand...




There's no such thing.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can. You are A-theistic belief in regards to the other gods. You most certainly are an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> obviously not....I do not deny the existence of deity......I believe in a God......the fact I have chosen to not believe in Zeus does not make me an atheist......it makes me someone who has chosen not to believe in Zeus......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously yes. Being A-theistic regarding belief in Zeus makes you an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry, that is obviously an ignorant conclusion......believing in a god, I could not possibly be an atheist......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your ignorance is of your own making. Believing that gods other than your gods do not exist is A-theistic belief. Therefore, your are an atheist with regard to the gods competing with your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in actuality, my 'ignorance' is only of your imagination.....look at the structure of your sentence......"Believing that gods other than *your gods *do not exist is A-theistic belief"....if I have gods I am by definition NOT an atheist.....
Click to expand...

Within Christianity, you have three gods. How many other gods do you believe in?


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> 
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really a fine example of your complete befuddlement. You hoped to sidestep the absurdities of nature delineated in the bibles: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., because accepting such literal events is a fool's paradise, (or a religious zealot's fantastical imagination). So don't sidestep, obfuscate and backstroke. Tell us about those talking snakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've always wondered if the fundamentalists know about the two creation stories, or if they just carry that book for show???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> four.....Genesis 1:1 is seperate from Genesis 1:2......and the book of Job....
Click to expand...

So many tales and fables for you book worshippers to keep track of.

Tell us about the talking snake and why your gods lied in the genesis tale.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> 
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really a fine example of your complete befuddlement. You hoped to sidestep the absurdities of nature delineated in the bibles: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., because accepting such literal events is a fool's paradise, (or a religious zealot's fantastical imagination). So don't sidestep, obfuscate and backstroke. Tell us about those talking snakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but atheist evangelism......Hollie,. seeking sainthood in the atheist church......
Click to expand...

What a shame. You've been given multiple opportunities to resolve the errors, inconsistencies and falsehoods in the bibles, yet, with each opportunity, you sidestep, obfuscate and backstroke.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> 
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really a fine example of your complete befuddlement. You hoped to sidestep the absurdities of nature delineated in the bibles: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., because accepting such literal events is a fool's paradise, (or a religious zealot's fantastical imagination). So don't sidestep, obfuscate and backstroke. Tell us about those talking snakes.
Click to expand...


And I was watching TCT religious tv this weekend and the preacher flat out lied when he said that the people who wrote the bible were eye witnesses who saw it.  We all know that is a bald faced lie.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> they aren't going to consider me an atheist?
> 
> 
> 
> is your response "There are no  gods" or is your response "I'm confused, what are you talking about?".......
Click to expand...


Lets say I don't buy a word you are saying and I reject your entire story of religion.  If you are a christian, you aren't going to switch to the Muslim story if I don't believe your story.  You're going to label me an atheist and tell me I'm going to hell for not believing you and your church.

Forget about generic god.  It doesn't even matter to people who believe in generic god if I believe or not.  It only seems to matter to Christians, Muslims and Jews.  They are the ones that say us atheists are going to hell for not believing.  

People who believe in Generic god don't think any harm will come to atheists if they don't believe in god.  Theists got that from their holy books.  

So I have a feeling if a Christian tells me about their lord and I don't believe it, they aren't going to ask me if I believe in any other gods.  In fact Christians talk about their Jesus god as if he's a fact.  So if I reject a Christians Jesus god, then they must consider me an atheist.  

So if I was on an island and you told me about your version of god, I have to assume in your mind he is the only one real true god. So if I don't buy your story, you should consider me an atheist.  

And what reason would I believe in a generic god?  If I had never heard of god before and you told me about your made up god, I can only make my decision based on what you have told me.  I wouldn't even know to consider other generic gods.  You would be telling me about god like he was a fact and I'd probably say BULLSHIT to your insane stories.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> 
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really a fine example of your complete befuddlement. You hoped to sidestep the absurdities of nature delineated in the bibles: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., because accepting such literal events is a fool's paradise, (or a religious zealot's fantastical imagination). So don't sidestep, obfuscate and backstroke. Tell us about those talking snakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've always wondered if the fundamentalists know about the two creation stories, or if they just carry that book for show???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> four.....Genesis 1:1 is seperate from Genesis 1:2......and the book of Job....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So many tales and fables for you book worshippers to keep track of.
> 
> Tell us about the talking snake and why your gods lied in the genesis tale.
Click to expand...


From what I've read, real Christians can't believe that the Jonah living in the belly of a whale story is an allegory because JESUS himself said it happened.  LITERALLY!  He said he would rise after being dead 3 days just like Jonah lived after being in the belly of a whale for 3 days.

Anyone who says that's an allegory, and Adam & Eve & Noah are all allegories needs to realize so was Mary and Jesus, unless you believe a virgin can get prego.


----------



## GreenBean

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> obviously not....I do not deny the existence of deity......I believe in a God......the fact I have chosen to not believe in Zeus does not make me an atheist......it makes me someone who has chosen not to believe in Zeus......
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously yes. Being A-theistic regarding belief in Zeus makes you an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry, that is obviously an ignorant conclusion......believing in a god, I could not possibly be an atheist......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your ignorance is of your own making. Believing that gods other than your gods do not exist is A-theistic belief. Therefore, your are an atheist with regard to the gods competing with your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in actuality, my 'ignorance' is only of your imagination.....look at the structure of your sentence......"Believing that gods other than *your gods *do not exist is A-theistic belief"....if I have gods I am by definition NOT an atheist.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Within Christianity, you have three gods. How any other gods do you believe in?
Click to expand...



It's all a matter of Semantics - this entire thread is about Semantics. Christians claim to have one God - yet they have the trinity , and lesser gods known as angels , saints, demons and even Satan - one of Jehovahs "angels " can be classified as a lesser god, an evil god.

And then you have the passage which states "You shall have no other gods before me"  which implies the existence of other gods.

You also have instances where God is speaking - seemingly to other Gods when he states as in Genesis 11:7   "Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another's speech."


[Actually God must have had a sense of Humor - because Genesis 11:7 seems to describe this thread to a tee]


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can. You are A-theistic belief in regards to the other gods. You most certainly are an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> obviously not....I do not deny the existence of deity......I believe in a God......the fact I have chosen to not believe in Zeus does not make me an atheist......it makes me someone who has chosen not to believe in Zeus......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As far a Zeus is concerned, you are an atheist. Also, as you and others put it you believe Zeus does not exist, therefore it is a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its simply silly to argue that someone is a partial atheist......yes, you are right.....I believe Zeus does not exist......can I prove Zeus does not exist?.....no.....I choose to believe Zeus does not exist......however, to claim that therefore I am someone who denies the existence of deities is illogical, as I specifically proclaim a belief in one deity......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you had Zeus pounded into your head, you'd be a firm believer in Zeus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, right?....that's why Seally isn't really an atheist......he can't be, because he was raised by Christians and nobody is allowed to think for themselves, right?......
Click to expand...


I have talked with many members of my church who don't take the bible literally.  Most of them believe in god but know the bible is made up. I'm trying to get them to understand that if the bible is made up, so might be this god character but it is deeply rooted.  I got drunk with my one buddy one night and no matter how much I debunked his arguments, he stayed firm that he just can't not believe there is no god.  

Its not like he's deciding rationally.  He has no evidence there is a god but he can't believe there isn't and that's his justification.  There MUST be a god he says.  

That's about as critical as most theists get when it comes to this subject.  Luckily the next generation isn't buying it and more and more people every year leave the churches.


----------



## sealybobo

GreenBean said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously yes. Being A-theistic regarding belief in Zeus makes you an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, that is obviously an ignorant conclusion......believing in a god, I could not possibly be an atheist......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your ignorance is of your own making. Believing that gods other than your gods do not exist is A-theistic belief. Therefore, your are an atheist with regard to the gods competing with your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in actuality, my 'ignorance' is only of your imagination.....look at the structure of your sentence......"Believing that gods other than *your gods *do not exist is A-theistic belief"....if I have gods I am by definition NOT an atheist.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Within Christianity, you have three gods. How any other gods do you believe in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's all a matter of Semantics - this entire thread is about Semantics. Christians claim to have one God - yet they have the trinity , and lesser gods known as angels , saints, demons and even Satan - one of Jehovahs "angels " can be classified as a lesser god, an evil god.
> 
> And then you have the passage which states "You shall have no other gods before me"  which implies the existence of other gods.
> 
> You also have instances where God is speaking - seemingly to other Gods when he states as in Genesis 11:7   "Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another's speech."
> 
> 
> [Actually God must have had a sense of Humor - because Genesis 11:7 seems to describe this thread to a tee]
Click to expand...


That passage "you shall have no other gods" soooo obviously come from a new man made religion.  What's rule number one?  I'M NUMBER ONE!  What's rule number 2?  Don't fucking ever forget rule number 1 or burn in hell!  LOL.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Carla_Danger said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> 
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a steaming hot pile of crap.  Is it ignorant to not believe in the tooth fairy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I googled it.....I find no where that atheism is defined as 'those who deny the existence of tooth fairies'........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, because all over this thread I've been told that a non belief is really a belief, and therefore a religion.
Click to expand...

Some people are able to develop critical thinking skills, some aren't........


----------



## PostmodernProph

Carla_Danger said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> 
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really a fine example of your complete befuddlement. You hoped to sidestep the absurdities of nature delineated in the bibles: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., because accepting such literal events is a fool's paradise, (or a religious zealot's fantastical imagination). So don't sidestep, obfuscate and backstroke. Tell us about those talking snakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but atheist evangelism......Hollie,. seeking sainthood in the atheist church......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing.
Click to expand...

don't tell Hollie....she'll be terribly disappointed......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> obviously not....I do not deny the existence of deity......I believe in a God......the fact I have chosen to not believe in Zeus does not make me an atheist......it makes me someone who has chosen not to believe in Zeus......
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously yes. Being A-theistic regarding belief in Zeus makes you an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry, that is obviously an ignorant conclusion......believing in a god, I could not possibly be an atheist......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your ignorance is of your own making. Believing that gods other than your gods do not exist is A-theistic belief. Therefore, your are an atheist with regard to the gods competing with your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in actuality, my 'ignorance' is only of your imagination.....look at the structure of your sentence......"Believing that gods other than *your gods *do not exist is A-theistic belief"....if I have gods I am by definition NOT an atheist.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Within Christianity, you have three gods. How many other gods do you believe in?
Click to expand...

that one....


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> 
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really a fine example of your complete befuddlement. You hoped to sidestep the absurdities of nature delineated in the bibles: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., because accepting such literal events is a fool's paradise, (or a religious zealot's fantastical imagination). So don't sidestep, obfuscate and backstroke. Tell us about those talking snakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've always wondered if the fundamentalists know about the two creation stories, or if they just carry that book for show???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> four.....Genesis 1:1 is seperate from Genesis 1:2......and the book of Job....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So many tales and fables for you book worshippers to keep track of.
> 
> Tell us about the talking snake and why your gods lied in the genesis tale.
Click to expand...

tell me about 150k year old AGW......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> 
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really a fine example of your complete befuddlement. You hoped to sidestep the absurdities of nature delineated in the bibles: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., because accepting such literal events is a fool's paradise, (or a religious zealot's fantastical imagination). So don't sidestep, obfuscate and backstroke. Tell us about those talking snakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but atheist evangelism......Hollie,. seeking sainthood in the atheist church......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a shame. You've been given multiple opportunities to resolve the errors, inconsistencies and falsehoods in the bibles, yet, with each opportunity, you sidestep, obfuscate and backstroke.
Click to expand...

there aren't any.....just falsehoods in AtheistsRUs websites....


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> 
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really a fine example of your complete befuddlement. You hoped to sidestep the absurdities of nature delineated in the bibles: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., because accepting such literal events is a fool's paradise, (or a religious zealot's fantastical imagination). So don't sidestep, obfuscate and backstroke. Tell us about those talking snakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I was watching TCT religious tv this weekend and the preacher flat out lied when he said that the people who wrote the bible were eye witnesses who saw it.  We all know that is a bald faced lie.
Click to expand...

you shouldn't watch things you don't believe in....it may cause you to lapse and rejoin the church.....Carla thinks you're weak minded......


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> I'm trying to get them to understand that if the bible is made up, so might be this god character but it is deeply rooted.


the atheist evangelizer.....


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they are definitions of religion which does not include atheism. If there was a way for me to contact Webster's about the error of their definition on their definition I would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know how to write a letter?
> 
> That pathetic excuse dealt with, what makes them wrong? Keep in mind that your arrogant assumption you know more than they do is not evidence they are wrong.
Click to expand...

I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179


As for writing a letter to Webster, they only accept business or advertising letters or someone wishing to add a new word.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> 
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really a fine example of your complete befuddlement. You hoped to sidestep the absurdities of nature delineated in the bibles: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., because accepting such literal events is a fool's paradise, (or a religious zealot's fantastical imagination). So don't sidestep, obfuscate and backstroke. Tell us about those talking snakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but atheist evangelism......Hollie,. seeking sainthood in the atheist church......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't tell Hollie....she'll be terribly disappointed......
Click to expand...

Your commenting on issues you know nothing about is a pattern of behavior.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> 
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your beliefs in absurdities of nature: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., are demonstrably false, yet you must believe those absurdities or acknowledge that your religious beliefs are of fear and superstition.
> 
> Yet, you define as irrational anyone who reaches supportable conclusions about your delusions and irrationality. You pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really a fine example of your complete befuddlement. You hoped to sidestep the absurdities of nature delineated in the bibles: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., because accepting such literal events is a fool's paradise, (or a religious zealot's fantastical imagination). So don't sidestep, obfuscate and backstroke. Tell us about those talking snakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but atheist evangelism......Hollie,. seeking sainthood in the atheist church......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a shame. You've been given multiple opportunities to resolve the errors, inconsistencies and falsehoods in the bibles, yet, with each opportunity, you sidestep, obfuscate and backstroke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there aren't any.....just falsehoods in AtheistsRUs websites....
Click to expand...

More of the denial that complicates your ability to function in a reality based worldview. It's a typical reaction of religious extremists to deny the errors, inconsistencies and falsehoods in the bibles, yet with each subsequent denial, you fundies sink ever deeper into the abyss.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> a fine example of atheist' dogma.......I can picture the rest of the atheists shouting "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" and "preach it Sister Hollie!"..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really a fine example of your complete befuddlement. You hoped to sidestep the absurdities of nature delineated in the bibles: talking snakes, global floods that never happened, Arks that don't exist, a 6,000 year old (flat) earth, 350 year old men, spirit realms, etc., because accepting such literal events is a fool's paradise, (or a religious zealot's fantastical imagination). So don't sidestep, obfuscate and backstroke. Tell us about those talking snakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've always wondered if the fundamentalists know about the two creation stories, or if they just carry that book for show???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> four.....Genesis 1:1 is seperate from Genesis 1:2......and the book of Job....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So many tales and fables for you book worshippers to keep track of.
> 
> Tell us about the talking snake and why your gods lied in the genesis tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tell me about 150k year old AGW......
Click to expand...

It's your claim. Yet another you're unable to defend. That's not unlike your fundamentalist acceptance of a 6,000 year old planet.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree, understand and admit that if you grew up on an island and never heard of the idea of god(s), you not believing in god(s) is not a belief?
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a steaming hot pile of crap.  Is it ignorant to not believe in the tooth fairy?  I don't have proof one way or another, whether the tooth fairy exists.
> 
> The stories in the Bible are just as unbelievable as the tooth fairy. The only difference is that most people have the stories from the Bible pounded into their little heads.  If everyone read the Bible for the first time as adults, there would be very few believers.
Click to expand...

 
That is a wonderful argument to make, if you don't care about accuracy.  You do indeed have evidence the tooth fairy doesn't exist.  Your parents will tell you that when you were small it was them who put the money under your pillow.  Santa Claus, you can trace the history to Bishop of Myra and the current version to a Coca Cola ad campaign.  There is plenty of evidence.  These analogies only stand up if you don't look at them very closely and are used because it's all you have.

A belief is a belief, and you do not lack beliefs.  This insistence that you do is extremely interesting.  If one simply says they believe there are no gods, it pretty much stops there.  They have defined themselves by what they believe.  Instead, what you are doing is defining yourself not by what you believe but rather by something you claim you do not believe.  Your definition of yourself only exists in tandem with what you deny.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> logical error.....atheism is ignorance, but all ignorance is not atheism........the person on the island would also not be denying the existence of deity.......
> 
> 
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a steaming hot pile of crap.  Is it ignorant to not believe in the tooth fairy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I googled it.....I find no where that atheism is defined as 'those who deny the existence of tooth fairies'........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, because all over this thread I've been told that a non belief is really a belief, and therefore a religion.
Click to expand...

 
No.  What you have been told is that this dogma that belief is non-belief is what makes it religion.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> obviously not....I do not deny the existence of deity......I believe in a God......the fact I have chosen to not believe in Zeus does not make me an atheist......it makes me someone who has chosen not to believe in Zeus......
> 
> 
> 
> As far a Zeus is concerned, you are an atheist. Also, as you and others put it you believe Zeus does not exist, therefore it is a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its simply silly to argue that someone is a partial atheist......yes, you are right.....I believe Zeus does not exist......can I prove Zeus does not exist?.....no.....I choose to believe Zeus does not exist......however, to claim that therefore I am someone who denies the existence of deities is illogical, as I specifically proclaim a belief in one deity......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you had Zeus pounded into your head, you'd be a firm believer in Zeus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, right?....that's why Seally isn't really an atheist......he can't be, because he was raised by Christians and nobody is allowed to think for themselves, right?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have talked with many members of my church who don't take the bible literally.  Most of them believe in god but know the bible is made up. I'm trying to get them to understand that if the bible is made up, so might be this god character but it is deeply rooted.  I got drunk with my one buddy one night and no matter how much I debunked his arguments, he stayed firm that he just can't not believe there is no god.
> 
> Its not like he's deciding rationally.  He has no evidence there is a god but he can't believe there isn't and that's his justification.  There MUST be a god he says.
> 
> That's about as critical as most theists get when it comes to this subject.  Luckily the next generation isn't buying it and more and more people every year leave the churches.
Click to expand...

 
If evangelism is attempting to convert others, how is what you just described not evangelism?


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously yes. Being A-theistic regarding belief in Zeus makes you an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, that is obviously an ignorant conclusion......believing in a god, I could not possibly be an atheist......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your ignorance is of your own making. Believing that gods other than your gods do not exist is A-theistic belief. Therefore, your are an atheist with regard to the gods competing with your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in actuality, my 'ignorance' is only of your imagination.....look at the structure of your sentence......"Believing that gods other than *your gods *do not exist is A-theistic belief"....if I have gods I am by definition NOT an atheist.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Within Christianity, you have three gods. How many other gods do you believe in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that one....
Click to expand...




PostmodernProph said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> 
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a steaming hot pile of crap.  Is it ignorant to not believe in the tooth fairy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I googled it.....I find no where that atheism is defined as 'those who deny the existence of tooth fairies'........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, because all over this thread I've been told that a non belief is really a belief, and therefore a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some people are able to develop critical thinking skills, some aren't........
Click to expand...

So tell us how critical thinking skills leads to talking snakes, a 6,000 year old earth, etc.,


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, that is obviously an ignorant conclusion......believing in a god, I could not possibly be an atheist......
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is of your own making. Believing that gods other than your gods do not exist is A-theistic belief. Therefore, your are an atheist with regard to the gods competing with your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in actuality, my 'ignorance' is only of your imagination.....look at the structure of your sentence......"Believing that gods other than *your gods *do not exist is A-theistic belief"....if I have gods I am by definition NOT an atheist.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Within Christianity, you have three gods. How many other gods do you believe in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that one....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a steaming hot pile of crap.  Is it ignorant to not believe in the tooth fairy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I googled it.....I find no where that atheism is defined as 'those who deny the existence of tooth fairies'........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, because all over this thread I've been told that a non belief is really a belief, and therefore a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some people are able to develop critical thinking skills, some aren't........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell us how critical thinking skills leads to talking snakes, a 6,000 year old earth, etc.,
Click to expand...

it obviously wasn't critical thinking skills that leads you to continuously claim I believe in talking snakes and 6000 year old earths......


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is of your own making. Believing that gods other than your gods do not exist is A-theistic belief. Therefore, your are an atheist with regard to the gods competing with your gods.
> 
> 
> 
> in actuality, my 'ignorance' is only of your imagination.....look at the structure of your sentence......"Believing that gods other than *your gods *do not exist is A-theistic belief"....if I have gods I am by definition NOT an atheist.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Within Christianity, you have three gods. How many other gods do you believe in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that one....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a steaming hot pile of crap.  Is it ignorant to not believe in the tooth fairy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I googled it.....I find no where that atheism is defined as 'those who deny the existence of tooth fairies'........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, because all over this thread I've been told that a non belief is really a belief, and therefore a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some people are able to develop critical thinking skills, some aren't........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell us how critical thinking skills leads to talking snakes, a 6,000 year old earth, etc.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it obviously wasn't critical thinking skills that leads you to continuously claim I believe in talking snakes and 6000 year old earths......
Click to expand...

So, you don't accept the bibles as true, or you just pick and choose. I can understand your picking and choosing. Otherwise, how do you resolve your belief in talking snakes and a 6,000 year old planet?


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> in actuality, my 'ignorance' is only of your imagination.....look at the structure of your sentence......"Believing that gods other than *your gods *do not exist is A-theistic belief"....if I have gods I am by definition NOT an atheist.....
> 
> 
> 
> Within Christianity, you have three gods. How many other gods do you believe in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that one....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> I googled it.....I find no where that atheism is defined as 'those who deny the existence of tooth fairies'........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, because all over this thread I've been told that a non belief is really a belief, and therefore a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some people are able to develop critical thinking skills, some aren't........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell us how critical thinking skills leads to talking snakes, a 6,000 year old earth, etc.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it obviously wasn't critical thinking skills that leads you to continuously claim I believe in talking snakes and 6000 year old earths......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you don't accept the bibles as true, or you just pick and choose. I can understand your picking and choosing. Otherwise, how do you resolve your belief in talking snakes and a 6,000 year old planet?
Click to expand...

I accept the Bible as true.....I just don't accept your misrepresentations about it as true.....


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far a Zeus is concerned, you are an atheist. Also, as you and others put it you believe Zeus does not exist, therefore it is a belief.
> 
> 
> 
> its simply silly to argue that someone is a partial atheist......yes, you are right.....I believe Zeus does not exist......can I prove Zeus does not exist?.....no.....I choose to believe Zeus does not exist......however, to claim that therefore I am someone who denies the existence of deities is illogical, as I specifically proclaim a belief in one deity......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you had Zeus pounded into your head, you'd be a firm believer in Zeus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, right?....that's why Seally isn't really an atheist......he can't be, because he was raised by Christians and nobody is allowed to think for themselves, right?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have talked with many members of my church who don't take the bible literally.  Most of them believe in god but know the bible is made up. I'm trying to get them to understand that if the bible is made up, so might be this god character but it is deeply rooted.  I got drunk with my one buddy one night and no matter how much I debunked his arguments, he stayed firm that he just can't not believe there is no god.
> 
> Its not like he's deciding rationally.  He has no evidence there is a god but he can't believe there isn't and that's his justification.  There MUST be a god he says.
> 
> That's about as critical as most theists get when it comes to this subject.  Luckily the next generation isn't buying it and more and more people every year leave the churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If evangelism is attempting to convert others, how is what you just described not evangelism?
Click to expand...


Oh I am no question trying to convert people from theists to atheists.  I just can't get it out of my mind how clueless you theists are.  And how you guys don't care how much evidence there is god is all made up, you still believe.  I was thinking about the Boss' of the world who believe in generic god vs. Christian, Jew or Muslim god.  How can they be so naive?  They understand that everything we humans on earth know about god is a lie, yet they still believe in "a god".  

And don't even try to deny all organized religions are made up, unless you really believe god visited Joseph Smith and told him about magic underwear, or god told Mohammad what Mohammad says he told him, or that god fucked Mary.  You may believe one of those story lines but you have to admit the others are all made up.  So why is it you think yours isn't made up?  

Generic god.  Come on guys!  If every religion is made up, perhaps the entire premise is made up.  Sure seems that way to someone like me who has been woken up from the brainwashing our society gave us from early childhood.  Stop being a sheep just like the Muslim women in the middle east.  Suckers.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> in actuality, my 'ignorance' is only of your imagination.....look at the structure of your sentence......"Believing that gods other than *your gods *do not exist is A-theistic belief"....if I have gods I am by definition NOT an atheist.....
> 
> 
> 
> Within Christianity, you have three gods. How many other gods do you believe in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that one....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> I googled it.....I find no where that atheism is defined as 'those who deny the existence of tooth fairies'........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, because all over this thread I've been told that a non belief is really a belief, and therefore a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some people are able to develop critical thinking skills, some aren't........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell us how critical thinking skills leads to talking snakes, a 6,000 year old earth, etc.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it obviously wasn't critical thinking skills that leads you to continuously claim I believe in talking snakes and 6000 year old earths......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you don't accept the bibles as true, or you just pick and choose. I can understand your picking and choosing. Otherwise, how do you resolve your belief in talking snakes and a 6,000 year old planet?
Click to expand...


I love the Christians who admit Adam & Eve, Moses, Noah & Jonah are all allegories but then Mary & Jesus miracles really happened.  Now that's brainwashing when you can see shoot holes in every other religions bullshit but still think yours is real.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Within Christianity, you have three gods. How many other gods do you believe in?
> 
> 
> 
> that one....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, because all over this thread I've been told that a non belief is really a belief, and therefore a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some people are able to develop critical thinking skills, some aren't........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell us how critical thinking skills leads to talking snakes, a 6,000 year old earth, etc.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it obviously wasn't critical thinking skills that leads you to continuously claim I believe in talking snakes and 6000 year old earths......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you don't accept the bibles as true, or you just pick and choose. I can understand your picking and choosing. Otherwise, how do you resolve your belief in talking snakes and a 6,000 year old planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I accept the Bible as true.....I just don't accept your misrepresentations about it as true.....
Click to expand...


When justifying and/or explaining that bible takes this much effort, I smell bullshit.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PostmodernProph said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> 
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a steaming hot pile of crap.  Is it ignorant to not believe in the tooth fairy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I googled it.....I find no where that atheism is defined as 'those who deny the existence of tooth fairies'........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, because all over this thread I've been told that a non belief is really a belief, and therefore a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some people are able to develop critical thinking skills, some aren't........
Click to expand...




Are you a parrot?  You stole my line.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> 
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a steaming hot pile of crap.  Is it ignorant to not believe in the tooth fairy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I googled it.....I find no where that atheism is defined as 'those who deny the existence of tooth fairies'........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, because all over this thread I've been told that a non belief is really a belief, and therefore a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some people are able to develop critical thinking skills, some aren't........
Click to expand...


The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

In other words, if you are smart and still believe in god, there is a problem with your critical thinking skills.  

This is why the more people tell me I'm going to hell, the more I realize they are full of shit and their is no god.  Telling me I'm going to hell works the opposite on me as it does you sheep.  I'm not going to be guilted, bullied, shamed or scared into believing something that doesn't smell right.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're suffering from the debilitating disease of religious extremism. There is nothing ignorant or illogical about rejecting appeals to superstitious fears.
> 
> 
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a steaming hot pile of crap.  Is it ignorant to not believe in the tooth fairy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I googled it.....I find no where that atheism is defined as 'those who deny the existence of tooth fairies'........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, because all over this thread I've been told that a non belief is really a belief, and therefore a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What you have been told is that this dogma that belief is non-belief is what makes it religion.
Click to expand...



And that doesn't make a lick of sense.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> its simply silly to argue that someone is a partial atheist......yes, you are right.....I believe Zeus does not exist......can I prove Zeus does not exist?.....no.....I choose to believe Zeus does not exist......however, to claim that therefore I am someone who denies the existence of deities is illogical, as I specifically proclaim a belief in one deity......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had Zeus pounded into your head, you'd be a firm believer in Zeus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, right?....that's why Seally isn't really an atheist......he can't be, because he was raised by Christians and nobody is allowed to think for themselves, right?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have talked with many members of my church who don't take the bible literally.  Most of them believe in god but know the bible is made up. I'm trying to get them to understand that if the bible is made up, so might be this god character but it is deeply rooted.  I got drunk with my one buddy one night and no matter how much I debunked his arguments, he stayed firm that he just can't not believe there is no god.
> 
> Its not like he's deciding rationally.  He has no evidence there is a god but he can't believe there isn't and that's his justification.  There MUST be a god he says.
> 
> That's about as critical as most theists get when it comes to this subject.  Luckily the next generation isn't buying it and more and more people every year leave the churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If evangelism is attempting to convert others, how is what you just described not evangelism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I am no question trying to convert people from theists to atheists.  I just can't get it out of my mind how clueless you theists are.  And how you guys don't care how much evidence there is god is all made up, you still believe.  I was thinking about the Boss' of the world who believe in generic god vs. Christian, Jew or Muslim god.  How can they be so naive?  They understand that everything we humans on earth know about god is a lie, yet they still believe in "a god".
> 
> And don't even try to deny all organized religions are made up, unless you really believe god visited Joseph Smith and told him about magic underwear, or god told Mohammad what Mohammad says he told him, or that god fucked Mary.  You may believe one of those story lines but you have to admit the others are all made up.  So why is it you think yours isn't made up?
> 
> Generic god.  Come on guys!  If every religion is made up, perhaps the entire premise is made up.  Sure seems that way to someone like me who has been woken up from the brainwashing our society gave us from early childhood.  Stop being a sheep just like the Muslim women in the middle east.  Suckers.
Click to expand...

 
So, when someone says there are no Evangelist Atheists, they are wrong.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had Zeus pounded into your head, you'd be a firm believer in Zeus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, right?....that's why Seally isn't really an atheist......he can't be, because he was raised by Christians and nobody is allowed to think for themselves, right?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have talked with many members of my church who don't take the bible literally.  Most of them believe in god but know the bible is made up. I'm trying to get them to understand that if the bible is made up, so might be this god character but it is deeply rooted.  I got drunk with my one buddy one night and no matter how much I debunked his arguments, he stayed firm that he just can't not believe there is no god.
> 
> Its not like he's deciding rationally.  He has no evidence there is a god but he can't believe there isn't and that's his justification.  There MUST be a god he says.
> 
> That's about as critical as most theists get when it comes to this subject.  Luckily the next generation isn't buying it and more and more people every year leave the churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If evangelism is attempting to convert others, how is what you just described not evangelism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I am no question trying to convert people from theists to atheists.  I just can't get it out of my mind how clueless you theists are.  And how you guys don't care how much evidence there is god is all made up, you still believe.  I was thinking about the Boss' of the world who believe in generic god vs. Christian, Jew or Muslim god.  How can they be so naive?  They understand that everything we humans on earth know about god is a lie, yet they still believe in "a god".
> 
> And don't even try to deny all organized religions are made up, unless you really believe god visited Joseph Smith and told him about magic underwear, or god told Mohammad what Mohammad says he told him, or that god fucked Mary.  You may believe one of those story lines but you have to admit the others are all made up.  So why is it you think yours isn't made up?
> 
> Generic god.  Come on guys!  If every religion is made up, perhaps the entire premise is made up.  Sure seems that way to someone like me who has been woken up from the brainwashing our society gave us from early childhood.  Stop being a sheep just like the Muslim women in the middle east.  Suckers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when someone says there are no Evangelist Atheists, they are wrong.
Click to expand...



There is no such thing.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a steaming hot pile of crap.  Is it ignorant to not believe in the tooth fairy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I googled it.....I find no where that atheism is defined as 'those who deny the existence of tooth fairies'........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, because all over this thread I've been told that a non belief is really a belief, and therefore a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What you have been told is that this dogma that belief is non-belief is what makes it religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that doesn't make a lick of sense.
Click to expand...

 
Ah yes, the Atheist version of "God did it" when faced with a conflict in dogma.  Belief is not non-belief, and calling it that is dogma no matter how much you deny it.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, right?....that's why Seally isn't really an atheist......he can't be, because he was raised by Christians and nobody is allowed to think for themselves, right?......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have talked with many members of my church who don't take the bible literally.  Most of them believe in god but know the bible is made up. I'm trying to get them to understand that if the bible is made up, so might be this god character but it is deeply rooted.  I got drunk with my one buddy one night and no matter how much I debunked his arguments, he stayed firm that he just can't not believe there is no god.
> 
> Its not like he's deciding rationally.  He has no evidence there is a god but he can't believe there isn't and that's his justification.  There MUST be a god he says.
> 
> That's about as critical as most theists get when it comes to this subject.  Luckily the next generation isn't buying it and more and more people every year leave the churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If evangelism is attempting to convert others, how is what you just described not evangelism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I am no question trying to convert people from theists to atheists.  I just can't get it out of my mind how clueless you theists are.  And how you guys don't care how much evidence there is god is all made up, you still believe.  I was thinking about the Boss' of the world who believe in generic god vs. Christian, Jew or Muslim god.  How can they be so naive?  They understand that everything we humans on earth know about god is a lie, yet they still believe in "a god".
> 
> And don't even try to deny all organized religions are made up, unless you really believe god visited Joseph Smith and told him about magic underwear, or god told Mohammad what Mohammad says he told him, or that god fucked Mary.  You may believe one of those story lines but you have to admit the others are all made up.  So why is it you think yours isn't made up?
> 
> Generic god.  Come on guys!  If every religion is made up, perhaps the entire premise is made up.  Sure seems that way to someone like me who has been woken up from the brainwashing our society gave us from early childhood.  Stop being a sheep just like the Muslim women in the middle east.  Suckers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when someone says there are no Evangelist Atheists, they are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's right.  There is no such thing.
Click to expand...

 
Apparently, Sealybobo disagrees.  Is he doing Atheism wrong?


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a steaming hot pile of crap.  Is it ignorant to not believe in the tooth fairy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I googled it.....I find no where that atheism is defined as 'those who deny the existence of tooth fairies'........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, because all over this thread I've been told that a non belief is really a belief, and therefore a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What you have been told is that this dogma that belief is non-belief is what makes it religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that doesn't make a lick of sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the Atheist version of "God did it" when faced with a conflict in dogma.  Belief is not non-belief, and calling it that is dogma no matter how much you deny it.
Click to expand...





There is no atheist version of "God did it."


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> I googled it.....I find no where that atheism is defined as 'those who deny the existence of tooth fairies'........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, because all over this thread I've been told that a non belief is really a belief, and therefore a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What you have been told is that this dogma that belief is non-belief is what makes it religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that doesn't make a lick of sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the Atheist version of "God did it" when faced with a conflict in dogma.  Belief is not non-belief, and calling it that is dogma no matter how much you deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no atheist version of "God did it."
Click to expand...

 
More dogma.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had Zeus pounded into your head, you'd be a firm believer in Zeus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, right?....that's why Seally isn't really an atheist......he can't be, because he was raised by Christians and nobody is allowed to think for themselves, right?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have talked with many members of my church who don't take the bible literally.  Most of them believe in god but know the bible is made up. I'm trying to get them to understand that if the bible is made up, so might be this god character but it is deeply rooted.  I got drunk with my one buddy one night and no matter how much I debunked his arguments, he stayed firm that he just can't not believe there is no god.
> 
> Its not like he's deciding rationally.  He has no evidence there is a god but he can't believe there isn't and that's his justification.  There MUST be a god he says.
> 
> That's about as critical as most theists get when it comes to this subject.  Luckily the next generation isn't buying it and more and more people every year leave the churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If evangelism is attempting to convert others, how is what you just described not evangelism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I am no question trying to convert people from theists to atheists.  I just can't get it out of my mind how clueless you theists are.  And how you guys don't care how much evidence there is god is all made up, you still believe.  I was thinking about the Boss' of the world who believe in generic god vs. Christian, Jew or Muslim god.  How can they be so naive?  They understand that everything we humans on earth know about god is a lie, yet they still believe in "a god".
> 
> And don't even try to deny all organized religions are made up, unless you really believe god visited Joseph Smith and told him about magic underwear, or god told Mohammad what Mohammad says he told him, or that god fucked Mary.  You may believe one of those story lines but you have to admit the others are all made up.  So why is it you think yours isn't made up?
> 
> Generic god.  Come on guys!  If every religion is made up, perhaps the entire premise is made up.  Sure seems that way to someone like me who has been woken up from the brainwashing our society gave us from early childhood.  Stop being a sheep just like the Muslim women in the middle east.  Suckers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when someone says there are no Evangelist Atheists, they are wrong.
Click to expand...


Please don't try to associate words that belong to your religion(s) with us atheists.

e·van·gel·i·cal
ˌ_adjective_


of or according to the teaching of the gospel or the Christian religion.

synonyms:scriptural, biblical;
fundamentalist
"evangelical Christianity"
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
of or denoting a tradition within Protestant Christianity emphasizing the authority of the Bible, personal conversion, and the doctrine of salvation by faith in the Atonement.

synonyms:evangelistic, evangelizing, missionary, crusading, proselytizing;
_informal_Bible-thumping
"an evangelical preacher"
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
zealous in advocating something.

_noun_
noun: *evangelical*; plural noun: *evangelicals*

*1*.
a member of the evangelical tradition in the Christian Church.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have talked with many members of my church who don't take the bible literally.  Most of them believe in god but know the bible is made up. I'm trying to get them to understand that if the bible is made up, so might be this god character but it is deeply rooted.  I got drunk with my one buddy one night and no matter how much I debunked his arguments, he stayed firm that he just can't not believe there is no god.
> 
> Its not like he's deciding rationally.  He has no evidence there is a god but he can't believe there isn't and that's his justification.  There MUST be a god he says.
> 
> That's about as critical as most theists get when it comes to this subject.  Luckily the next generation isn't buying it and more and more people every year leave the churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If evangelism is attempting to convert others, how is what you just described not evangelism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I am no question trying to convert people from theists to atheists.  I just can't get it out of my mind how clueless you theists are.  And how you guys don't care how much evidence there is god is all made up, you still believe.  I was thinking about the Boss' of the world who believe in generic god vs. Christian, Jew or Muslim god.  How can they be so naive?  They understand that everything we humans on earth know about god is a lie, yet they still believe in "a god".
> 
> And don't even try to deny all organized religions are made up, unless you really believe god visited Joseph Smith and told him about magic underwear, or god told Mohammad what Mohammad says he told him, or that god fucked Mary.  You may believe one of those story lines but you have to admit the others are all made up.  So why is it you think yours isn't made up?
> 
> Generic god.  Come on guys!  If every religion is made up, perhaps the entire premise is made up.  Sure seems that way to someone like me who has been woken up from the brainwashing our society gave us from early childhood.  Stop being a sheep just like the Muslim women in the middle east.  Suckers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when someone says there are no Evangelist Atheists, they are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's right.  There is no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, Sealybobo disagrees.  Is he doing Atheism wrong?
Click to expand...



I'll let Sealybobo speak for himself.  There's no such thing as an Evangelist atheist.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, because all over this thread I've been told that a non belief is really a belief, and therefore a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What you have been told is that this dogma that belief is non-belief is what makes it religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that doesn't make a lick of sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the Atheist version of "God did it" when faced with a conflict in dogma.  Belief is not non-belief, and calling it that is dogma no matter how much you deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no atheist version of "God did it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More dogma.
Click to expand...



In your head.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, right?....that's why Seally isn't really an atheist......he can't be, because he was raised by Christians and nobody is allowed to think for themselves, right?......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have talked with many members of my church who don't take the bible literally.  Most of them believe in god but know the bible is made up. I'm trying to get them to understand that if the bible is made up, so might be this god character but it is deeply rooted.  I got drunk with my one buddy one night and no matter how much I debunked his arguments, he stayed firm that he just can't not believe there is no god.
> 
> Its not like he's deciding rationally.  He has no evidence there is a god but he can't believe there isn't and that's his justification.  There MUST be a god he says.
> 
> That's about as critical as most theists get when it comes to this subject.  Luckily the next generation isn't buying it and more and more people every year leave the churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If evangelism is attempting to convert others, how is what you just described not evangelism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I am no question trying to convert people from theists to atheists.  I just can't get it out of my mind how clueless you theists are.  And how you guys don't care how much evidence there is god is all made up, you still believe.  I was thinking about the Boss' of the world who believe in generic god vs. Christian, Jew or Muslim god.  How can they be so naive?  They understand that everything we humans on earth know about god is a lie, yet they still believe in "a god".
> 
> And don't even try to deny all organized religions are made up, unless you really believe god visited Joseph Smith and told him about magic underwear, or god told Mohammad what Mohammad says he told him, or that god fucked Mary.  You may believe one of those story lines but you have to admit the others are all made up.  So why is it you think yours isn't made up?
> 
> Generic god.  Come on guys!  If every religion is made up, perhaps the entire premise is made up.  Sure seems that way to someone like me who has been woken up from the brainwashing our society gave us from early childhood.  Stop being a sheep just like the Muslim women in the middle east.  Suckers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when someone says there are no Evangelist Atheists, they are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please don't try to associate words that belong to your religion(s) with us atheists.
> 
> e·van·gel·i·cal
> ˌ_adjective_
> 
> 
> of or according to the teaching of the gospel or the Christian religion.
> 
> synonyms:scriptural, biblical;
> fundamentalist
> "evangelical Christianity"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> of or denoting a tradition within Protestant Christianity emphasizing the authority of the Bible, personal conversion, and the doctrine of salvation by faith in the Atonement.
> 
> synonyms:evangelistic, evangelizing, missionary, crusading, proselytizing;
> _informal_Bible-thumping
> "an evangelical preacher"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> zealous in advocating something.
> 
> _noun_
> noun: *evangelical*; plural noun: *evangelicals*
> 
> *1*.
> a member of the evangelical tradition in the Christian Church.
Click to expand...

 
So, let me see if I understand you, when they try to convert others that is evangelism.  When you try to convert other, that isn't.  Is that about it?  What exactly is the difference?


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If evangelism is attempting to convert others, how is what you just described not evangelism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I am no question trying to convert people from theists to atheists.  I just can't get it out of my mind how clueless you theists are.  And how you guys don't care how much evidence there is god is all made up, you still believe.  I was thinking about the Boss' of the world who believe in generic god vs. Christian, Jew or Muslim god.  How can they be so naive?  They understand that everything we humans on earth know about god is a lie, yet they still believe in "a god".
> 
> And don't even try to deny all organized religions are made up, unless you really believe god visited Joseph Smith and told him about magic underwear, or god told Mohammad what Mohammad says he told him, or that god fucked Mary.  You may believe one of those story lines but you have to admit the others are all made up.  So why is it you think yours isn't made up?
> 
> Generic god.  Come on guys!  If every religion is made up, perhaps the entire premise is made up.  Sure seems that way to someone like me who has been woken up from the brainwashing our society gave us from early childhood.  Stop being a sheep just like the Muslim women in the middle east.  Suckers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when someone says there are no Evangelist Atheists, they are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's right.  There is no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, Sealybobo disagrees.  Is he doing Atheism wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll let Sealybobo speak for himself.  There's no such thing as an Evangelist atheist.
Click to expand...

 
What do you call someone who tries to convert others to their beliefs?


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What you have been told is that this dogma that belief is non-belief is what makes it religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that doesn't make a lick of sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the Atheist version of "God did it" when faced with a conflict in dogma.  Belief is not non-belief, and calling it that is dogma no matter how much you deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no atheist version of "God did it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In your head.
Click to expand...

 
No.  In your posts.


----------



## sealybobo

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> I googled it.....I find no where that atheism is defined as 'those who deny the existence of tooth fairies'........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, because all over this thread I've been told that a non belief is really a belief, and therefore a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What you have been told is that this dogma that belief is non-belief is what makes it religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that doesn't make a lick of sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the Atheist version of "God did it" when faced with a conflict in dogma.  Belief is not non-belief, and calling it that is dogma no matter how much you deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no atheist version of "God did it."
Click to expand...


It can be argued that there is no such thing as a ‘militant’ (evangelical) atheist, that the term is itself a misnomer, because there is simply no ideology or philosophy in atheism to be militant about. If an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, then a ‘militant’ atheist is apparently someone who passionately lacks a belief in gods. All other possible beliefs and ideologies – including any desire to oppress theism – come from outside atheism. This is in contrast to religious belief, which often includes a set of laws and commandments purportedly derived from a supernatural source about which one can be ‘militant’.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I am no question trying to convert people from theists to atheists.  I just can't get it out of my mind how clueless you theists are.  And how you guys don't care how much evidence there is god is all made up, you still believe.  I was thinking about the Boss' of the world who believe in generic god vs. Christian, Jew or Muslim god.  How can they be so naive?  They understand that everything we humans on earth know about god is a lie, yet they still believe in "a god".
> 
> And don't even try to deny all organized religions are made up, unless you really believe god visited Joseph Smith and told him about magic underwear, or god told Mohammad what Mohammad says he told him, or that god fucked Mary.  You may believe one of those story lines but you have to admit the others are all made up.  So why is it you think yours isn't made up?
> 
> Generic god.  Come on guys!  If every religion is made up, perhaps the entire premise is made up.  Sure seems that way to someone like me who has been woken up from the brainwashing our society gave us from early childhood.  Stop being a sheep just like the Muslim women in the middle east.  Suckers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, when someone says there are no Evangelist Atheists, they are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's right.  There is no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, Sealybobo disagrees.  Is he doing Atheism wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll let Sealybobo speak for himself.  There's no such thing as an Evangelist atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you call someone who tries to convert others to their beliefs?
Click to expand...


What do you call someone who tries to wake someone up from a brainwashing?    What do you call someone who realizes the world is round when the rest of society thinks it's flat?  

I would love to be able to convert a bunch of people to my way of thinking.  Actually, I talk to a lot of people who admit they don't believe in god but I bet their numbers don't show up on any survey's or polls.  

Or theists have to resort to pooling their numbers to show how big they are but honestly if one theist believes in jesus god and the other in mohammad god, shouldn't they be put into separate categories?  And people who believe in Generic god.  It's like asking people, "are you at all superstitious?".  Most people will say yes.  

Most Christians I talk to admit they don't believe all the stuff in the bible, but say they believe in generic god.  I know why they do that.  They want there to be a god.  I'm ok with that.  It's the Christianity, Muslim & Jewish religions I don't like.  Mormons, Jehovas and all the rest too.  Cults all of them.  What do you call a person who doesn't like cults and tries to get people out of cults?


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, because all over this thread I've been told that a non belief is really a belief, and therefore a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What you have been told is that this dogma that belief is non-belief is what makes it religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that doesn't make a lick of sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the Atheist version of "God did it" when faced with a conflict in dogma.  Belief is not non-belief, and calling it that is dogma no matter how much you deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no atheist version of "God did it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It can be argued that there is no such thing as a ‘militant’ (evangelical) atheist, that the term is itself a misnomer, because there is simply no ideology or philosophy in atheism to be militant about. If an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, then a ‘militant’ atheist is apparently someone who passionately lacks a belief in gods. All other possible beliefs and ideologies – including any desire to oppress theism – come from outside atheism. This is in contrast to religious belief, which often includes a set of laws and commandments purportedly derived from a supernatural source about which one can be ‘militant’.
Click to expand...

 
You can certainly argue it, but you can argue anything you like.  What you can't do is back it up.  All you can do is repeat the same unsupported and clearly false claim, over and over again.  Repeating it does not make it any less false.

You don't lack beliefs.  So either the definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.  Dawkins gave his descriptions which clearly are based in belief, so either the definition is wrong or Dawkins was wrong.  Refusing to acknowledge and deal with the glaringly obvious conflicts is typical for people locked in dogma.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, when someone says there are no Evangelist Atheists, they are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right.  There is no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, Sealybobo disagrees.  Is he doing Atheism wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll let Sealybobo speak for himself.  There's no such thing as an Evangelist atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you call someone who tries to convert others to their beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you call someone who tries to wake someone up from a brainwashing?    What do you call someone who realizes the world is round when the rest of society thinks it's flat?
> 
> I would love to be able to convert a bunch of people to my way of thinking.  Actually, I talk to a lot of people who admit they don't believe in god but I bet their numbers don't show up on any survey's or polls.
> 
> Or theists have to resort to pooling their numbers to show how big they are but honestly if one theist believes in jesus god and the other in mohammad god, shouldn't they be put into separate categories?  And people who believe in Generic god.  It's like asking people, "are you at all superstitious?".  Most people will say yes.
> 
> Most Christians I talk to admit they don't believe all the stuff in the bible, but say they believe in generic god.  I know why they do that.  They want there to be a god.  I'm ok with that.  It's the Christianity, Muslim & Jewish religions I don't like.  Mormons, Jehovas and all the rest too.  Cults all of them.  What do you call a person who doesn't like cults and tries to get people out of cults?
Click to expand...

 
I see you don't want to actually answer the question.  Understandable.  The only rational answer is the one answer you don't want.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have talked with many members of my church who don't take the bible literally.  Most of them believe in god but know the bible is made up. I'm trying to get them to understand that if the bible is made up, so might be this god character but it is deeply rooted.  I got drunk with my one buddy one night and no matter how much I debunked his arguments, he stayed firm that he just can't not believe there is no god.
> 
> Its not like he's deciding rationally.  He has no evidence there is a god but he can't believe there isn't and that's his justification.  There MUST be a god he says.
> 
> That's about as critical as most theists get when it comes to this subject.  Luckily the next generation isn't buying it and more and more people every year leave the churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If evangelism is attempting to convert others, how is what you just described not evangelism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I am no question trying to convert people from theists to atheists.  I just can't get it out of my mind how clueless you theists are.  And how you guys don't care how much evidence there is god is all made up, you still believe.  I was thinking about the Boss' of the world who believe in generic god vs. Christian, Jew or Muslim god.  How can they be so naive?  They understand that everything we humans on earth know about god is a lie, yet they still believe in "a god".
> 
> And don't even try to deny all organized religions are made up, unless you really believe god visited Joseph Smith and told him about magic underwear, or god told Mohammad what Mohammad says he told him, or that god fucked Mary.  You may believe one of those story lines but you have to admit the others are all made up.  So why is it you think yours isn't made up?
> 
> Generic god.  Come on guys!  If every religion is made up, perhaps the entire premise is made up.  Sure seems that way to someone like me who has been woken up from the brainwashing our society gave us from early childhood.  Stop being a sheep just like the Muslim women in the middle east.  Suckers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when someone says there are no Evangelist Atheists, they are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please don't try to associate words that belong to your religion(s) with us atheists.
> 
> e·van·gel·i·cal
> ˌ_adjective_
> 
> 
> of or according to the teaching of the gospel or the Christian religion.
> 
> synonyms:scriptural, biblical;
> fundamentalist
> "evangelical Christianity"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> of or denoting a tradition within Protestant Christianity emphasizing the authority of the Bible, personal conversion, and the doctrine of salvation by faith in the Atonement.
> 
> synonyms:evangelistic, evangelizing, missionary, crusading, proselytizing;
> _informal_Bible-thumping
> "an evangelical preacher"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> zealous in advocating something.
> 
> _noun_
> noun: *evangelical*; plural noun: *evangelicals*
> 
> *1*.
> a member of the evangelical tradition in the Christian Church.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, let me see if I understand you, when they try to convert others that is evangelism.  When you try to convert other, that isn't.  Is that about it?  What exactly is the difference?
Click to expand...


There is no cult I'm trying to get them to convert to.  I'm not asking for any money EVERY FUCKING WEEK.  I don't ask them to come hang out with me on Sundays and leave their kids so I can molest them.  

I don't approach them on the street.  I don't tell them they are going to hell if they don't believe me.  

I see the similarities though.  Do you see the differences?


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If evangelism is attempting to convert others, how is what you just described not evangelism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I am no question trying to convert people from theists to atheists.  I just can't get it out of my mind how clueless you theists are.  And how you guys don't care how much evidence there is god is all made up, you still believe.  I was thinking about the Boss' of the world who believe in generic god vs. Christian, Jew or Muslim god.  How can they be so naive?  They understand that everything we humans on earth know about god is a lie, yet they still believe in "a god".
> 
> And don't even try to deny all organized religions are made up, unless you really believe god visited Joseph Smith and told him about magic underwear, or god told Mohammad what Mohammad says he told him, or that god fucked Mary.  You may believe one of those story lines but you have to admit the others are all made up.  So why is it you think yours isn't made up?
> 
> Generic god.  Come on guys!  If every religion is made up, perhaps the entire premise is made up.  Sure seems that way to someone like me who has been woken up from the brainwashing our society gave us from early childhood.  Stop being a sheep just like the Muslim women in the middle east.  Suckers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when someone says there are no Evangelist Atheists, they are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please don't try to associate words that belong to your religion(s) with us atheists.
> 
> e·van·gel·i·cal
> ˌ_adjective_
> 
> 
> of or according to the teaching of the gospel or the Christian religion.
> 
> synonyms:scriptural, biblical;
> fundamentalist
> "evangelical Christianity"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> of or denoting a tradition within Protestant Christianity emphasizing the authority of the Bible, personal conversion, and the doctrine of salvation by faith in the Atonement.
> 
> synonyms:evangelistic, evangelizing, missionary, crusading, proselytizing;
> _informal_Bible-thumping
> "an evangelical preacher"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> zealous in advocating something.
> 
> _noun_
> noun: *evangelical*; plural noun: *evangelicals*
> 
> *1*.
> a member of the evangelical tradition in the Christian Church.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, let me see if I understand you, when they try to convert others that is evangelism.  When you try to convert other, that isn't.  Is that about it?  What exactly is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no cult I'm trying to get them to convert to.  I'm not asking for any money EVERY FUCKING WEEK.  I don't ask them to come hang out with me on Sundays and leave their kids so I can molest them.
> 
> I don't approach them on the street.  I don't tell them they are going to hell if they don't believe me.
> 
> I see the similarities though.  Do you see the differences?
Click to expand...

 
Nothing in the definition you provided above mentioned money or streets.  It even doesn't require child molestation.  Basically, what it does define is the attempt to convert others to your beliefs.  So again I ask you, how is what you said you do not evangelizing?


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What you have been told is that this dogma that belief is non-belief is what makes it religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that doesn't make a lick of sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the Atheist version of "God did it" when faced with a conflict in dogma.  Belief is not non-belief, and calling it that is dogma no matter how much you deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no atheist version of "God did it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It can be argued that there is no such thing as a ‘militant’ (evangelical) atheist, that the term is itself a misnomer, because there is simply no ideology or philosophy in atheism to be militant about. If an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, then a ‘militant’ atheist is apparently someone who passionately lacks a belief in gods. All other possible beliefs and ideologies – including any desire to oppress theism – come from outside atheism. This is in contrast to religious belief, which often includes a set of laws and commandments purportedly derived from a supernatural source about which one can be ‘militant’.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can certainly argue it, but you can argue anything you like.  What you can't do is back it up.  All you can do is repeat the same unsupported and clearly false claim, over and over again.  Repeating it does not make it any less false.
> 
> You don't lack beliefs.  So either the definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.  Dawkins gave his descriptions which clearly are based in belief, so either the definition is wrong or Dawkins was wrong.  Refusing to acknowledge and deal with the glaringly obvious conflicts is typical for people locked in dogma.
Click to expand...


Again, which is why most atheists will admit actually the most rational position to have is agnostic atheism.  For one, beyond this message board or at casual dinner conversation with friends, we don't really give a rats ass about gods.  We simply don't believe they exist.  

Let me explain further since you say I can't back it up.  

the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, *atheism* is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, *atheism* is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

So doll, we are all atheists unless you believe in the Greek gods too?  You deny those deities ever existed, right?  Are you evangelical about it?  No you are not.  

And again we have to figure out what god(s) you are talking about first.  Is it Jesus god or Generic god or OTHER?  And you need to realize that many of the theists who "agree" with you that "a god" exists, don't agree with you on the rest of the story.  What's up with that?  

And again, so what?  Unless you believe in the god who made hell for us, what does it matter to you?  See?  If you believe in generic god, you wouldn't be taking it so personally.  So me thinks you believe in jesus god.  I can read any fiction book that tells me about leprechans, ghosts, witches, gods & angels.  My not believing in those things doesn't make me a believer.  Just because you read a fiction book and believe it was real doesn't make us as crazy as you.  

You can tell me any story you want.  If I don't believe it, it's not a belief.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I am no question trying to convert people from theists to atheists.  I just can't get it out of my mind how clueless you theists are.  And how you guys don't care how much evidence there is god is all made up, you still believe.  I was thinking about the Boss' of the world who believe in generic god vs. Christian, Jew or Muslim god.  How can they be so naive?  They understand that everything we humans on earth know about god is a lie, yet they still believe in "a god".
> 
> And don't even try to deny all organized religions are made up, unless you really believe god visited Joseph Smith and told him about magic underwear, or god told Mohammad what Mohammad says he told him, or that god fucked Mary.  You may believe one of those story lines but you have to admit the others are all made up.  So why is it you think yours isn't made up?
> 
> Generic god.  Come on guys!  If every religion is made up, perhaps the entire premise is made up.  Sure seems that way to someone like me who has been woken up from the brainwashing our society gave us from early childhood.  Stop being a sheep just like the Muslim women in the middle east.  Suckers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, when someone says there are no Evangelist Atheists, they are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please don't try to associate words that belong to your religion(s) with us atheists.
> 
> e·van·gel·i·cal
> ˌ_adjective_
> 
> 
> of or according to the teaching of the gospel or the Christian religion.
> 
> synonyms:scriptural, biblical;
> fundamentalist
> "evangelical Christianity"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> of or denoting a tradition within Protestant Christianity emphasizing the authority of the Bible, personal conversion, and the doctrine of salvation by faith in the Atonement.
> 
> synonyms:evangelistic, evangelizing, missionary, crusading, proselytizing;
> _informal_Bible-thumping
> "an evangelical preacher"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> zealous in advocating something.
> 
> _noun_
> noun: *evangelical*; plural noun: *evangelicals*
> 
> *1*.
> a member of the evangelical tradition in the Christian Church.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, let me see if I understand you, when they try to convert others that is evangelism.  When you try to convert other, that isn't.  Is that about it?  What exactly is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no cult I'm trying to get them to convert to.  I'm not asking for any money EVERY FUCKING WEEK.  I don't ask them to come hang out with me on Sundays and leave their kids so I can molest them.
> 
> I don't approach them on the street.  I don't tell them they are going to hell if they don't believe me.
> 
> I see the similarities though.  Do you see the differences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in the definition you provided above mentioned money or streets.  It even doesn't require child molestation.  Basically, what it does define is the attempt to convert others to your beliefs.  So again I ask you, how is what you said you do not evangelizing?
Click to expand...


I come pretty close to it on USMB that's for sure.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> that one....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people are able to develop critical thinking skills, some aren't........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell us how critical thinking skills leads to talking snakes, a 6,000 year old earth, etc.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it obviously wasn't critical thinking skills that leads you to continuously claim I believe in talking snakes and 6000 year old earths......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you don't accept the bibles as true, or you just pick and choose. I can understand your picking and choosing. Otherwise, how do you resolve your belief in talking snakes and a 6,000 year old planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I accept the Bible as true.....I just don't accept your misrepresentations about it as true.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When justifying and/or explaining that bible takes this much effort, I smell bullshit.
Click to expand...

just the opposite....when simply denying takes no effort at all, you should smell something......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Carla_Danger said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> but there is something ignorant and illogical about saying you are opposed to believing in something without proof while believing in something without proof.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a steaming hot pile of crap.  Is it ignorant to not believe in the tooth fairy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I googled it.....I find no where that atheism is defined as 'those who deny the existence of tooth fairies'........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, because all over this thread I've been told that a non belief is really a belief, and therefore a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some people are able to develop critical thinking skills, some aren't........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a parrot?  You stole my line.
Click to expand...

nope....just using it in a context that made sense for a change.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> I googled it.....I find no where that atheism is defined as 'those who deny the existence of tooth fairies'........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, because all over this thread I've been told that a non belief is really a belief, and therefore a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What you have been told is that this dogma that belief is non-belief is what makes it religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that doesn't make a lick of sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the Atheist version of "God did it" when faced with a conflict in dogma.  Belief is not non-belief, and calling it that is dogma no matter how much you deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no atheist version of "God did it."
Click to expand...

sure there is....."shit just happens".......


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that doesn't make a lick of sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the Atheist version of "God did it" when faced with a conflict in dogma.  Belief is not non-belief, and calling it that is dogma no matter how much you deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no atheist version of "God did it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It can be argued that there is no such thing as a ‘militant’ (evangelical) atheist, that the term is itself a misnomer, because there is simply no ideology or philosophy in atheism to be militant about. If an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, then a ‘militant’ atheist is apparently someone who passionately lacks a belief in gods. All other possible beliefs and ideologies – including any desire to oppress theism – come from outside atheism. This is in contrast to religious belief, which often includes a set of laws and commandments purportedly derived from a supernatural source about which one can be ‘militant’.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can certainly argue it, but you can argue anything you like.  What you can't do is back it up.  All you can do is repeat the same unsupported and clearly false claim, over and over again.  Repeating it does not make it any less false.
> 
> You don't lack beliefs.  So either the definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.  Dawkins gave his descriptions which clearly are based in belief, so either the definition is wrong or Dawkins was wrong.  Refusing to acknowledge and deal with the glaringly obvious conflicts is typical for people locked in dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, which is why most atheists will admit actually the most rational position to have is agnostic atheism.
Click to expand...

I think we can all agree that you look more rational if you say you aren't REALLY an atheist.......


----------



## Steven_R

sealybobo said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, because all over this thread I've been told that a non belief is really a belief, and therefore a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What you have been told is that this dogma that belief is non-belief is what makes it religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that doesn't make a lick of sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the Atheist version of "God did it" when faced with a conflict in dogma.  Belief is not non-belief, and calling it that is dogma no matter how much you deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no atheist version of "God did it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It can be argued that there is no such thing as a ‘militant’ (evangelical) atheist, that the term is itself a misnomer, because there is simply no ideology or philosophy in atheism to be militant about. If an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, then a ‘militant’ atheist is apparently someone who passionately lacks a belief in gods. All other possible beliefs and ideologies – including any desire to oppress theism – come from outside atheism. This is in contrast to religious belief, which often includes a set of laws and commandments purportedly derived from a supernatural source about which one can be ‘militant’.
Click to expand...


I would argue that there are some atheists that are ultra-vocal about their beliefs (or lack thereof) and will never hesitate to proselytize, and just to bring the message home they'll insult when someone doesn't agree with them. In that regard, they are no different than the newly born-again who do the same thing. Most atheists and agnostics  just keep their beliefs to themselves, but are lumped in with the "in your face" types. The arrogance and asshole types aren't a feature or failing of either end of the religious spectrum, but are just a normal personality flaw that some people have. You can see it in pretty much every thing people get interested in, from gods, to books, to game systems, to Coke vs Pepsi, to cars, to whatever.

Some people are just assholes.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> We all assume we know more than you.



Do you base that assumption on the basis of me actually proving you were wrong about a few things in this thread alone?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Carla_Danger said:


> There's no such thing.



Here we go again.

Evangelical Atheism


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> From what I've read, real Christians can't believe that the Jonah living in the belly of a whale story is an allegory because JESUS himself said it happened.  LITERALLY!  He said he would rise after being dead 3 days just like Jonah lived after being in the belly of a whale for 3 days.
> 
> Anyone who says that's an allegory, and Adam & Eve & Noah are all allegories needs to realize so was Mary and Jesus, unless you believe a virgin can get prego.



Funny thing.

There is a brand new TV show about a woman, who has never had sex, or even been in the same room as a naked man, who still manages to get pregnant. Maybe you should watch a couple of episodes so you will stop saying stupid things.

By the way, did you know there are actual cases of animals getting pregnant even though there are no males of their species around.

 Virgin Birth By Shark Confirmed Second Case Ever -- ScienceDaily


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I have talked with many members of my church who don't take the bible literally.  Most of them believe in god but know the bible is made up. I'm trying to get them to understand that if the bible is made up, so might be this god character but it is deeply rooted.  I got drunk with my one buddy one night and no matter how much I debunked his arguments, he stayed firm that he just can't not believe there is no god.
> 
> Its not like he's deciding rationally.  He has no evidence there is a god but he can't believe there isn't and that's his justification.  There MUST be a god he says.
> 
> That's about as critical as most theists get when it comes to this subject.  Luckily the next generation isn't buying it and more and more people every year leave the churches.



You go to church?!?

What the fuck for? Is it the only opportunity you get to say stupid things without people laughing at you? Or do you do it to evangelize?


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us how critical thinking skills leads to talking snakes, a 6,000 year old earth, etc.,
> 
> 
> 
> it obviously wasn't critical thinking skills that leads you to continuously claim I believe in talking snakes and 6000 year old earths......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you don't accept the bibles as true, or you just pick and choose. I can understand your picking and choosing. Otherwise, how do you resolve your belief in talking snakes and a 6,000 year old planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I accept the Bible as true.....I just don't accept your misrepresentations about it as true.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When justifying and/or explaining that bible takes this much effort, I smell bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just the opposite....when simply denying takes no effort at all, you should smell something......
Click to expand...


Well think about what you are telling the person.  A god created the earth in 7 days, adam and eve, talking snakes, burning bushes, miracles, virgin births, living in a whales belly for 3 days.  How much effort should it take?

Now if you hand me all 1000 versions of your bible and insist I read it all first, maybe the brainwashing I would have a lot more to ponder.  But I did read it and the brianwashing still didn't work on me.  I read them and still didn't believe.  No offense.  Same is if you read the Mormon book or Koran story and you don't believe them.  

The other thing you rely on is telling us we'll go to hell if we don't believe.  That makes us think a little harder because we don't want to burn for all eternity.  But if we are able to rationalize that's a lie too, then it shouldn't take that much effort.

Now it is a little bit harder to say there is no generic god because who knows?  But what evidence do you have of this generic god?  If you aren't swallowing the stories of the bible, what evidence do you really have?  Sure "something" could have created us.  We see no evidence other than the same bad evidence/reasoning/rational our primitive ancestors used to invent the character in the first place but hey, may.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I've read, real Christians can't believe that the Jonah living in the belly of a whale story is an allegory because JESUS himself said it happened.  LITERALLY!  He said he would rise after being dead 3 days just like Jonah lived after being in the belly of a whale for 3 days.
> 
> Anyone who says that's an allegory, and Adam & Eve & Noah are all allegories needs to realize so was Mary and Jesus, unless you believe a virgin can get prego.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing.
> 
> There is a brand new TV show about a woman, who has never had sex, or even been in the same room as a naked man, who still manages to get pregnant. Maybe you should watch a couple of episodes so you will stop saying stupid things.
> 
> By the way, did you know there are actual cases of animals getting pregnant even though there are no males of their species around.
> 
> Virgin Birth By Shark Confirmed Second Case Ever -- ScienceDaily
Click to expand...


How did the girl on the tv show get pregnant?

Question number two.  Do you believe everything  you see on tv stupid?

LOL.


----------



## sealybobo

Did god fuck her?


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have talked with many members of my church who don't take the bible literally.  Most of them believe in god but know the bible is made up. I'm trying to get them to understand that if the bible is made up, so might be this god character but it is deeply rooted.  I got drunk with my one buddy one night and no matter how much I debunked his arguments, he stayed firm that he just can't not believe there is no god.
> 
> Its not like he's deciding rationally.  He has no evidence there is a god but he can't believe there isn't and that's his justification.  There MUST be a god he says.
> 
> That's about as critical as most theists get when it comes to this subject.  Luckily the next generation isn't buying it and more and more people every year leave the churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go to church?!?
> 
> What the fuck for? Is it the only opportunity you get to say stupid things without people laughing at you? Or do you do it to evangelize?
Click to expand...


I go to church to meet women and to socialize.  To be honest, I have only been to church once since I became a full blown atheist.

And you don't have to go to church to talk to members of your church.  

And I guess I shouldn't call it "my church" since I don't believe anymore.  But that's the problem.  A lot of so called members don't believe.  They were born into it.  I remember years ago I didn't believe in Christianity anymore and I just had a personal relationship with god.  That is until I realized he was all in my head.  But I still went to church on Easter and Xmas.  Many theists like a lot of the traditions that come with religion.  If I married a christian I'd probably get married in her church.  I would just not tell anyone I didn't believe in their god(s).  I'd also get married in a Muslim church if they'd let me.  Hell if the pussy was good enough I'd even convert to Catholicism to get it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tuatara said:


> I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179



That wasn't a joke?



Tuatara said:


> You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
> Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.



RFOLMAO.

OK, that is out of my system, for now.

This is the definition you insist is wrong.

A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.​
Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?

In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.

So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?



Tuatara said:


> As for writing a letter to Webster, they only accept business or advertising letters or someone wishing to add a new word.



And you know this because...


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't a joke?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
> Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RFOLMAO.
> 
> OK, that is out of my system, for now.
> 
> This is the definition you insist is wrong.
> 
> A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.​
> Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?
> 
> In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.
> 
> So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for writing a letter to Webster, they only accept business or advertising letters or someone wishing to add a new word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you know this because...
Click to expand...


Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills _none_ of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

See also: A Lack of Belief in Gods for a short introduction to atheism (a must watch), Sam Harris – Misconceptions about Atheism (a must watch), Putting faith in it’s place (a must watch).

_“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.”_ – Geoff Mather


----------



## sealybobo

Why there is no god



Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't a joke?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
> Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RFOLMAO.
> 
> OK, that is out of my system, for now.
> 
> This is the definition you insist is wrong.
> 
> A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.​
> Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?
> 
> In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.
> 
> So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for writing a letter to Webster, they only accept business or advertising letters or someone wishing to add a new word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you know this because...
Click to expand...


Number 24 addresses all your questions

Why there is no god

Atheism is based on faith - Iron Chariots Wiki

*Russell's teapot*, sometimes called the *celestial teapot* or *cosmic teapot*, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> How did the girl on the tv show get pregnant?
> 
> Question number two.  Do you believe everything  you see on tv stupid?
> 
> LOL.



If you really want to know, watch the show. I can assure you that, although she the reason she got pregnant is stupid, it is entirely plausible, and scientifically accurate.

As for stupid stuff, all of the ghost shows that get onto History channel are stupid.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.



Tell you what, take your arguments up with the atheists who call it a religion, not me. My only point throughout this thread has been that, despite the claims of people like you, some atheists actually view their beliefs as a religion. Since I am not a zealot, I have no problem with them doing so.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell you what, take your arguments up with the atheists who call it a religion, not me. My only point throughout this thread has been that, despite the claims of people like you, some atheists actually view their beliefs as a religion. Since I am not a zealot, I have no problem with them doing so.
Click to expand...


Some atheists are crazy.  Some theists believe all the bible stories are literal stories.  Some atheists are conservative and some are liberal like me.  

Some atheists are more vocal than other atheists.

And maybe we are organizing so we can get all the same benefits as you guys.  It's like before gays could marry.  Now they can.  In the past, Atheism was not considered a religion but soon maybe we will have a place to meet every week.  Until then we aren't a religion no matter what one atheist told you.

Atheist Church


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell you what, take your arguments up with the atheists who call it a religion, not me. My only point throughout this thread has been that, despite the claims of people like you, some atheists actually view their beliefs as a religion. Since I am not a zealot, I have no problem with them doing so.
Click to expand...


Sunday Assembly Atheist Church Provokes Criticism

Jones and his fellow British comedian Pippa Evans founded Sunday Assembly in London in January. Initial gatherings were standing room only, and branches were soon established in other British cities. Its use of group singing, lectures, and a goal to establish a sense of community have drawn many comparisons to traditional church.

But in San Francisco, a city long known for embracing nontraditional beliefs and lifestyles, Jones told the crowd the comparisons stop there.

“We get called the ‘atheist church,’ but we are really all the best bits of church but with no religion,” 

And, like the many churches that detractors say Sunday Assembly tries to mimic, there’s already been a schism of sorts. New York’s Sunday Assembly split off on its own after becoming frustrated with Jones’ and Evans’ insistence that they not use the word “atheist” to describe themselves, an organizer there said.

Still, there is a strong strain of dislike in the atheist community for anything that smacks of religion or its trappings. Daniel McCoy, a local nonbeliever who spoke here and at a San Jose gathering about the power of story, said many nonbelievers are hostile to religion because of rejection by religious family and friends or abuse by a person with religious authority.

But nonbelievers who have no beef with church — and maybe even fond memories of it — can still do something churchy without betraying their nonbelief, he said.

Those values are in the group’s motto, he said: “Live better. Help often. Wonder more.”


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have talked with many members of my church who don't take the bible literally.  Most of them believe in god but know the bible is made up. I'm trying to get them to understand that if the bible is made up, so might be this god character but it is deeply rooted.  I got drunk with my one buddy one night and no matter how much I debunked his arguments, he stayed firm that he just can't not believe there is no god.
> 
> Its not like he's deciding rationally.  He has no evidence there is a god but he can't believe there isn't and that's his justification.  There MUST be a god he says.
> 
> That's about as critical as most theists get when it comes to this subject.  Luckily the next generation isn't buying it and more and more people every year leave the churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go to church?!?
> 
> What the fuck for? Is it the only opportunity you get to say stupid things without people laughing at you? Or do you do it to evangelize?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I go to church to meet women and to socialize.
Click to expand...

????....why do you want a woman who goes to church.....you think people that believe in God are idiots.......is that the sort of woman you're attracted to?.......


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Hell if the pussy was good enough I'd even convert to Catholicism to get it.


apparently your atheism is as shallow as your Christianity was.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't a joke?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
> Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RFOLMAO.
> 
> OK, that is out of my system, for now.
> 
> This is the definition you insist is wrong.
> 
> A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.​
> Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?
> 
> In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.
> 
> So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for writing a letter to Webster, they only accept business or advertising letters or someone wishing to add a new word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you know this because...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color
Click to expand...

do most bald people deny the existence of hair?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Why there is no god
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't a joke?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
> Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RFOLMAO.
> 
> OK, that is out of my system, for now.
> 
> This is the definition you insist is wrong.
> 
> A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.​
> Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?
> 
> In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.
> 
> So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for writing a letter to Webster, they only accept business or advertising letters or someone wishing to add a new word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you know this because...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Number 24 addresses all your questions
Click to expand...

#24 is wrong, because its built upon the premise that "Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more."........that simply isn't true.......


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't a joke?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
> Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RFOLMAO.
> 
> OK, that is out of my system, for now.
> 
> This is the definition you insist is wrong.
> 
> A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.​
> Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?
> 
> In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.
> 
> So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for writing a letter to Webster, they only accept business or advertising letters or someone wishing to add a new word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you know this because...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Number 24 addresses all your questions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> #24 is wrong, because its built upon the premise that "Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more."........that simply isn't true.......
Click to expand...

That simply is true. Your inability to understand some very simple concepts is concerning.


----------



## dblack

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't a joke?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
> Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RFOLMAO.
> 
> OK, that is out of my system, for now.
> 
> This is the definition you insist is wrong.
> 
> A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.​
> Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?
> 
> In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.
> 
> So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for writing a letter to Webster, they only accept business or advertising letters or someone wishing to add a new word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you know this because...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Number 24 addresses all your questions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> #24 is wrong, because its built upon the premise that "Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more."........that simply isn't true.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That simply is true. Your inability to understand some very simple concepts is concerning.
Click to expand...


oh joy! let's debate what the meaning of 'is' is.


----------



## Tuatara

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't a joke?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
> Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RFOLMAO.
> 
> OK, that is out of my system, for now.
> 
> This is the definition you insist is wrong.
> 
> A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.​
> Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?
> 
> In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.
> 
> So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?
Click to expand...


Sorry but the definition was as follows :  an *interest*, a belief, or an *activity* that is very important to a person or group
the word supreme isn't there.  People's interest and activities can be very important to them. To say they are religions is assinine.  Time for you to wave the white flag. You have been defeated.


> And you know this because...


Because I tried to contact them.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that doesn't make a lick of sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the Atheist version of "God did it" when faced with a conflict in dogma.  Belief is not non-belief, and calling it that is dogma no matter how much you deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no atheist version of "God did it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It can be argued that there is no such thing as a ‘militant’ (evangelical) atheist, that the term is itself a misnomer, because there is simply no ideology or philosophy in atheism to be militant about. If an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, then a ‘militant’ atheist is apparently someone who passionately lacks a belief in gods. All other possible beliefs and ideologies – including any desire to oppress theism – come from outside atheism. This is in contrast to religious belief, which often includes a set of laws and commandments purportedly derived from a supernatural source about which one can be ‘militant’.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can certainly argue it, but you can argue anything you like.  What you can't do is back it up.  All you can do is repeat the same unsupported and clearly false claim, over and over again.  Repeating it does not make it any less false.
> 
> You don't lack beliefs.  So either the definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.  Dawkins gave his descriptions which clearly are based in belief, so either the definition is wrong or Dawkins was wrong.  Refusing to acknowledge and deal with the glaringly obvious conflicts is typical for people locked in dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, which is why most atheists will admit actually the most rational position to have is agnostic atheism.  For one, beyond this message board or at casual dinner conversation with friends, we don't really give a rats ass about gods.  We simply don't believe they exist.
> 
> Let me explain further since you say I can't back it up.
> 
> the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, *atheism* is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, *atheism* is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
> 
> So doll, we are all atheists unless you believe in the Greek gods too?  You deny those deities ever existed, right?  Are you evangelical about it?  No you are not.
> 
> And again we have to figure out what god(s) you are talking about first.  Is it Jesus god or Generic god or OTHER?  And you need to realize that many of the theists who "agree" with you that "a god" exists, don't agree with you on the rest of the story.  What's up with that?
> 
> And again, so what?  Unless you believe in the god who made hell for us, what does it matter to you?  See?  If you believe in generic god, you wouldn't be taking it so personally.  So me thinks you believe in jesus god.  I can read any fiction book that tells me about leprechans, ghosts, witches, gods & angels.  My not believing in those things doesn't make me a believer.  Just because you read a fiction book and believe it was real doesn't make us as crazy as you.
> 
> You can tell me any story you want.  If I don't believe it, it's not a belief.
Click to expand...

 
Do I attempt to convert you to another belief system?  No.  That is why I am not evangelical.  Do you attempt to convert others?  Yes.  You said you did.  So that is why you are evangelical. 

As to the rest, you clearly do have beliefs.  You have made that abundantly clear.  If an Atheist has no beliefs, then you are not an Atheist.  If an Atheist can't be an evangelist, then you are not an Atheist.  You can try to "explain" why your beliefs are not beliefs and why your evangelism is not evangelism, but it really comes down to my having to accept your doctrine without any regards to the facts.  I don't buy into your particular dogma.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't a joke?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
> Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RFOLMAO.
> 
> OK, that is out of my system, for now.
> 
> This is the definition you insist is wrong.
> 
> A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.​
> Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?
> 
> In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.
> 
> So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for writing a letter to Webster, they only accept business or advertising letters or someone wishing to add a new word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you know this because...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Number 24 addresses all your questions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> #24 is wrong, because its built upon the premise that "Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more."........that simply isn't true.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That simply is true. Your inability to understand some very simple concepts is concerning.
Click to expand...

it may be that atheists simply lack intelligence, but the definition isn't that they simply lack belief......if that were so, everyone apathetic would be an atheist......


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, when someone says there are no Evangelist Atheists, they are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't try to associate words that belong to your religion(s) with us atheists.
> 
> e·van·gel·i·cal
> ˌ_adjective_
> 
> 
> of or according to the teaching of the gospel or the Christian religion.
> 
> synonyms:scriptural, biblical;
> fundamentalist
> "evangelical Christianity"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> of or denoting a tradition within Protestant Christianity emphasizing the authority of the Bible, personal conversion, and the doctrine of salvation by faith in the Atonement.
> 
> synonyms:evangelistic, evangelizing, missionary, crusading, proselytizing;
> _informal_Bible-thumping
> "an evangelical preacher"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> zealous in advocating something.
> 
> _noun_
> noun: *evangelical*; plural noun: *evangelicals*
> 
> *1*.
> a member of the evangelical tradition in the Christian Church.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, let me see if I understand you, when they try to convert others that is evangelism.  When you try to convert other, that isn't.  Is that about it?  What exactly is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no cult I'm trying to get them to convert to.  I'm not asking for any money EVERY FUCKING WEEK.  I don't ask them to come hang out with me on Sundays and leave their kids so I can molest them.
> 
> I don't approach them on the street.  I don't tell them they are going to hell if they don't believe me.
> 
> I see the similarities though.  Do you see the differences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in the definition you provided above mentioned money or streets.  It even doesn't require child molestation.  Basically, what it does define is the attempt to convert others to your beliefs.  So again I ask you, how is what you said you do not evangelizing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I come pretty close to it on USMB that's for sure.
Click to expand...

 
I'm not talking about here.  You said you try to convert others.  I am taking what you say as true.  You certainly know what you do and the motives behind it far better than I possibly can.  If a Christian attempts to convert others, he's an evangelist.  If an Atheist does exactly the same thing, then how is he not an evangelist?  If I attempted to convert you to Buddhism, how would I not be an evangelist?


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't a joke?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
> Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RFOLMAO.
> 
> OK, that is out of my system, for now.
> 
> This is the definition you insist is wrong.
> 
> A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.​
> Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?
> 
> In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.
> 
> So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for writing a letter to Webster, they only accept business or advertising letters or someone wishing to add a new word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you know this because...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Number 24 addresses all your questions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> #24 is wrong, because its built upon the premise that "Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more."........that simply isn't true.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That simply is true. Your inability to understand some very simple concepts is concerning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it may be that atheists simply lack intelligence, but the definition isn't that they simply lack belief......if that were so, everyone apathetic would be an atheist......
Click to expand...

I understand you're angry and frustrated at your inability to offer a coherent argument.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't try to associate words that belong to your religion(s) with us atheists.
> 
> e·van·gel·i·cal
> ˌ_adjective_
> 
> 
> of or according to the teaching of the gospel or the Christian religion.
> 
> synonyms:scriptural, biblical;
> fundamentalist
> "evangelical Christianity"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> of or denoting a tradition within Protestant Christianity emphasizing the authority of the Bible, personal conversion, and the doctrine of salvation by faith in the Atonement.
> 
> synonyms:evangelistic, evangelizing, missionary, crusading, proselytizing;
> _informal_Bible-thumping
> "an evangelical preacher"
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> zealous in advocating something.
> 
> _noun_
> noun: *evangelical*; plural noun: *evangelicals*
> 
> *1*.
> a member of the evangelical tradition in the Christian Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, let me see if I understand you, when they try to convert others that is evangelism.  When you try to convert other, that isn't.  Is that about it?  What exactly is the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no cult I'm trying to get them to convert to.  I'm not asking for any money EVERY FUCKING WEEK.  I don't ask them to come hang out with me on Sundays and leave their kids so I can molest them.
> 
> I don't approach them on the street.  I don't tell them they are going to hell if they don't believe me.
> 
> I see the similarities though.  Do you see the differences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in the definition you provided above mentioned money or streets.  It even doesn't require child molestation.  Basically, what it does define is the attempt to convert others to your beliefs.  So again I ask you, how is what you said you do not evangelizing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I come pretty close to it on USMB that's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about here.  You said you try to convert others.  I am taking what you say as true.  You certainly know what you do and the motives behind it far better than I possibly can.  If a Christian attempts to convert others, he's an evangelist.  If an Atheist does exactly the same thing, then how is he not an evangelist?  If I attempted to convert you to Buddhism, how would I not be an evangelist?
Click to expand...


How is it different?  As different as straight and gay marriage.  

Actually more different.  Polar opposites.  If anything it is anti evalelizing.  Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.  

And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up.  For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time.  First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country.  The last will be the bible belt hold outs.  But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume.  But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000.  We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't a joke?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
> Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RFOLMAO.
> 
> OK, that is out of my system, for now.
> 
> This is the definition you insist is wrong.
> 
> A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.​
> Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?
> 
> In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.
> 
> So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for writing a letter to Webster, they only accept business or advertising letters or someone wishing to add a new word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you know this because...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Number 24 addresses all your questions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> #24 is wrong, because its built upon the premise that "Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more."........that simply isn't true.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That simply is true. Your inability to understand some very simple concepts is concerning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it may be that atheists simply lack intelligence, but the definition isn't that they simply lack belief......if that were so, everyone apathetic would be an atheist......
Click to expand...


Its because many people believe that even though they don't believe, people who believe in god are better than a society that doesn't believe.  I've seen all the arguments don't bother.  Stalin may have been an atheist but he didn't start any wars over it.  Sure some atheist rulers killed theists in the past but that was only returning the favor.  You guys gave three choices.  Leave, Convert or Die.  Pick one!  Anyways, I can give you a lot of reasons why people who are apathetic are the way they are.

1.  They're too busy with other shit to be worrying about this.
2.  They've been brainwashed since they were kids.
3.  Don't want to be shunned by your community or the majority of your neighbors who are "Chrisians" and "Jews" who like to keep to themselves mostly.  
4.  A lot of people lie and say they believe.
5.  I think religion is bad for people.  A lie is a lie no matter how good it makes you feel.  Ignorant bliss.  
6.  Politics uses religion as a wedge issue.  Makes people dumb.  They use it to manipulate the masses and divide us.  
7. 

And honestly, if there were a god, he would reward our intelligence for not believing primitive man's lies of burning bushes and angels and ghosts and devils and gods oh my.  

Apathetic?  So you basically want us to shut up as you spread your lies and not say anything?  When we believe you are trying to push that shit on the rest of society?  You cry if you can't have it engrained on our public buildings.  Sorry, not every American believes in god(s).


----------



## sealybobo

For those of you who think God is the source of morality: Why there is no god

Morality is a cultural concept with a basis in evolutionary psychology and game theory. Species whose members were predisposed to cooperate were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Reciprocacy, altruism and other so-called ‘moral’ characteristics are evident in many species. The neurochemical thought to regulate morality and empathy is oxytocin.

Religious texts are simply part of many early attempts to codify moral precepts. Secular law, flexible with the shifting moral zeitgeist, has long since superseded religion as a source of moral directives for the majority of developed societies. Secular ethics offers a number of competing moral frameworks which do not derive from a purported supernatural source.

See also: Dawkins – Source of Morality, Babies can tell right from wrong, Moral behaviour in animals, Altruism in Chimps and Toddlers, Trust, Morality and Oxytocin (a must watch), Evolution of Cooperation, Science of Morality. Animals Cooperating: Monkeys, Birds, Chimps.

The god character of the Bible is a misogynistic tyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.


----------



## sealybobo

And for those who think:

*People need to believe in god / Without god people will do bad things. *
Argument from adverse consequences.

Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true.

The fact that religiously free societies with a proportionally large number of atheists are generally more peaceful than otherwise is evidence this perception is incorrect.  

(They don't get suckered into wars with Muslims from a country that didn't even hit us on 9-11 so Bush & Chaney could bankrupt this country in order to pass their radical policies that would never get passed otherwise for example spying and tax breaks.  I added this part)

_“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”_ – Steven Weinberg


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, let me see if I understand you, when they try to convert others that is evangelism.  When you try to convert other, that isn't.  Is that about it?  What exactly is the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no cult I'm trying to get them to convert to.  I'm not asking for any money EVERY FUCKING WEEK.  I don't ask them to come hang out with me on Sundays and leave their kids so I can molest them.
> 
> I don't approach them on the street.  I don't tell them they are going to hell if they don't believe me.
> 
> I see the similarities though.  Do you see the differences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in the definition you provided above mentioned money or streets.  It even doesn't require child molestation.  Basically, what it does define is the attempt to convert others to your beliefs.  So again I ask you, how is what you said you do not evangelizing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I come pretty close to it on USMB that's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about here.  You said you try to convert others.  I am taking what you say as true.  You certainly know what you do and the motives behind it far better than I possibly can.  If a Christian attempts to convert others, he's an evangelist.  If an Atheist does exactly the same thing, then how is he not an evangelist?  If I attempted to convert you to Buddhism, how would I not be an evangelist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it different?  As different as straight and gay marriage.
> 
> Actually more different.  Polar opposites.  If anything it is anti evalelizing.  Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.
> 
> And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up.  For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time.  First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country.  The last will be the bible belt hold outs.  But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume.  But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000.  We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!
Click to expand...

 
I see.  You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't a joke?
> 
> RFOLMAO.
> 
> OK, that is out of my system, for now.
> 
> This is the definition you insist is wrong.
> 
> A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.​
> Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?
> 
> In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.
> 
> So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?
> 
> And you know this because...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Number 24 addresses all your questions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> #24 is wrong, because its built upon the premise that "Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more."........that simply isn't true.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That simply is true. Your inability to understand some very simple concepts is concerning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it may be that atheists simply lack intelligence, but the definition isn't that they simply lack belief......if that were so, everyone apathetic would be an atheist......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its because many people believe that even though they don't believe, people who believe in god are better than a society that doesn't believe.  I've seen all the arguments don't bother.  Stalin may have been an atheist but he didn't start any wars over it.  Sure some atheist rulers killed theists in the past but that was only returning the favor.  You guys gave three choices.  Leave, Convert or Die.  Pick one!  Anyways, I can give you a lot of reasons why people who are apathetic are the way they are.
> 
> 1.  They're too busy with other shit to be worrying about this.
> 2.  They've been brainwashed since they were kids.
> 3.  Don't want to be shunned by your community or the majority of your neighbors who are "Chrisians" and "Jews" who like to keep to themselves mostly.
> 4.  A lot of people lie and say they believe.
> 5.  I think religion is bad for people.  A lie is a lie no matter how good it makes you feel.  Ignorant bliss.
> 6.  Politics uses religion as a wedge issue.  Makes people dumb.  They use it to manipulate the masses and divide us.
> 7.
> 
> And honestly, if there were a god, he would reward our intelligence for not believing primitive man's lies of burning bushes and angels and ghosts and devils and gods oh my.
> 
> Apathetic?  So you basically want us to shut up as you spread your lies and not say anything?  When we believe you are trying to push that shit on the rest of society?  You cry if you can't have it engrained on our public buildings.  Sorry, not every American believes in god(s).
Click to expand...

apparently you've confused apathetic with pathetic.....


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> Number 24 addresses all your questions
> 
> 
> 
> #24 is wrong, because its built upon the premise that "Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more."........that simply isn't true.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That simply is true. Your inability to understand some very simple concepts is concerning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it may be that atheists simply lack intelligence, but the definition isn't that they simply lack belief......if that were so, everyone apathetic would be an atheist......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its because many people believe that even though they don't believe, people who believe in god are better than a society that doesn't believe.  I've seen all the arguments don't bother.  Stalin may have been an atheist but he didn't start any wars over it.  Sure some atheist rulers killed theists in the past but that was only returning the favor.  You guys gave three choices.  Leave, Convert or Die.  Pick one!  Anyways, I can give you a lot of reasons why people who are apathetic are the way they are.
> 
> 1.  They're too busy with other shit to be worrying about this.
> 2.  They've been brainwashed since they were kids.
> 3.  Don't want to be shunned by your community or the majority of your neighbors who are "Chrisians" and "Jews" who like to keep to themselves mostly.
> 4.  A lot of people lie and say they believe.
> 5.  I think religion is bad for people.  A lie is a lie no matter how good it makes you feel.  Ignorant bliss.
> 6.  Politics uses religion as a wedge issue.  Makes people dumb.  They use it to manipulate the masses and divide us.
> 7.
> 
> And honestly, if there were a god, he would reward our intelligence for not believing primitive man's lies of burning bushes and angels and ghosts and devils and gods oh my.
> 
> Apathetic?  So you basically want us to shut up as you spread your lies and not say anything?  When we believe you are trying to push that shit on the rest of society?  You cry if you can't have it engrained on our public buildings.  Sorry, not every American believes in god(s).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> apparently you've confused apathetic with pathetic.....
Click to expand...

Not at all. Apathy is not what has prevented you religious extremists from pressing your fundamentalist views into the public school system. The humiliating defeats suffered by you extremists in the courts has served only to detail the pathetic failure of the extremist Christian Right.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no cult I'm trying to get them to convert to.  I'm not asking for any money EVERY FUCKING WEEK.  I don't ask them to come hang out with me on Sundays and leave their kids so I can molest them.
> 
> I don't approach them on the street.  I don't tell them they are going to hell if they don't believe me.
> 
> I see the similarities though.  Do you see the differences?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in the definition you provided above mentioned money or streets.  It even doesn't require child molestation.  Basically, what it does define is the attempt to convert others to your beliefs.  So again I ask you, how is what you said you do not evangelizing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I come pretty close to it on USMB that's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about here.  You said you try to convert others.  I am taking what you say as true.  You certainly know what you do and the motives behind it far better than I possibly can.  If a Christian attempts to convert others, he's an evangelist.  If an Atheist does exactly the same thing, then how is he not an evangelist?  If I attempted to convert you to Buddhism, how would I not be an evangelist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it different?  As different as straight and gay marriage.
> 
> Actually more different.  Polar opposites.  If anything it is anti evalelizing.  Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.
> 
> And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up.  For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time.  First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country.  The last will be the bible belt hold outs.  But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume.  But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000.  We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see.  You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.
Click to expand...


Now you are getting it.  COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in the definition you provided above mentioned money or streets.  It even doesn't require child molestation.  Basically, what it does define is the attempt to convert others to your beliefs.  So again I ask you, how is what you said you do not evangelizing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I come pretty close to it on USMB that's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about here.  You said you try to convert others.  I am taking what you say as true.  You certainly know what you do and the motives behind it far better than I possibly can.  If a Christian attempts to convert others, he's an evangelist.  If an Atheist does exactly the same thing, then how is he not an evangelist?  If I attempted to convert you to Buddhism, how would I not be an evangelist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it different?  As different as straight and gay marriage.
> 
> Actually more different.  Polar opposites.  If anything it is anti evalelizing.  Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.
> 
> And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up.  For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time.  First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country.  The last will be the bible belt hold outs.  But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume.  But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000.  We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see.  You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are getting it.  COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.
Click to expand...

 
Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.

If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I come pretty close to it on USMB that's for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about here.  You said you try to convert others.  I am taking what you say as true.  You certainly know what you do and the motives behind it far better than I possibly can.  If a Christian attempts to convert others, he's an evangelist.  If an Atheist does exactly the same thing, then how is he not an evangelist?  If I attempted to convert you to Buddhism, how would I not be an evangelist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it different?  As different as straight and gay marriage.
> 
> Actually more different.  Polar opposites.  If anything it is anti evalelizing.  Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.
> 
> And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up.  For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time.  First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country.  The last will be the bible belt hold outs.  But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume.  But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000.  We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see.  You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are getting it.  COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
Click to expand...

You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about here.  You said you try to convert others.  I am taking what you say as true.  You certainly know what you do and the motives behind it far better than I possibly can.  If a Christian attempts to convert others, he's an evangelist.  If an Atheist does exactly the same thing, then how is he not an evangelist?  If I attempted to convert you to Buddhism, how would I not be an evangelist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it different?  As different as straight and gay marriage.
> 
> Actually more different.  Polar opposites.  If anything it is anti evalelizing.  Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.
> 
> And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up.  For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time.  First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country.  The last will be the bible belt hold outs.  But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume.  But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000.  We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see.  You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are getting it.  COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
Click to expand...

 
You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it different?  As different as straight and gay marriage.
> 
> Actually more different.  Polar opposites.  If anything it is anti evalelizing.  Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.
> 
> And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up.  For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time.  First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country.  The last will be the bible belt hold outs.  But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume.  But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000.  We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see.  You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are getting it.  COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
Click to expand...




PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it different?  As different as straight and gay marriage.
> 
> Actually more different.  Polar opposites.  If anything it is anti evalelizing.  Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.
> 
> And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up.  For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time.  First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country.  The last will be the bible belt hold outs.  But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume.  But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000.  We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see.  You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are getting it.  COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
Click to expand...

You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish. 

Make up one that suits you.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see.  You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are getting it.  COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see.  You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are getting it.  COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
Click to expand...


I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla. 

But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are getting it.  COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are getting it.  COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
Click to expand...




PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are getting it.  COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are getting it.  COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
Click to expand...

You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> 
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.
Click to expand...


Changes nothing.  You do not lack beliefs in god.  Repeating the same mantra over and over again does not change that.  So long as you insist that defining yourself as something makes you that something, you will continue to treat Atheism as a religion.  I am not equating it, you are making it so.  So long as you continue to insist your definition creates reality, I will continue to tell you that you are mistaken.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Changes nothing.  You do not lack beliefs in god.  Repeating the same mantra over and over again does not change that.  So long as you insist that defining yourself as something makes you that something, you will continue to treat Atheism as a religion.  I am not equating it, you are making it so.  So long as you continue to insist your definition creates reality, I will continue to tell you that you are mistaken.
Click to expand...

As I noted earlier, whatever definition you are comfortable with is fine. You seem to have some fetish about assigning definitions and even though you misapply those, it seems only you are obsessing over that.

You are, for some reason, concerned with definitions but seem negligent regarding your ability to actually apply your definitions in an appropriate manner.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Changes nothing.  You do not lack beliefs in god.  Repeating the same mantra over and over again does not change that.  So long as you insist that defining yourself as something makes you that something, you will continue to treat Atheism as a religion.  I am not equating it, you are making it so.  So long as you continue to insist your definition creates reality, I will continue to tell you that you are mistaken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I noted earlier, whatever definition you are comfortable with is fine. You seem to have some fetish about assigning definitions and even though you misapply those, it seems only you are obsessing over that.
> 
> You are, for some reason, concerned with definitions but seem negligent regarding your ability to actually apply your definitions in an appropriate manner.
Click to expand...

 
Changes nothing.  You do not lack beliefs.  Claiming you do lack beliefs solely on the basis of a definition is dogma.  You have turned Atheism into a religion.  I get you blame others for that, but it is all you.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Changes nothing.  You do not lack beliefs in god.  Repeating the same mantra over and over again does not change that.  So long as you insist that defining yourself as something makes you that something, you will continue to treat Atheism as a religion.  I am not equating it, you are making it so.  So long as you continue to insist your definition creates reality, I will continue to tell you that you are mistaken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I noted earlier, whatever definition you are comfortable with is fine. You seem to have some fetish about assigning definitions and even though you misapply those, it seems only you are obsessing over that.
> 
> You are, for some reason, concerned with definitions but seem negligent regarding your ability to actually apply your definitions in an appropriate manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Changes nothing.  You do not lack beliefs.  Claiming you do lack beliefs solely on the basis of a definition is dogma.  You have turned Atheism into a religion.  I get you blame others for that, but it is all you.
Click to expand...

It changes everything, actually. You simply need an audience for your dogma. It is you who has turned atheism into a religion. You press your dogma with the zeal of the true extremist.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I come pretty close to it on USMB that's for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about here.  You said you try to convert others.  I am taking what you say as true.  You certainly know what you do and the motives behind it far better than I possibly can.  If a Christian attempts to convert others, he's an evangelist.  If an Atheist does exactly the same thing, then how is he not an evangelist?  If I attempted to convert you to Buddhism, how would I not be an evangelist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it different?  As different as straight and gay marriage.
> 
> Actually more different.  Polar opposites.  If anything it is anti evalelizing.  Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.
> 
> And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up.  For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time.  First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country.  The last will be the bible belt hold outs.  But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume.  But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000.  We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see.  You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are getting it.  COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
Click to expand...


No actually one of the biggest problems I had with the Christian story is all non believers wouldn't go to heaven.  I could not imagine every Chinese and Russian and Muslim burning in hell.  

Your Christian religion is the reason Joseph Smith was able to convert so many people away from your traditional "corrupt" churches and go join his cult.  Same thing I'm saying about your religion is the same thing God told Joseph Smith about it.  Why mad at me?

As for your comments, please explain to me what I'm missing.  How are you the closest thing to an atheist?  Explain what you mean please.  How come the definition isn't important?  You've peaked my interest.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about here.  You said you try to convert others.  I am taking what you say as true.  You certainly know what you do and the motives behind it far better than I possibly can.  If a Christian attempts to convert others, he's an evangelist.  If an Atheist does exactly the same thing, then how is he not an evangelist?  If I attempted to convert you to Buddhism, how would I not be an evangelist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it different?  As different as straight and gay marriage.
> 
> Actually more different.  Polar opposites.  If anything it is anti evalelizing.  Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.
> 
> And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up.  For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time.  First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country.  The last will be the bible belt hold outs.  But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume.  But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000.  We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see.  You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are getting it.  COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
Click to expand...


What about them?   This brings the best of religion and leaves the worst out inside the atheist church hoping to take America by storm - video World news The Guardian

I do see some benefits to us organizing.  

Same way for years gays said they didn't care about getting married and then they realized the tax benefits, rights of a spouse, etc.  There are benefits to being a "religion".  What do you say?  

But then with gay marriage comes divorce which no one likes.  And with religion comes us having to be lumped in with the rest of them.  

But then at least we would be an option for people when they are young and finding their way.  I think after they tell the Noah and Adam stories on the street corner from some evangelizer, that kid should hear why that guy is full of shit.  Point out the holes in his story.  Explain they are emotionally brainwashing you with that shit about hell and heaven.  

The song shouldn't have been Blinding Me With Science it should have been with RELIGION.  LOL


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it different?  As different as straight and gay marriage.
> 
> Actually more different.  Polar opposites.  If anything it is anti evalelizing.  Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.
> 
> And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up.  For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time.  First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country.  The last will be the bible belt hold outs.  But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume.  But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000.  We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see.  You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are getting it.  COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
Click to expand...


Hollie is right.  I can't wait for you to get past this "gocha" moment you think you are in about definitions and dogma.  We got it lady.  Now explain further because clearly we don't get what you are getting at!  Maybe if you explained further???  Just don't make it too long.  Elevator pitch.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are getting it.  COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are getting it.  COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
Click to expand...


What has been said?  Oh that even most atheists are admittedly agnostic atheists?  That's because you would have to be a god yourself to know that for sure.

Most ATHEISTS are ATHEIST about any and all organized religions.  So if you are talking generic god, I'm an agnostic atheist.  If you are talking about Jesus, Mo or Jo Smith I'm an atheist.  Don't buy one word of it.  

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief such as the Jesus Mo or Jo stories, is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## sealybobo

I can't even say 100% sure that there were no talking snakes or 350 year old men so I guess I can't even be a true atheist about Jesus Mo or Jo.  I wasn't there.  

But then again I'd have to see that shit to believe it so I'm as close to 100% as you can get.  Is that what we are arguing over?  Less than 1%?


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> 
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.
Click to expand...


You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see?  To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself.  So even most atheists admit that.  But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.  

So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right?  So tell that bitch to shut the hell up.  As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.

I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong.  Wouldn't that be cool?  We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about here.  You said you try to convert others.  I am taking what you say as true.  You certainly know what you do and the motives behind it far better than I possibly can.  If a Christian attempts to convert others, he's an evangelist.  If an Atheist does exactly the same thing, then how is he not an evangelist?  If I attempted to convert you to Buddhism, how would I not be an evangelist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it different?  As different as straight and gay marriage.
> 
> Actually more different.  Polar opposites.  If anything it is anti evalelizing.  Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.
> 
> And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up.  For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time.  First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country.  The last will be the bible belt hold outs.  But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume.  But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000.  We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see.  You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are getting it.  COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No actually one of the biggest problems I had with the Christian story is all non believers wouldn't go to heaven.  I could not imagine every Chinese and Russian and Muslim burning in hell.
> 
> Your Christian religion is the reason Joseph Smith was able to convert so many people away from your traditional "corrupt" churches and go join his cult.  Same thing I'm saying about your religion is the same thing God told Joseph Smith about it.  Why mad at me?
> 
> As for your comments, please explain to me what I'm missing.  How are you the closest thing to an atheist?  Explain what you mean please.  How come the definition isn't important?  You've peaked my interest.
Click to expand...

 
I'm not a Christian.  Unlike you, I have never been a Christian.  I have told you this many times.

I am the closest thing to an Atheist under the definition that an Atheist is one who lacks beliefs in gods because I really don't give a damn whether or not there is a God.  I fully admit that there is zero evidence to support either side of the issue, so the chances of either being correct is the same - 50/50.  The only way one can actually lack beliefs in gods is if one is entirely neutral on the subject, because any position other than neutrality is a belief.

The definition is not important because what you are is what you are, not what you say you are.  I can define myself as anything I like, but that does not make me that thing.  I can define Buddhism as the attainment of spiritual perfection, but that does not mean by calling myself a Buddhist that I have attained spiritual perfection.

If you lack beliefs in gods, it is only true if you actually lack beliefs in gods.  If your only support to that claim is because you define yourself as lacking beliefs, then it is a worthless claim.  If while you are defining yourself as such you continue to make claims which are beliefs, then the claim is false.  It is not the definition which makes you what you are.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Changes nothing.  You do not lack beliefs in god.  Repeating the same mantra over and over again does not change that.  So long as you insist that defining yourself as something makes you that something, you will continue to treat Atheism as a religion.  I am not equating it, you are making it so.  So long as you continue to insist your definition creates reality, I will continue to tell you that you are mistaken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I noted earlier, whatever definition you are comfortable with is fine. You seem to have some fetish about assigning definitions and even though you misapply those, it seems only you are obsessing over that.
> 
> You are, for some reason, concerned with definitions but seem negligent regarding your ability to actually apply your definitions in an appropriate manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Changes nothing.  You do not lack beliefs.  Claiming you do lack beliefs solely on the basis of a definition is dogma.  You have turned Atheism into a religion.  I get you blame others for that, but it is all you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It changes everything, actually. You simply need an audience for your dogma. It is you who has turned atheism into a religion. You press your dogma with the zeal of the true extremist.
Click to expand...

 
The only dogma I have presented here is that any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief.  Do you dispute that?


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> I can't even say 100% sure that there were no talking snakes or 350 year old men so I guess I can't even be a true atheist about Jesus Mo or Jo.  I wasn't there.
> 
> But then again I'd have to see that shit to believe it so I'm as close to 100% as you can get.  Is that what we are arguing over?  Less than 1%?


 
No, that you are a believer has been established.  Your willingness to concede there is a 1% chance your belief is wrong does not make it any less a belief.  What we are arguing over is this unquestioned adherence to a definition and the insistence that the definition creates reality.  This is the essence of dogma and dogma is one of the attributes of religion.

The definition given is that Atheists lack beliefs in gods.  You clearly don't lack beliefs but you go back and forth on admitting this because it conflicts with the definition.  Dogma.

It is said Atheists don't evangelize.  You have admitted you do exactly that, but you deny it is evangelizing (though you agree you are doing exactly what evangelists do) because you are an Atheist and Atheists don't evangelize.  Dogma.

Atheism as the belief there is no God (and you can only arrive at that conclusion via belief) is not religion.  It's just a belief and as valid as any other belief.  It is this dogmatic approach that an Atheist's beliefs aren't beliefs because Atheists lack beliefs that takes what is just a belief and transforms it into religion.  Now you are setting up standards that "this is what an Atheist is" and "they are doing Atheism wrong", and that is nothing but dogma.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see?  To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself.  So even most atheists admit that.  But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.
> 
> So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right?  So tell that bitch to shut the hell up.  As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.
> 
> I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong.  Wouldn't that be cool?  We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.
Click to expand...

 
There is no hell.  There is no Christian God.  I'm 100% certain of that.  Not a shred of doubt in my mind.  Why is there doubt in yours?


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Changes nothing.  You do not lack beliefs in god.  Repeating the same mantra over and over again does not change that.  So long as you insist that defining yourself as something makes you that something, you will continue to treat Atheism as a religion.  I am not equating it, you are making it so.  So long as you continue to insist your definition creates reality, I will continue to tell you that you are mistaken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I noted earlier, whatever definition you are comfortable with is fine. You seem to have some fetish about assigning definitions and even though you misapply those, it seems only you are obsessing over that.
> 
> You are, for some reason, concerned with definitions but seem negligent regarding your ability to actually apply your definitions in an appropriate manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Changes nothing.  You do not lack beliefs.  Claiming you do lack beliefs solely on the basis of a definition is dogma.  You have turned Atheism into a religion.  I get you blame others for that, but it is all you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It changes everything, actually. You simply need an audience for your dogma. It is you who has turned atheism into a religion. You press your dogma with the zeal of the true extremist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only dogma I have presented here is that any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief.  Do you dispute that?
Click to expand...

That's been disputed and refuted throughout this thread. How many more times do you need that spelled out?


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see?  To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself.  So even most atheists admit that.  But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.
> 
> So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right?  So tell that bitch to shut the hell up.  As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.
> 
> I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong.  Wouldn't that be cool?  We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no hell.  There is no Christian God.  I'm 100% certain of that.  Not a shred of doubt in my mind.  Why is there doubt in yours?
Click to expand...

Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Changes nothing.  You do not lack beliefs in god.  Repeating the same mantra over and over again does not change that.  So long as you insist that defining yourself as something makes you that something, you will continue to treat Atheism as a religion.  I am not equating it, you are making it so.  So long as you continue to insist your definition creates reality, I will continue to tell you that you are mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> As I noted earlier, whatever definition you are comfortable with is fine. You seem to have some fetish about assigning definitions and even though you misapply those, it seems only you are obsessing over that.
> 
> You are, for some reason, concerned with definitions but seem negligent regarding your ability to actually apply your definitions in an appropriate manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Changes nothing.  You do not lack beliefs.  Claiming you do lack beliefs solely on the basis of a definition is dogma.  You have turned Atheism into a religion.  I get you blame others for that, but it is all you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It changes everything, actually. You simply need an audience for your dogma. It is you who has turned atheism into a religion. You press your dogma with the zeal of the true extremist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only dogma I have presented here is that any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief.  Do you dispute that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's been disputed and refuted throughout this thread. How many more times do you need that spelled out?
Click to expand...

 
One more time.  How is a conclusion made in the absence of evidence not a belief?


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see?  To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself.  So even most atheists admit that.  But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.
> 
> So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right?  So tell that bitch to shut the hell up.  As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.
> 
> I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong.  Wouldn't that be cool?  We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no hell.  There is no Christian God.  I'm 100% certain of that.  Not a shred of doubt in my mind.  Why is there doubt in yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.
Click to expand...

 
Yes. I am quite capable of discerning the difference between what I believe and what I know and admitting I have beliefs doesn't bother me at all.  Why does it bother you so much?


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it different?  As different as straight and gay marriage.
> 
> Actually more different.  Polar opposites.  If anything it is anti evalelizing.  Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.
> 
> And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up.  For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time.  First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country.  The last will be the bible belt hold outs.  But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume.  But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000.  We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see.  You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are getting it.  COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No actually one of the biggest problems I had with the Christian story is all non believers wouldn't go to heaven.  I could not imagine every Chinese and Russian and Muslim burning in hell.
> 
> Your Christian religion is the reason Joseph Smith was able to convert so many people away from your traditional "corrupt" churches and go join his cult.  Same thing I'm saying about your religion is the same thing God told Joseph Smith about it.  Why mad at me?
> 
> As for your comments, please explain to me what I'm missing.  How are you the closest thing to an atheist?  Explain what you mean please.  How come the definition isn't important?  You've peaked my interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian.  Unlike you, I have never been a Christian.  I have told you this many times.
> 
> I am the closest thing to an Atheist under the definition that an Atheist is one who lacks beliefs in gods because I really don't give a damn whether or not there is a God.  I fully admit that there is zero evidence to support either side of the issue, so the chances of either being correct is the same - 50/50.  The only way one can actually lack beliefs in gods is if one is entirely neutral on the subject, because any position other than neutrality is a belief.
> 
> The definition is not important because what you are is what you are, not what you say you are.  I can define myself as anything I like, but that does not make me that thing.  I can define Buddhism as the attainment of spiritual perfection, but that does not mean by calling myself a Buddhist that I have attained spiritual perfection.
> 
> If you lack beliefs in gods, it is only true if you actually lack beliefs in gods.  If your only support to that claim is because you define yourself as lacking beliefs, then it is a worthless claim.  If while you are defining yourself as such you continue to make claims which are beliefs, then the claim is false.  It is not the definition which makes you what you are.
Click to expand...


The only difference between you and me then is that I do give a damn because I think the idea is bad for people.  

But I see what you are saying now:  

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

_Implicit atheism_ is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". _Explicit atheism_ is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it"

Explicit atheists have considered the idea of deities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists thus either have not given the idea of deities much consideration, or, though they do not believe, have not rejected belief.

Number 24 on the list.  This is the best site ever.  Answers every question.  Why there is no god


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see?  It is the definition which is important to you.  You just can't see past your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see?  To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself.  So even most atheists admit that.  But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.
> 
> So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right?  So tell that bitch to shut the hell up.  As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.
> 
> I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong.  Wouldn't that be cool?  We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no hell.  There is no Christian God.  I'm 100% certain of that.  Not a shred of doubt in my mind.  Why is there doubt in yours?
Click to expand...


Smith defines _implicit atheism_ as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists)

vs me:

Smith observes that some motivations for explicit atheism are rational and some not. Of the rational motivations, he says:

The most significant variety of atheism is explicit atheism of a philosophical nature. This atheism contends that the belief in god is irrational and should therefore be rejected. Since this version of explicit atheism rests on a criticism of theistic beliefs, it is best described as _critical atheism_.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see?  To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself.  So even most atheists admit that.  But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.
> 
> So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right?  So tell that bitch to shut the hell up.  As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.
> 
> I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong.  Wouldn't that be cool?  We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no hell.  There is no Christian God.  I'm 100% certain of that.  Not a shred of doubt in my mind.  Why is there doubt in yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.
Click to expand...


OMG!  Smith actually argues the opposite of what Prachett is saying!  It is he/she who is not the true atheist!

For Smith, explicit atheism is subdivided further into three groups:


a) the view usually expressed by the statement "I do not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being";
b) the view usually expressed by the statement "God does not exist" or "the existence of God is impossible"; and
c) the view which "refuses to discuss the existence of a god" because "the concept of a god is unintelligible" (p. 17).[1]
Although, as mentioned above, Nagel opposes identifying what Smith calls "implicit atheism" as atheism, the two authors do very much agree on the three-part subdivision of "explicit atheism" above, though Nagel does not use the term "explicit"


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.
> 
> Make up one that suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see?  To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself.  So even most atheists admit that.  But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.
> 
> So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right?  So tell that bitch to shut the hell up.  As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.
> 
> I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong.  Wouldn't that be cool?  We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no hell.  There is no Christian God.  I'm 100% certain of that.  Not a shred of doubt in my mind.  Why is there doubt in yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Smith defines _implicit atheism_ as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists)
> 
> vs me:
> 
> Smith observes that some motivations for explicit atheism are rational and some not. Of the rational motivations, he says:
> 
> The most significant variety of atheism is explicit atheism of a philosophical nature. This atheism contends that the belief in god is irrational and should therefore be rejected. Since this version of explicit atheism rests on a criticism of theistic beliefs, it is best described as _critical atheism_.
Click to expand...

 
If by irrational it is meant the belief is based upon no evidence of any kind, I would agree.  However, if a belief based upon no evidence of any kind is irrational, then that term must be applied to all such beliefs - which would includes Atheism. 

This really has nothing to do with philosophy, it is a realistic examination of facts.  If you want to look at a specific deity, or a specific attribute of a deity, sound arguments can be made about it.  I think we can establish through hard evidence the sun is not Apollo riding his chariot across the sky.  I think we can establish lightning is not Zeus throwing stuff around in a snit.  But in terms of generality, the amount of information available to support either side is equal - zero.  Whether one says there is or there is not, either position is equally irrational.

Consider a foot race and you are going to bet on the outcome.  There are two racers, called racer a and racer b.  Who the actual racers will be will be determined by drawing their name, at random, from a container with the name of every living human being on the planet.  Who do you think will win, a or b?  There is no way to judge that, so it is a 50/50 proposition.  And in this situation, you at least have some information - which is more than you have regarding the existence of God.  Yet you think you can come to a rational conclusion about the existence of God?  The notion is absurd.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see?  To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself.  So even most atheists admit that.  But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.
> 
> So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right?  So tell that bitch to shut the hell up.  As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.
> 
> I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong.  Wouldn't that be cool?  We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no hell.  There is no Christian God.  I'm 100% certain of that.  Not a shred of doubt in my mind.  Why is there doubt in yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!  Smith actually argues the opposite of what Prachett is saying!  It is he/she who is not the true atheist!
> 
> For Smith, explicit atheism is subdivided further into three groups:
> 
> 
> a) the view usually expressed by the statement "I do not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being";
> b) the view usually expressed by the statement "God does not exist" or "the existence of God is impossible"; and
> c) the view which "refuses to discuss the existence of a god" because "the concept of a god is unintelligible" (p. 17).[1]
> Although, as mentioned above, Nagel opposes identifying what Smith calls "implicit atheism" as atheism, the two authors do very much agree on the three-part subdivision of "explicit atheism" above, though Nagel does not use the term "explicit"
Click to expand...

 
I never said I was a true Atheist.  I said I was the closest here to meet the definition that an Atheist was one who lacked beliefs in gods.  According to Smith, I would fall under "c".


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see?  To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself.  So even most atheists admit that.  But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.
> 
> So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right?  So tell that bitch to shut the hell up.  As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.
> 
> I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong.  Wouldn't that be cool?  We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no hell.  There is no Christian God.  I'm 100% certain of that.  Not a shred of doubt in my mind.  Why is there doubt in yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. I am quite capable of discerning the difference between what I believe and what I know and admitting I have beliefs doesn't bother me at all.  Why does it bother you so much?
Click to expand...

It bothers you immensely. It bothers you enough to make the same arguments that have been refuted relentlessly and tediously in now, 120 pages of this thread.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see?  To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself.  So even most atheists admit that.  But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.
> 
> So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right?  So tell that bitch to shut the hell up.  As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.
> 
> I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong.  Wouldn't that be cool?  We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no hell.  There is no Christian God.  I'm 100% certain of that.  Not a shred of doubt in my mind.  Why is there doubt in yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. I am quite capable of discerning the difference between what I believe and what I know and admitting I have beliefs doesn't bother me at all.  Why does it bother you so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It bothers you immensely. It bothers you enough to make the same arguments that have been refuted relentlessly and tediously in now, 120 pages of this thread.
Click to expand...

 
Not refuted, just denied.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see?  To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself.  So even most atheists admit that.  But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.
> 
> So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right?  So tell that bitch to shut the hell up.  As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.
> 
> I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong.  Wouldn't that be cool?  We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no hell.  There is no Christian God.  I'm 100% certain of that.  Not a shred of doubt in my mind.  Why is there doubt in yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. I am quite capable of discerning the difference between what I believe and what I know and admitting I have beliefs doesn't bother me at all.  Why does it bother you so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It bothers you immensely. It bothers you enough to make the same arguments that have been refuted relentlessly and tediously in now, 120 pages of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not refuted, just denied.
Click to expand...

Denial is easier, right? It saves you the burdensome task of actually composing a coherent argument.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no hell.  There is no Christian God.  I'm 100% certain of that.  Not a shred of doubt in my mind.  Why is there doubt in yours?
> 
> 
> 
> Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. I am quite capable of discerning the difference between what I believe and what I know and admitting I have beliefs doesn't bother me at all.  Why does it bother you so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It bothers you immensely. It bothers you enough to make the same arguments that have been refuted relentlessly and tediously in now, 120 pages of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not refuted, just denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Denial is easier, right? It saves you the burdensome task of actually composing a coherent argument.
Click to expand...

 
Apparently it is.  I am still waiting for you to tell me how a conclusion made in the absence of evidence is not a belief.  You said its been done many times, so it should be a problem.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I am quite capable of discerning the difference between what I believe and what I know and admitting I have beliefs doesn't bother me at all.  Why does it bother you so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It bothers you immensely. It bothers you enough to make the same arguments that have been refuted relentlessly and tediously in now, 120 pages of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not refuted, just denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Denial is easier, right? It saves you the burdensome task of actually composing a coherent argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently it is.  I am still waiting for you to tell me how a conclusion made in the absence of evidence is not a belief.  You said its been done many times, so it should be a problem.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for you to read the various posts that have already addressed this. 

How is it possible that you have not understood the detailed responses you have been presented with.

Are just looking for attention?


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see fine.  It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there.  I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist.  I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.
> 
> But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see?  To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself.  So even most atheists admit that.  But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.
> 
> So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right?  So tell that bitch to shut the hell up.  As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.
> 
> I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong.  Wouldn't that be cool?  We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no hell.  There is no Christian God.  I'm 100% certain of that.  Not a shred of doubt in my mind.  Why is there doubt in yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Smith defines _implicit atheism_ as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists)
> 
> vs me:
> 
> Smith observes that some motivations for explicit atheism are rational and some not. Of the rational motivations, he says:
> 
> The most significant variety of atheism is explicit atheism of a philosophical nature. This atheism contends that the belief in god is irrational and should therefore be rejected. Since this version of explicit atheism rests on a criticism of theistic beliefs, it is best described as _critical atheism_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If by irrational it is meant the belief is based upon no evidence of any kind, I would agree.  However, if a belief based upon no evidence of any kind is irrational, then that term must be applied to all such beliefs - which would includes Atheism.
> 
> This really has nothing to do with philosophy, it is a realistic examination of facts.  If you want to look at a specific deity, or a specific attribute of a deity, sound arguments can be made about it.  I think we can establish through hard evidence the sun is not Apollo riding his chariot across the sky.  I think we can establish lightning is not Zeus throwing stuff around in a snit.  But in terms of generality, the amount of information available to support either side is equal - zero.  Whether one says there is or there is not, either position is equally irrational.
> 
> Consider a foot race and you are going to bet on the outcome.  There are two racers, called racer a and racer b.  Who the actual racers will be will be determined by drawing their name, at random, from a container with the name of every living human being on the planet.  Who do you think will win, a or b?  There is no way to judge that, so it is a 50/50 proposition.  And in this situation, you at least have some information - which is more than you have regarding the existence of God.  Yet you think you can come to a rational conclusion about the existence of God?  The notion is absurd.
Click to expand...


Lots of evidence.  Why there is no god

ev·i·dence

*1*.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see?  To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself.  So even most atheists admit that.  But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.
> 
> So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right?  So tell that bitch to shut the hell up.  As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.
> 
> I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong.  Wouldn't that be cool?  We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no hell.  There is no Christian God.  I'm 100% certain of that.  Not a shred of doubt in my mind.  Why is there doubt in yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!  Smith actually argues the opposite of what Prachett is saying!  It is he/she who is not the true atheist!
> 
> For Smith, explicit atheism is subdivided further into three groups:
> 
> 
> a) the view usually expressed by the statement "I do not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being";
> b) the view usually expressed by the statement "God does not exist" or "the existence of God is impossible"; and
> c) the view which "refuses to discuss the existence of a god" because "the concept of a god is unintelligible" (p. 17).[1]
> Although, as mentioned above, Nagel opposes identifying what Smith calls "implicit atheism" as atheism, the two authors do very much agree on the three-part subdivision of "explicit atheism" above, though Nagel does not use the term "explicit"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I was a true Atheist.  I said I was the closest here to meet the definition that an Atheist was one who lacked beliefs in gods.  According to Smith, I would fall under "c".
Click to expand...


Now you are not an atheist?  Honestly babe, you wouldn't be here if you didn't care, A LOT!  Are you lying for Jesus?


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see?  To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself.  So even most atheists admit that.  But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.
> 
> So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right?  So tell that bitch to shut the hell up.  As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.
> 
> I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong.  Wouldn't that be cool?  We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no hell.  There is no Christian God.  I'm 100% certain of that.  Not a shred of doubt in my mind.  Why is there doubt in yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. I am quite capable of discerning the difference between what I believe and what I know and admitting I have beliefs doesn't bother me at all.  Why does it bother you so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It bothers you immensely. It bothers you enough to make the same arguments that have been refuted relentlessly and tediously in now, 120 pages of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not refuted, just denied.
Click to expand...


The fact that you hold an irrational belief is simply evidence that your brain is able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

Plus, why do you have to lie and say you don't believe in god?


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't even say 100% sure that there were no talking snakes or 350 year old men so I guess I can't even be a true atheist about Jesus Mo or Jo.  I wasn't there.
> 
> But then again I'd have to see that shit to believe it so I'm as close to 100% as you can get.  Is that what we are arguing over?  Less than 1%?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that you are a believer has been established.  Your willingness to concede there is a 1% chance your belief is wrong does not make it any less a belief.  What we are arguing over is this unquestioned adherence to a definition and the insistence that the definition creates reality.  This is the essence of dogma and dogma is one of the attributes of religion.
> 
> The definition given is that Atheists lack beliefs in gods.  You clearly don't lack beliefs but you go back and forth on admitting this because it conflicts with the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> It is said Atheists don't evangelize.  You have admitted you do exactly that, but you deny it is evangelizing (though you agree you are doing exactly what evangelists do) because you are an Atheist and Atheists don't evangelize.  Dogma.
> 
> Atheism as the belief there is no God (and you can only arrive at that conclusion via belief) is not religion.  It's just a belief and as valid as any other belief.  It is this dogmatic approach that an Atheist's beliefs aren't beliefs because Atheists lack beliefs that takes what is just a belief and transforms it into religion.  Now you are setting up standards that "this is what an Atheist is" and "they are doing Atheism wrong", and that is nothing but dogma.
Click to expand...


The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I am quite capable of discerning the difference between what I believe and what I know and admitting I have beliefs doesn't bother me at all.  Why does it bother you so much?
> 
> 
> 
> It bothers you immensely. It bothers you enough to make the same arguments that have been refuted relentlessly and tediously in now, 120 pages of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not refuted, just denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Denial is easier, right? It saves you the burdensome task of actually composing a coherent argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently it is.  I am still waiting for you to tell me how a conclusion made in the absence of evidence is not a belief.  You said its been done many times, so it should be a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to read the various posts that have already addressed this.
> 
> How is it possible that you have not understood the detailed responses you have been presented with.
> 
> Are just looking for attention?
Click to expand...


So you have no answer, just yet another unsupported claim.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't even say 100% sure that there were no talking snakes or 350 year old men so I guess I can't even be a true atheist about Jesus Mo or Jo.  I wasn't there.
> 
> But then again I'd have to see that shit to believe it so I'm as close to 100% as you can get.  Is that what we are arguing over?  Less than 1%?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that you are a believer has been established.  Your willingness to concede there is a 1% chance your belief is wrong does not make it any less a belief.  What we are arguing over is this unquestioned adherence to a definition and the insistence that the definition creates reality.  This is the essence of dogma and dogma is one of the attributes of religion.
> 
> The definition given is that Atheists lack beliefs in gods.  You clearly don't lack beliefs but you go back and forth on admitting this because it conflicts with the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> It is said Atheists don't evangelize.  You have admitted you do exactly that, but you deny it is evangelizing (though you agree you are doing exactly what evangelists do) because you are an Atheist and Atheists don't evangelize.  Dogma.
> 
> Atheism as the belief there is no God (and you can only arrive at that conclusion via belief) is not religion.  It's just a belief and as valid as any other belief.  It is this dogmatic approach that an Atheist's beliefs aren't beliefs because Atheists lack beliefs that takes what is just a belief and transforms it into religion.  Now you are setting up standards that "this is what an Atheist is" and "they are doing Atheism wrong", and that is nothing but dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.
Click to expand...

obviously nothing more than a throwaway, unproveable comment.....there is no valid way to quantify either.....


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see?  To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself.  So even most atheists admit that.  But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.
> 
> So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right?  So tell that bitch to shut the hell up.  As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.
> 
> I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong.  Wouldn't that be cool?  We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no hell.  There is no Christian God.  I'm 100% certain of that.  Not a shred of doubt in my mind.  Why is there doubt in yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Smith defines _implicit atheism_ as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists)
> 
> vs me:
> 
> Smith observes that some motivations for explicit atheism are rational and some not. Of the rational motivations, he says:
> 
> The most significant variety of atheism is explicit atheism of a philosophical nature. This atheism contends that the belief in god is irrational and should therefore be rejected. Since this version of explicit atheism rests on a criticism of theistic beliefs, it is best described as _critical atheism_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If by irrational it is meant the belief is based upon no evidence of any kind, I would agree.  However, if a belief based upon no evidence of any kind is irrational, then that term must be applied to all such beliefs - which would includes Atheism.
> 
> This really has nothing to do with philosophy, it is a realistic examination of facts.  If you want to look at a specific deity, or a specific attribute of a deity, sound arguments can be made about it.  I think we can establish through hard evidence the sun is not Apollo riding his chariot across the sky.  I think we can establish lightning is not Zeus throwing stuff around in a snit.  But in terms of generality, the amount of information available to support either side is equal - zero.  Whether one says there is or there is not, either position is equally irrational.
> 
> Consider a foot race and you are going to bet on the outcome.  There are two racers, called racer a and racer b.  Who the actual racers will be will be determined by drawing their name, at random, from a container with the name of every living human being on the planet.  Who do you think will win, a or b?  There is no way to judge that, so it is a 50/50 proposition.  And in this situation, you at least have some information - which is more than you have regarding the existence of God.  Yet you think you can come to a rational conclusion about the existence of God?  The notion is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of evidence.  Why there is no god
> 
> ev·i·dence
> 
> *1*.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
Click to expand...


Yes.  I have told you before I read your web site.  I've also told you I'm not a Christian.  There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God.  Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God.  Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult.  You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Agnostic atheism



just another way of saying, "I have no way of knowing if God exists or not, but I'm going to deny it anyway"........


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't even say 100% sure that there were no talking snakes or 350 year old men so I guess I can't even be a true atheist about Jesus Mo or Jo.  I wasn't there.
> 
> But then again I'd have to see that shit to believe it so I'm as close to 100% as you can get.  Is that what we are arguing over?  Less than 1%?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that you are a believer has been established.  Your willingness to concede there is a 1% chance your belief is wrong does not make it any less a belief.  What we are arguing over is this unquestioned adherence to a definition and the insistence that the definition creates reality.  This is the essence of dogma and dogma is one of the attributes of religion.
> 
> The definition given is that Atheists lack beliefs in gods.  You clearly don't lack beliefs but you go back and forth on admitting this because it conflicts with the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> It is said Atheists don't evangelize.  You have admitted you do exactly that, but you deny it is evangelizing (though you agree you are doing exactly what evangelists do) because you are an Atheist and Atheists don't evangelize.  Dogma.
> 
> Atheism as the belief there is no God (and you can only arrive at that conclusion via belief) is not religion.  It's just a belief and as valid as any other belief.  It is this dogmatic approach that an Atheist's beliefs aren't beliefs because Atheists lack beliefs that takes what is just a belief and transforms it into religion.  Now you are setting up standards that "this is what an Atheist is" and "they are doing Atheism wrong", and that is nothing but dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
Click to expand...


That is a belief.  You have no evidence to support the claim, just the claim itself.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It bothers you immensely. It bothers you enough to make the same arguments that have been refuted relentlessly and tediously in now, 120 pages of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not refuted, just denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Denial is easier, right? It saves you the burdensome task of actually composing a coherent argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently it is.  I am still waiting for you to tell me how a conclusion made in the absence of evidence is not a belief.  You said its been done many times, so it should be a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to read the various posts that have already addressed this.
> 
> How is it possible that you have not understood the detailed responses you have been presented with.
> 
> Are just looking for attention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have no answer, just yet another unsupported claim.
Click to expand...

You have no recollection of the many times your comments have been addressed?


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't even say 100% sure that there were no talking snakes or 350 year old men so I guess I can't even be a true atheist about Jesus Mo or Jo.  I wasn't there.
> 
> But then again I'd have to see that shit to believe it so I'm as close to 100% as you can get.  Is that what we are arguing over?  Less than 1%?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that you are a believer has been established.  Your willingness to concede there is a 1% chance your belief is wrong does not make it any less a belief.  What we are arguing over is this unquestioned adherence to a definition and the insistence that the definition creates reality.  This is the essence of dogma and dogma is one of the attributes of religion.
> 
> The definition given is that Atheists lack beliefs in gods.  You clearly don't lack beliefs but you go back and forth on admitting this because it conflicts with the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> It is said Atheists don't evangelize.  You have admitted you do exactly that, but you deny it is evangelizing (though you agree you are doing exactly what evangelists do) because you are an Atheist and Atheists don't evangelize.  Dogma.
> 
> Atheism as the belief there is no God (and you can only arrive at that conclusion via belief) is not religion.  It's just a belief and as valid as any other belief.  It is this dogmatic approach that an Atheist's beliefs aren't beliefs because Atheists lack beliefs that takes what is just a belief and transforms it into religion.  Now you are setting up standards that "this is what an Atheist is" and "they are doing Atheism wrong", and that is nothing but dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a belief.  You have no evidence to support the claim, just the claim itself.
Click to expand...

That is your belief, the religious belief of not understanding what you have repeatedly been told.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no hell.  There is no Christian God.  I'm 100% certain of that.  Not a shred of doubt in my mind.  Why is there doubt in yours?
> 
> 
> 
> Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. I am quite capable of discerning the difference between what I believe and what I know and admitting I have beliefs doesn't bother me at all.  Why does it bother you so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It bothers you immensely. It bothers you enough to make the same arguments that have been refuted relentlessly and tediously in now, 120 pages of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not refuted, just denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you hold an irrational belief is simply evidence that your brain is able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Plus, why do you have to lie and say you don't believe in god?
Click to expand...


I have yet to lie.  I have never said I don't believe in God.  I do believe in God, I just consider the issue to be irrelevant and pointless.  This discussion isn't about God.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not refuted, just denied.
> 
> 
> 
> Denial is easier, right? It saves you the burdensome task of actually composing a coherent argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently it is.  I am still waiting for you to tell me how a conclusion made in the absence of evidence is not a belief.  You said its been done many times, so it should be a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to read the various posts that have already addressed this.
> 
> How is it possible that you have not understood the detailed responses you have been presented with.
> 
> Are just looking for attention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have no answer, just yet another unsupported claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no recollection of the many times your comments have been addressed?
Click to expand...


You claim to, so take a second and address it.  How is a conclusion made in the absence of evidence not a belief?


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't even say 100% sure that there were no talking snakes or 350 year old men so I guess I can't even be a true atheist about Jesus Mo or Jo.  I wasn't there.
> 
> But then again I'd have to see that shit to believe it so I'm as close to 100% as you can get.  Is that what we are arguing over?  Less than 1%?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that you are a believer has been established.  Your willingness to concede there is a 1% chance your belief is wrong does not make it any less a belief.  What we are arguing over is this unquestioned adherence to a definition and the insistence that the definition creates reality.  This is the essence of dogma and dogma is one of the attributes of religion.
> 
> The definition given is that Atheists lack beliefs in gods.  You clearly don't lack beliefs but you go back and forth on admitting this because it conflicts with the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> It is said Atheists don't evangelize.  You have admitted you do exactly that, but you deny it is evangelizing (though you agree you are doing exactly what evangelists do) because you are an Atheist and Atheists don't evangelize.  Dogma.
> 
> Atheism as the belief there is no God (and you can only arrive at that conclusion via belief) is not religion.  It's just a belief and as valid as any other belief.  It is this dogmatic approach that an Atheist's beliefs aren't beliefs because Atheists lack beliefs that takes what is just a belief and transforms it into religion.  Now you are setting up standards that "this is what an Atheist is" and "they are doing Atheism wrong", and that is nothing but dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a belief.  You have no evidence to support the claim, just the claim itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your belief, the religious belief of not understanding what you have repeatedly been told.
Click to expand...


No.  That is a statement of fact.  He is making a claim without support of any kind.  That is a belief.  And I do understand, I just am not buying the dogma.  If you want to claim a position that is not belief, then show me the evidence.  Don't give me bumper stickers quips, unsupported definitions or claims I am to accept on faith.  Show me hard evidence.  Until you do that, you're just another believer claiming to know the TRUTH.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denial is easier, right? It saves you the burdensome task of actually composing a coherent argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently it is.  I am still waiting for you to tell me how a conclusion made in the absence of evidence is not a belief.  You said its been done many times, so it should be a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to read the various posts that have already addressed this.
> 
> How is it possible that you have not understood the detailed responses you have been presented with.
> 
> Are just looking for attention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have no answer, just yet another unsupported claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no recollection of the many times your comments have been addressed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim to, so take a second and address it.  How is a conclusion made in the absence of evidence not a belief?
Click to expand...

How is it that have read and failed to understood the multitude of comments that already this?

Give us a number. How many more times does this need to be delineated for you before you get it?


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't even say 100% sure that there were no talking snakes or 350 year old men so I guess I can't even be a true atheist about Jesus Mo or Jo.  I wasn't there.
> 
> But then again I'd have to see that shit to believe it so I'm as close to 100% as you can get.  Is that what we are arguing over?  Less than 1%?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that you are a believer has been established.  Your willingness to concede there is a 1% chance your belief is wrong does not make it any less a belief.  What we are arguing over is this unquestioned adherence to a definition and the insistence that the definition creates reality.  This is the essence of dogma and dogma is one of the attributes of religion.
> 
> The definition given is that Atheists lack beliefs in gods.  You clearly don't lack beliefs but you go back and forth on admitting this because it conflicts with the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> It is said Atheists don't evangelize.  You have admitted you do exactly that, but you deny it is evangelizing (though you agree you are doing exactly what evangelists do) because you are an Atheist and Atheists don't evangelize.  Dogma.
> 
> Atheism as the belief there is no God (and you can only arrive at that conclusion via belief) is not religion.  It's just a belief and as valid as any other belief.  It is this dogmatic approach that an Atheist's beliefs aren't beliefs because Atheists lack beliefs that takes what is just a belief and transforms it into religion.  Now you are setting up standards that "this is what an Atheist is" and "they are doing Atheism wrong", and that is nothing but dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a belief.  You have no evidence to support the claim, just the claim itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your belief, the religious belief of not understanding what you have repeatedly been told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  That is a statement of fact.  He is making a claim without support of any kind.  That is a belief.  And I do understand, I just am not buying the dogma.  If you want to claim a position that is not belief, then show me the evidence.  Don't give me bumper stickers quips, unsupported definitions or claims I am to accept on faith.  Show me hard evidence.  Until you do that, you're just another believer claiming to know the TRUTH.
Click to expand...

Your believing that doesn't make it true.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see?  To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself.  So even most atheists admit that.  But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.
> 
> So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right?  So tell that bitch to shut the hell up.  As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.
> 
> I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong.  Wouldn't that be cool?  We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no hell.  There is no Christian God.  I'm 100% certain of that.  Not a shred of doubt in my mind.  Why is there doubt in yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!  Smith actually argues the opposite of what Prachett is saying!  It is he/she who is not the true atheist!
> 
> For Smith, explicit atheism is subdivided further into three groups:
> 
> 
> a) the view usually expressed by the statement "I do not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being";
> b) the view usually expressed by the statement "God does not exist" or "the existence of God is impossible"; and
> c) the view which "refuses to discuss the existence of a god" because "the concept of a god is unintelligible" (p. 17).[1]
> Although, as mentioned above, Nagel opposes identifying what Smith calls "implicit atheism" as atheism, the two authors do very much agree on the three-part subdivision of "explicit atheism" above, though Nagel does not use the term "explicit"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I was a true Atheist.  I said I was the closest here to meet the definition that an Atheist was one who lacked beliefs in gods.  According to Smith, I would fall under "c".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are not an atheist?  Honestly babe, you wouldn't be here if you didn't care, A LOT!  Are you lying for Jesus?
Click to expand...


Wow.  Is it that you just don't read at all or is it intentional?  If you just want to argue with whatever little voices are going on in your head, you don't need me.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently it is.  I am still waiting for you to tell me how a conclusion made in the absence of evidence is not a belief.  You said its been done many times, so it should be a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to read the various posts that have already addressed this.
> 
> How is it possible that you have not understood the detailed responses you have been presented with.
> 
> Are just looking for attention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have no answer, just yet another unsupported claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no recollection of the many times your comments have been addressed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim to, so take a second and address it.  How is a conclusion made in the absence of evidence not a belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it that have read and failed to understood the multitude of comments that already this?
> 
> Give us a number. How many more times does this need to be delineated for you before you get it?
Click to expand...


I told you.  The number is one.  How is a conclusion made in the absence of evidence not a belief?


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that you are a believer has been established.  Your willingness to concede there is a 1% chance your belief is wrong does not make it any less a belief.  What we are arguing over is this unquestioned adherence to a definition and the insistence that the definition creates reality.  This is the essence of dogma and dogma is one of the attributes of religion.
> 
> The definition given is that Atheists lack beliefs in gods.  You clearly don't lack beliefs but you go back and forth on admitting this because it conflicts with the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> It is said Atheists don't evangelize.  You have admitted you do exactly that, but you deny it is evangelizing (though you agree you are doing exactly what evangelists do) because you are an Atheist and Atheists don't evangelize.  Dogma.
> 
> Atheism as the belief there is no God (and you can only arrive at that conclusion via belief) is not religion.  It's just a belief and as valid as any other belief.  It is this dogmatic approach that an Atheist's beliefs aren't beliefs because Atheists lack beliefs that takes what is just a belief and transforms it into religion.  Now you are setting up standards that "this is what an Atheist is" and "they are doing Atheism wrong", and that is nothing but dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a belief.  You have no evidence to support the claim, just the claim itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your belief, the religious belief of not understanding what you have repeatedly been told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  That is a statement of fact.  He is making a claim without support of any kind.  That is a belief.  And I do understand, I just am not buying the dogma.  If you want to claim a position that is not belief, then show me the evidence.  Don't give me bumper stickers quips, unsupported definitions or claims I am to accept on faith.  Show me hard evidence.  Until you do that, you're just another believer claiming to know the TRUTH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your believing that doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...


And no evidence.  What a surprise.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a belief.  You have no evidence to support the claim, just the claim itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your belief, the religious belief of not understanding what you have repeatedly been told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  That is a statement of fact.  He is making a claim without support of any kind.  That is a belief.  And I do understand, I just am not buying the dogma.  If you want to claim a position that is not belief, then show me the evidence.  Don't give me bumper stickers quips, unsupported definitions or claims I am to accept on faith.  Show me hard evidence.  Until you do that, you're just another believer claiming to know the TRUTH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your believing that doesn't make it true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And no evidence.  What a surprise.
Click to expand...

You blustered your way through another series of posts you couldn't respond to. That's not a surprise at all.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't even say 100% sure that there were no talking snakes or 350 year old men so I guess I can't even be a true atheist about Jesus Mo or Jo.  I wasn't there.
> 
> But then again I'd have to see that shit to believe it so I'm as close to 100% as you can get.  Is that what we are arguing over?  Less than 1%?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that you are a believer has been established.  Your willingness to concede there is a 1% chance your belief is wrong does not make it any less a belief.  What we are arguing over is this unquestioned adherence to a definition and the insistence that the definition creates reality.  This is the essence of dogma and dogma is one of the attributes of religion.
> 
> The definition given is that Atheists lack beliefs in gods.  You clearly don't lack beliefs but you go back and forth on admitting this because it conflicts with the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> It is said Atheists don't evangelize.  You have admitted you do exactly that, but you deny it is evangelizing (though you agree you are doing exactly what evangelists do) because you are an Atheist and Atheists don't evangelize.  Dogma.
> 
> Atheism as the belief there is no God (and you can only arrive at that conclusion via belief) is not religion.  It's just a belief and as valid as any other belief.  It is this dogmatic approach that an Atheist's beliefs aren't beliefs because Atheists lack beliefs that takes what is just a belief and transforms it into religion.  Now you are setting up standards that "this is what an Atheist is" and "they are doing Atheism wrong", and that is nothing but dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously nothing more than a throwaway, unproveable comment.....there is no valid way to quantify either.....
Click to expand...


Really?  What odds do you give god?  50 50 odds?  Think about it.  An invisible man who built Adam and then built Eve out of Adams rib, then a burning bush, a guy living in a whale for 3 days, a flood that killed everyone but Noah, his family and 2 of every animal, a virgin birth, miracles and then coming back after being dead for 3 days.

What are the odds that an invisible man watches not only everything you do but watches what EVERYONE is doing, cares, but send you to hell if you cross him?  

Based on all the EVIDENCE, I'd say the chances of your god being real are slim to nill.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to read the various posts that have already addressed this.
> 
> How is it possible that you have not understood the detailed responses you have been presented with.
> 
> Are just looking for attention?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no answer, just yet another unsupported claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no recollection of the many times your comments have been addressed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim to, so take a second and address it.  How is a conclusion made in the absence of evidence not a belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it that have read and failed to understood the multitude of comments that already this?
> 
> Give us a number. How many more times does this need to be delineated for you before you get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you.  The number is one.  How is a conclusion made in the absence of evidence not a belief?
Click to expand...


Unless you are stubborn, close minded or brainwashed, this should be all the evidence you need.

Why there is no god

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps _the_ most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

The standard of evidence required to prove a god’s existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle – none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note: This is not the same as being close-minded.

There is, however, a simple answer to this question: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince _any_ atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.

In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince _any_ atheist of said god’s existence.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see?  To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself.  So even most atheists admit that.  But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.
> 
> So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right?  So tell that bitch to shut the hell up.  As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.
> 
> I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong.  Wouldn't that be cool?  We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no hell.  There is no Christian God.  I'm 100% certain of that.  Not a shred of doubt in my mind.  Why is there doubt in yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Smith defines _implicit atheism_ as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists)
> 
> vs me:
> 
> Smith observes that some motivations for explicit atheism are rational and some not. Of the rational motivations, he says:
> 
> The most significant variety of atheism is explicit atheism of a philosophical nature. This atheism contends that the belief in god is irrational and should therefore be rejected. Since this version of explicit atheism rests on a criticism of theistic beliefs, it is best described as _critical atheism_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If by irrational it is meant the belief is based upon no evidence of any kind, I would agree.  However, if a belief based upon no evidence of any kind is irrational, then that term must be applied to all such beliefs - which would includes Atheism.
> 
> This really has nothing to do with philosophy, it is a realistic examination of facts.  If you want to look at a specific deity, or a specific attribute of a deity, sound arguments can be made about it.  I think we can establish through hard evidence the sun is not Apollo riding his chariot across the sky.  I think we can establish lightning is not Zeus throwing stuff around in a snit.  But in terms of generality, the amount of information available to support either side is equal - zero.  Whether one says there is or there is not, either position is equally irrational.
> 
> Consider a foot race and you are going to bet on the outcome.  There are two racers, called racer a and racer b.  Who the actual racers will be will be determined by drawing their name, at random, from a container with the name of every living human being on the planet.  Who do you think will win, a or b?  There is no way to judge that, so it is a 50/50 proposition.  And in this situation, you at least have some information - which is more than you have regarding the existence of God.  Yet you think you can come to a rational conclusion about the existence of God?  The notion is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of evidence.  Why there is no god
> 
> ev·i·dence
> 
> *1*.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  I have told you before I read your web site.  I've also told you I'm not a Christian.  There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God.  Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God.  Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult.  You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.
Click to expand...


Maybe because god is a *Baseless assertion and Unfalsifiable?

Falsifiability* or *refutability* of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called *falsifiable* if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't even say 100% sure that there were no talking snakes or 350 year old men so I guess I can't even be a true atheist about Jesus Mo or Jo.  I wasn't there.
> 
> But then again I'd have to see that shit to believe it so I'm as close to 100% as you can get.  Is that what we are arguing over?  Less than 1%?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that you are a believer has been established.  Your willingness to concede there is a 1% chance your belief is wrong does not make it any less a belief.  What we are arguing over is this unquestioned adherence to a definition and the insistence that the definition creates reality.  This is the essence of dogma and dogma is one of the attributes of religion.
> 
> The definition given is that Atheists lack beliefs in gods.  You clearly don't lack beliefs but you go back and forth on admitting this because it conflicts with the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> It is said Atheists don't evangelize.  You have admitted you do exactly that, but you deny it is evangelizing (though you agree you are doing exactly what evangelists do) because you are an Atheist and Atheists don't evangelize.  Dogma.
> 
> Atheism as the belief there is no God (and you can only arrive at that conclusion via belief) is not religion.  It's just a belief and as valid as any other belief.  It is this dogmatic approach that an Atheist's beliefs aren't beliefs because Atheists lack beliefs that takes what is just a belief and transforms it into religion.  Now you are setting up standards that "this is what an Atheist is" and "they are doing Atheism wrong", and that is nothing but dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously nothing more than a throwaway, unproveable comment.....there is no valid way to quantify either.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  What odds do you give god?  50 50 odds?
Click to expand...

????.....100/100......the chance that the universe we have is the result of random shit happening randomly?......0


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> [
> Why there is no god


why there is no reason to waste your time going to that silly web site......there are no proofs there.....there is no evidence there......there isn't even logic there......nothing but boldfaced statements similar to the drivel you post here every day......nothing at all to back them up......

I mean look at it.....
"There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god."......this is your proof there is no God?.......I can say exactly the same thing about the claim there is no God.......oh, gosh, which one of us wins?.....


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't even say 100% sure that there were no talking snakes or 350 year old men so I guess I can't even be a true atheist about Jesus Mo or Jo.  I wasn't there.
> 
> But then again I'd have to see that shit to believe it so I'm as close to 100% as you can get.  Is that what we are arguing over?  Less than 1%?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that you are a believer has been established.  Your willingness to concede there is a 1% chance your belief is wrong does not make it any less a belief.  What we are arguing over is this unquestioned adherence to a definition and the insistence that the definition creates reality.  This is the essence of dogma and dogma is one of the attributes of religion.
> 
> The definition given is that Atheists lack beliefs in gods.  You clearly don't lack beliefs but you go back and forth on admitting this because it conflicts with the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> It is said Atheists don't evangelize.  You have admitted you do exactly that, but you deny it is evangelizing (though you agree you are doing exactly what evangelists do) because you are an Atheist and Atheists don't evangelize.  Dogma.
> 
> Atheism as the belief there is no God (and you can only arrive at that conclusion via belief) is not religion.  It's just a belief and as valid as any other belief.  It is this dogmatic approach that an Atheist's beliefs aren't beliefs because Atheists lack beliefs that takes what is just a belief and transforms it into religion.  Now you are setting up standards that "this is what an Atheist is" and "they are doing Atheism wrong", and that is nothing but dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously nothing more than a throwaway, unproveable comment.....there is no valid way to quantify either.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  What odds do you give god?  50 50 odds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ????.....100/100......the chance that the universe we have is the result of random shit happening randomly?......0
Click to expand...

"Random shit happening randomly".

Unfortunately, zealots such as the self-entitled "prophet" are the product of   Christian madrasahs. They represent that swath of biblical literalists who are impervious to knowledge and enlightenment.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a belief.  You have no evidence to support the claim, just the claim itself.
> 
> 
> 
> That is your belief, the religious belief of not understanding what you have repeatedly been told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  That is a statement of fact.  He is making a claim without support of any kind.  That is a belief.  And I do understand, I just am not buying the dogma.  If you want to claim a position that is not belief, then show me the evidence.  Don't give me bumper stickers quips, unsupported definitions or claims I am to accept on faith.  Show me hard evidence.  Until you do that, you're just another believer claiming to know the TRUTH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your believing that doesn't make it true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And no evidence.  What a surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You blustered your way through another series of posts you couldn't respond to. That's not a surprise at all.
Click to expand...

 
And still no evidence.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no answer, just yet another unsupported claim.
> 
> 
> 
> You have no recollection of the many times your comments have been addressed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim to, so take a second and address it.  How is a conclusion made in the absence of evidence not a belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it that have read and failed to understood the multitude of comments that already this?
> 
> Give us a number. How many more times does this need to be delineated for you before you get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you.  The number is one.  How is a conclusion made in the absence of evidence not a belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you are stubborn, close minded or brainwashed, this should be all the evidence you need.
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps _the_ most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.
> 
> The standard of evidence required to prove a god’s existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle – none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.
> 
> Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note: This is not the same as being close-minded.
> 
> There is, however, a simple answer to this question: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince _any_ atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.
> 
> In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince _any_ atheist of said god’s existence.
Click to expand...

 
All this boils down to is you don't think the standard of evidence applies to you.  And if I don't just accept that you know the TRUTH without question, then I must be stupid, close minded or brain washed.  The only difference between your position and a Christian is you don't claim I am a follower of Satan - though I expect you really want to.  Frankly, I am just about convinced that you are a Christian since you seem incapable of considering the question of God outside of a Christian context and you actually referred to yourself as a member of the Greek Orthodox Church in another thread.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no hell.  There is no Christian God.  I'm 100% certain of that.  Not a shred of doubt in my mind.  Why is there doubt in yours?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smith defines _implicit atheism_ as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists)
> 
> vs me:
> 
> Smith observes that some motivations for explicit atheism are rational and some not. Of the rational motivations, he says:
> 
> The most significant variety of atheism is explicit atheism of a philosophical nature. This atheism contends that the belief in god is irrational and should therefore be rejected. Since this version of explicit atheism rests on a criticism of theistic beliefs, it is best described as _critical atheism_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If by irrational it is meant the belief is based upon no evidence of any kind, I would agree.  However, if a belief based upon no evidence of any kind is irrational, then that term must be applied to all such beliefs - which would includes Atheism.
> 
> This really has nothing to do with philosophy, it is a realistic examination of facts.  If you want to look at a specific deity, or a specific attribute of a deity, sound arguments can be made about it.  I think we can establish through hard evidence the sun is not Apollo riding his chariot across the sky.  I think we can establish lightning is not Zeus throwing stuff around in a snit.  But in terms of generality, the amount of information available to support either side is equal - zero.  Whether one says there is or there is not, either position is equally irrational.
> 
> Consider a foot race and you are going to bet on the outcome.  There are two racers, called racer a and racer b.  Who the actual racers will be will be determined by drawing their name, at random, from a container with the name of every living human being on the planet.  Who do you think will win, a or b?  There is no way to judge that, so it is a 50/50 proposition.  And in this situation, you at least have some information - which is more than you have regarding the existence of God.  Yet you think you can come to a rational conclusion about the existence of God?  The notion is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of evidence.  Why there is no god
> 
> ev·i·dence
> 
> *1*.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  I have told you before I read your web site.  I've also told you I'm not a Christian.  There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God.  Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God.  Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult.  You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe because god is a *Baseless assertion and Unfalsifiable?
> 
> Falsifiability* or *refutability* of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called *falsifiable* if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.
Click to expand...

 
A justification for calling belief knowledge.  A worthless justification.  If you cannot support a claim, then you don't pretend you don't have to support it - you don't make it.

The reason it can't be falsified is because there is no evidence.  None. Nada. Zip.  In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief.  You are a believer.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is your belief, the religious belief of not understanding what you have repeatedly been told.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That is a statement of fact.  He is making a claim without support of any kind.  That is a belief.  And I do understand, I just am not buying the dogma.  If you want to claim a position that is not belief, then show me the evidence.  Don't give me bumper stickers quips, unsupported definitions or claims I am to accept on faith.  Show me hard evidence.  Until you do that, you're just another believer claiming to know the TRUTH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your believing that doesn't make it true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And no evidence.  What a surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You blustered your way through another series of posts you couldn't respond to. That's not a surprise at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And still no evidence.
Click to expand...

Evidence of what, your gods? There is none, correct.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smith defines _implicit atheism_ as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists)
> 
> vs me:
> 
> Smith observes that some motivations for explicit atheism are rational and some not. Of the rational motivations, he says:
> 
> The most significant variety of atheism is explicit atheism of a philosophical nature. This atheism contends that the belief in god is irrational and should therefore be rejected. Since this version of explicit atheism rests on a criticism of theistic beliefs, it is best described as _critical atheism_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If by irrational it is meant the belief is based upon no evidence of any kind, I would agree.  However, if a belief based upon no evidence of any kind is irrational, then that term must be applied to all such beliefs - which would includes Atheism.
> 
> This really has nothing to do with philosophy, it is a realistic examination of facts.  If you want to look at a specific deity, or a specific attribute of a deity, sound arguments can be made about it.  I think we can establish through hard evidence the sun is not Apollo riding his chariot across the sky.  I think we can establish lightning is not Zeus throwing stuff around in a snit.  But in terms of generality, the amount of information available to support either side is equal - zero.  Whether one says there is or there is not, either position is equally irrational.
> 
> Consider a foot race and you are going to bet on the outcome.  There are two racers, called racer a and racer b.  Who the actual racers will be will be determined by drawing their name, at random, from a container with the name of every living human being on the planet.  Who do you think will win, a or b?  There is no way to judge that, so it is a 50/50 proposition.  And in this situation, you at least have some information - which is more than you have regarding the existence of God.  Yet you think you can come to a rational conclusion about the existence of God?  The notion is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of evidence.  Why there is no god
> 
> ev·i·dence
> 
> *1*.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  I have told you before I read your web site.  I've also told you I'm not a Christian.  There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God.  Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God.  Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult.  You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe because god is a *Baseless assertion and Unfalsifiable?
> 
> Falsifiability* or *refutability* of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called *falsifiable* if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A justification for calling belief knowledge.  A worthless justification.  If you cannot support a claim, then you don't pretend you don't have to support it - you don't make it.
> 
> The reason it can't be falsified is because there is no evidence.  None. Nada. Zip.  In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief.  You are a believer.
Click to expand...

You are a stalker.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If by irrational it is meant the belief is based upon no evidence of any kind, I would agree.  However, if a belief based upon no evidence of any kind is irrational, then that term must be applied to all such beliefs - which would includes Atheism.
> 
> This really has nothing to do with philosophy, it is a realistic examination of facts.  If you want to look at a specific deity, or a specific attribute of a deity, sound arguments can be made about it.  I think we can establish through hard evidence the sun is not Apollo riding his chariot across the sky.  I think we can establish lightning is not Zeus throwing stuff around in a snit.  But in terms of generality, the amount of information available to support either side is equal - zero.  Whether one says there is or there is not, either position is equally irrational.
> 
> Consider a foot race and you are going to bet on the outcome.  There are two racers, called racer a and racer b.  Who the actual racers will be will be determined by drawing their name, at random, from a container with the name of every living human being on the planet.  Who do you think will win, a or b?  There is no way to judge that, so it is a 50/50 proposition.  And in this situation, you at least have some information - which is more than you have regarding the existence of God.  Yet you think you can come to a rational conclusion about the existence of God?  The notion is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of evidence.  Why there is no god
> 
> ev·i·dence
> 
> *1*.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  I have told you before I read your web site.  I've also told you I'm not a Christian.  There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God.  Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God.  Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult.  You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe because god is a *Baseless assertion and Unfalsifiable?
> 
> Falsifiability* or *refutability* of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called *falsifiable* if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A justification for calling belief knowledge.  A worthless justification.  If you cannot support a claim, then you don't pretend you don't have to support it - you don't make it.
> 
> The reason it can't be falsified is because there is no evidence.  None. Nada. Zip.  In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief.  You are a believer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a stalker.
Click to expand...

 
Still can't come up with all of those refutations to my statement that any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, can you?  All of those refutations you claim were made and you can't point to a single one.  So let's call me names instead.  Is that what we are calling rational thought now?


----------



## Truman123

.


----------



## PratchettFan

Truman123 said:


> .View attachment 32942


 
Another bumper sticker.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of evidence.  Why there is no god
> 
> ev·i·dence
> 
> *1*.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  I have told you before I read your web site.  I've also told you I'm not a Christian.  There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God.  Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God.  Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult.  You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe because god is a *Baseless assertion and Unfalsifiable?
> 
> Falsifiability* or *refutability* of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called *falsifiable* if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A justification for calling belief knowledge.  A worthless justification.  If you cannot support a claim, then you don't pretend you don't have to support it - you don't make it.
> 
> The reason it can't be falsified is because there is no evidence.  None. Nada. Zip.  In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief.  You are a believer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a stalker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still can't come up with all of those refutations to my statement that any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, can you?  All of those refutations you claim were made and you can't point to a single one.  So let's call me names instead.  Is that what we are calling rational thought now?
Click to expand...

The refutations to your silly statements have been made throughout this thread. Denial on your part is your own waking nightmare to deal with.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  I have told you before I read your web site.  I've also told you I'm not a Christian.  There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God.  Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God.  Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult.  You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because god is a *Baseless assertion and Unfalsifiable?
> 
> Falsifiability* or *refutability* of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called *falsifiable* if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A justification for calling belief knowledge.  A worthless justification.  If you cannot support a claim, then you don't pretend you don't have to support it - you don't make it.
> 
> The reason it can't be falsified is because there is no evidence.  None. Nada. Zip.  In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief.  You are a believer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a stalker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still can't come up with all of those refutations to my statement that any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, can you?  All of those refutations you claim were made and you can't point to a single one.  So let's call me names instead.  Is that what we are calling rational thought now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The refutations to your silly statements have been made throughout this thread. Denial on your part is your own waking nightmare to deal with.
Click to expand...

 
No.  The refutations, which you can't produce, are in your head.  It is easy enough to prove me wrong, but you won't do it.  You will just continue to make the claim and never produce a shred of evidence to back it up.  This is because there are no refutations.  I kept asking people if they disagreed and the only person who ever actually responded was Sealy, and he did not refute it.

If you want to make the claim that your position is based upon rational examination of the facts, the standards you need to meet are not lower than those who just claim belief, they are higher.  But you seem to think all you need to do is claim something and the rest of us are supposed to just accept it.  You are dreaming.  You are, in fact, just another believer who thinks that is the same thing as knowing.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because god is a *Baseless assertion and Unfalsifiable?
> 
> Falsifiability* or *refutability* of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called *falsifiable* if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A justification for calling belief knowledge.  A worthless justification.  If you cannot support a claim, then you don't pretend you don't have to support it - you don't make it.
> 
> The reason it can't be falsified is because there is no evidence.  None. Nada. Zip.  In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief.  You are a believer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a stalker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still can't come up with all of those refutations to my statement that any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, can you?  All of those refutations you claim were made and you can't point to a single one.  So let's call me names instead.  Is that what we are calling rational thought now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The refutations to your silly statements have been made throughout this thread. Denial on your part is your own waking nightmare to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  The refutations, which you can't produce, are in your head.  It is easy enough to prove me wrong, but you won't do it.  You will just continue to make the claim and never produce a shred of evidence to back it up.  This is because there are no refutations.  I kept asking people if they disagreed and the only person who ever actually responded was Sealy, and he did not refute it.
> 
> If you want to make the claim that your position is based upon rational examination of the facts, the standards you need to meet are not lower than those who just claim belief, they are higher.  But you seem to think all you need to do is claim something and the rest of us are supposed to just accept it.  You are dreaming.  You are, in fact, just another believer who thinks that is the same thing as knowing.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that you're simply cutting and pasting the same tired arguments which have already been refuted any number of times in this thread. 

Repeating your falsehoods won't change their status as falsehoods.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A justification for calling belief knowledge.  A worthless justification.  If you cannot support a claim, then you don't pretend you don't have to support it - you don't make it.
> 
> The reason it can't be falsified is because there is no evidence.  None. Nada. Zip.  In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief.  You are a believer.
> 
> 
> 
> You are a stalker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still can't come up with all of those refutations to my statement that any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, can you?  All of those refutations you claim were made and you can't point to a single one.  So let's call me names instead.  Is that what we are calling rational thought now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The refutations to your silly statements have been made throughout this thread. Denial on your part is your own waking nightmare to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  The refutations, which you can't produce, are in your head.  It is easy enough to prove me wrong, but you won't do it.  You will just continue to make the claim and never produce a shred of evidence to back it up.  This is because there are no refutations.  I kept asking people if they disagreed and the only person who ever actually responded was Sealy, and he did not refute it.
> 
> If you want to make the claim that your position is based upon rational examination of the facts, the standards you need to meet are not lower than those who just claim belief, they are higher.  But you seem to think all you need to do is claim something and the rest of us are supposed to just accept it.  You are dreaming.  You are, in fact, just another believer who thinks that is the same thing as knowing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm afraid that you're simply cutting and pasting the same tired arguments which have already been refuted any number of times in this thread.
> 
> Repeating your falsehoods won't change their status as falsehoods.
Click to expand...

 
As I said, it would be easy to prove me wrong if I was wrong.  But you won't do it.   And you won't admit you won't do it.  You'll just keep repeating the same unsupported claims.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a stalker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still can't come up with all of those refutations to my statement that any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, can you?  All of those refutations you claim were made and you can't point to a single one.  So let's call me names instead.  Is that what we are calling rational thought now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The refutations to your silly statements have been made throughout this thread. Denial on your part is your own waking nightmare to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  The refutations, which you can't produce, are in your head.  It is easy enough to prove me wrong, but you won't do it.  You will just continue to make the claim and never produce a shred of evidence to back it up.  This is because there are no refutations.  I kept asking people if they disagreed and the only person who ever actually responded was Sealy, and he did not refute it.
> 
> If you want to make the claim that your position is based upon rational examination of the facts, the standards you need to meet are not lower than those who just claim belief, they are higher.  But you seem to think all you need to do is claim something and the rest of us are supposed to just accept it.  You are dreaming.  You are, in fact, just another believer who thinks that is the same thing as knowing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm afraid that you're simply cutting and pasting the same tired arguments which have already been refuted any number of times in this thread.
> 
> Repeating your falsehoods won't change their status as falsehoods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, it would be easy to prove me wrong if I was wrong.  But you won't do it.   And you won't admit you won't do it.  You'll just keep repeating the same unsupported claims.
Click to expand...


"As I said".  Actually, there are too many instances to count where you've written that after your last "As I said" wherein your mantra has been addressed and refuted.

You have already been proven wrong. There are now 122 pages in this thread and you're still unwilling to address the repeated times your silly claims have been addressed and refuted.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still can't come up with all of those refutations to my statement that any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief, can you?  All of those refutations you claim were made and you can't point to a single one.  So let's call me names instead.  Is that what we are calling rational thought now?
> 
> 
> 
> The refutations to your silly statements have been made throughout this thread. Denial on your part is your own waking nightmare to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  The refutations, which you can't produce, are in your head.  It is easy enough to prove me wrong, but you won't do it.  You will just continue to make the claim and never produce a shred of evidence to back it up.  This is because there are no refutations.  I kept asking people if they disagreed and the only person who ever actually responded was Sealy, and he did not refute it.
> 
> If you want to make the claim that your position is based upon rational examination of the facts, the standards you need to meet are not lower than those who just claim belief, they are higher.  But you seem to think all you need to do is claim something and the rest of us are supposed to just accept it.  You are dreaming.  You are, in fact, just another believer who thinks that is the same thing as knowing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm afraid that you're simply cutting and pasting the same tired arguments which have already been refuted any number of times in this thread.
> 
> Repeating your falsehoods won't change their status as falsehoods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, it would be easy to prove me wrong if I was wrong.  But you won't do it.   And you won't admit you won't do it.  You'll just keep repeating the same unsupported claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "As I said".  Actually, there are too many instances to count where you've written that after your last "As I said" wherein your mantra has been addressed and refuted.
> 
> You have already been proven wrong. There are now 122 pages in this thread and you're still unwilling to address the repeated times your silly claims have been addressed and refuted.
Click to expand...

 
Bullshit.  But you have a nice day.


----------



## Hollie

PratchettFan said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The refutations to your silly statements have been made throughout this thread. Denial on your part is your own waking nightmare to deal with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The refutations, which you can't produce, are in your head.  It is easy enough to prove me wrong, but you won't do it.  You will just continue to make the claim and never produce a shred of evidence to back it up.  This is because there are no refutations.  I kept asking people if they disagreed and the only person who ever actually responded was Sealy, and he did not refute it.
> 
> If you want to make the claim that your position is based upon rational examination of the facts, the standards you need to meet are not lower than those who just claim belief, they are higher.  But you seem to think all you need to do is claim something and the rest of us are supposed to just accept it.  You are dreaming.  You are, in fact, just another believer who thinks that is the same thing as knowing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm afraid that you're simply cutting and pasting the same tired arguments which have already been refuted any number of times in this thread.
> 
> Repeating your falsehoods won't change their status as falsehoods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, it would be easy to prove me wrong if I was wrong.  But you won't do it.   And you won't admit you won't do it.  You'll just keep repeating the same unsupported claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "As I said".  Actually, there are too many instances to count where you've written that after your last "As I said" wherein your mantra has been addressed and refuted.
> 
> You have already been proven wrong. There are now 122 pages in this thread and you're still unwilling to address the repeated times your silly claims have been addressed and refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  But you have a nice day.
Click to expand...


Don't go away mad....

Just ask the same questions for which you already have answers.

The thread is only 123 pages. Ask away.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The refutations, which you can't produce, are in your head.  It is easy enough to prove me wrong, but you won't do it.  You will just continue to make the claim and never produce a shred of evidence to back it up.  This is because there are no refutations.  I kept asking people if they disagreed and the only person who ever actually responded was Sealy, and he did not refute it.
> 
> If you want to make the claim that your position is based upon rational examination of the facts, the standards you need to meet are not lower than those who just claim belief, they are higher.  But you seem to think all you need to do is claim something and the rest of us are supposed to just accept it.  You are dreaming.  You are, in fact, just another believer who thinks that is the same thing as knowing.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid that you're simply cutting and pasting the same tired arguments which have already been refuted any number of times in this thread.
> 
> Repeating your falsehoods won't change their status as falsehoods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, it would be easy to prove me wrong if I was wrong.  But you won't do it.   And you won't admit you won't do it.  You'll just keep repeating the same unsupported claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "As I said".  Actually, there are too many instances to count where you've written that after your last "As I said" wherein your mantra has been addressed and refuted.
> 
> You have already been proven wrong. There are now 122 pages in this thread and you're still unwilling to address the repeated times your silly claims have been addressed and refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  But you have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't go away mad....
> 
> Just ask the same questions for which you already have answers.
> 
> The thread is only 123 pages. Ask away.
Click to expand...

 
I'm not mad, Hollie.  It's just that sometimes a single word is enough to describe an argument.  Seriously, you have a nice day.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it different?  As different as straight and gay marriage.
> 
> Actually more different.  Polar opposites.  If anything it is anti evalelizing.  Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.
> 
> And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up.  For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time.  First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country.  The last will be the bible belt hold outs.  But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume.  But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000.  We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see.  You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are getting it.  COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No actually one of the biggest problems I had with the Christian story is all non believers wouldn't go to heaven.  I could not imagine every Chinese and Russian and Muslim burning in hell.
> 
> Your Christian religion is the reason Joseph Smith was able to convert so many people away from your traditional "corrupt" churches and go join his cult.  Same thing I'm saying about your religion is the same thing God told Joseph Smith about it.  Why mad at me?
> 
> As for your comments, please explain to me what I'm missing.  How are you the closest thing to an atheist?  Explain what you mean please.  How come the definition isn't important?  You've peaked my interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian.  Unlike you, I have never been a Christian.  I have told you this many times.
> 
> I am the closest thing to an Atheist under the definition that an Atheist is one who lacks beliefs in gods because I really don't give a damn whether or not there is a God.  I fully admit that there is zero evidence to support either side of the issue, so the chances of either being correct is the same - 50/50.  The only way one can actually lack beliefs in gods is if one is entirely neutral on the subject, because any position other than neutrality is a belief.
> 
> The definition is not important because what you are is what you are, not what you say you are.  I can define myself as anything I like, but that does not make me that thing.  I can define Buddhism as the attainment of spiritual perfection, but that does not mean by calling myself a Buddhist that I have attained spiritual perfection.
> 
> If you lack beliefs in gods, it is only true if you actually lack beliefs in gods.  If your only support to that claim is because you define yourself as lacking beliefs, then it is a worthless claim.  If while you are defining yourself as such you continue to make claims which are beliefs, then the claim is false.  It is not the definition which makes you what you are.
Click to expand...



Is that your dogma?


----------



## Carla_Danger

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't a joke?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
> Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RFOLMAO.
> 
> OK, that is out of my system, for now.
> 
> This is the definition you insist is wrong.
> 
> A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.​
> Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?
> 
> In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.
> 
> So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for writing a letter to Webster, they only accept business or advertising letters or someone wishing to add a new word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you know this because...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do most bald people deny the existence of hair?.....
Click to expand...




Only when you discuss their hairdo.


----------



## Treeshepherd

Religion definition 4*:* a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Let's say you have 100% certainty that dark matter exists,because your textbook says so, but like myself you have a pedestrian understanding of physics. Your faith is unshakeable. You acquiesce to a scientific authority (a high priesthood), and agree with scientific consensus (orthodoxy), on a theory that is largely based on speculation. Isn't that a form of religion?

Can't we include politics, tradition, rituals, opinions about sex, family life and dietary practices, holding things and places as sacred, a sense of patriotism, etc. ... could not all of these things be regarded as part of a religion, regardless of whether or not we believe in a god? 

Can't an atheist also be a fundamentalist on a range of issues? 

Buddhism is an agnostic religion, compatible with atheism. Those who disagree will call Buddhism a philosophy, but it's all just semantics.

The only thing that is not semantics is the unequivocal dangers of Ebola and Global Warmaggeddeon!


----------



## Abishai100

*Assessing Hysteria?*

If we take a look at the more sentimental or radical or fundamental sides of Islam, we find over-zealous fervor towards political upheaval, and if we take a look at the more dramatic of over-imaginative sides of Christianity, we find strange and eerie imagery of sinful women riding on malicious beasts and dragons.

Atheists often claim that their philosophy can be construed as a religion, since it offers more moderate and hence 'balanced' attitudes towards eternity, emotion, and evil.  However, challenging established religion does not necessarily establish the critic as a religion scholar or 'priest.'

Maybe Atheism, like Nihilism and Primalism, offers the thinker a clearer way to regularly conceptualize 'generalized hysteria.'









The Ninth Gate - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Treeshepherd

Abishai100 said:


> *Assessing Hysteria?*
> 
> Atheists often claim that their philosophy can be construed as a religion, since it offers more moderate and hence 'balanced' attitudes towards eternity, emotion, and evil.
> 
> View attachment 32995



Not following that. Atheists almost always claim that their cosmology cannot be defined as religion.


----------



## PratchettFan

Carla_Danger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see.  You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are getting it.  COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it before.  Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.  You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe.  I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian.  So yes, I got it.  You are still wrong.
> 
> If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist.  In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist.  You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma.  You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No actually one of the biggest problems I had with the Christian story is all non believers wouldn't go to heaven.  I could not imagine every Chinese and Russian and Muslim burning in hell.
> 
> Your Christian religion is the reason Joseph Smith was able to convert so many people away from your traditional "corrupt" churches and go join his cult.  Same thing I'm saying about your religion is the same thing God told Joseph Smith about it.  Why mad at me?
> 
> As for your comments, please explain to me what I'm missing.  How are you the closest thing to an atheist?  Explain what you mean please.  How come the definition isn't important?  You've peaked my interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian.  Unlike you, I have never been a Christian.  I have told you this many times.
> 
> I am the closest thing to an Atheist under the definition that an Atheist is one who lacks beliefs in gods because I really don't give a damn whether or not there is a God.  I fully admit that there is zero evidence to support either side of the issue, so the chances of either being correct is the same - 50/50.  The only way one can actually lack beliefs in gods is if one is entirely neutral on the subject, because any position other than neutrality is a belief.
> 
> The definition is not important because what you are is what you are, not what you say you are.  I can define myself as anything I like, but that does not make me that thing.  I can define Buddhism as the attainment of spiritual perfection, but that does not mean by calling myself a Buddhist that I have attained spiritual perfection.
> 
> If you lack beliefs in gods, it is only true if you actually lack beliefs in gods.  If your only support to that claim is because you define yourself as lacking beliefs, then it is a worthless claim.  If while you are defining yourself as such you continue to make claims which are beliefs, then the claim is false.  It is not the definition which makes you what you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is that your dogma?
Click to expand...


Which part of that do you disagree with and why?  Be specific.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Carla_Danger said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't a joke?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
> Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RFOLMAO.
> 
> OK, that is out of my system, for now.
> 
> This is the definition you insist is wrong.
> 
> A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.​
> Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?
> 
> In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.
> 
> So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for writing a letter to Webster, they only accept business or advertising letters or someone wishing to add a new word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you know this because...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do most bald people deny the existence of hair?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only when you discuss their hairdo.
Click to expand...

preach it, Sister Carla, preach it!......


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Why there is no god
> 
> 
> 
> why there is no reason to waste your time going to that silly web site......there are no proofs there.....there is no evidence there......there isn't even logic there......nothing but boldfaced statements similar to the drivel you post here every day......nothing at all to back them up......
> 
> I mean look at it.....
> "There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god."......this is your proof there is no God?.......I can say exactly the same thing about the claim there is no God.......oh, gosh, which one of us wins?.....
Click to expand...


As long as you realize "There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god."


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smith defines _implicit atheism_ as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists)
> 
> vs me:
> 
> Smith observes that some motivations for explicit atheism are rational and some not. Of the rational motivations, he says:
> 
> The most significant variety of atheism is explicit atheism of a philosophical nature. This atheism contends that the belief in god is irrational and should therefore be rejected. Since this version of explicit atheism rests on a criticism of theistic beliefs, it is best described as _critical atheism_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If by irrational it is meant the belief is based upon no evidence of any kind, I would agree.  However, if a belief based upon no evidence of any kind is irrational, then that term must be applied to all such beliefs - which would includes Atheism.
> 
> This really has nothing to do with philosophy, it is a realistic examination of facts.  If you want to look at a specific deity, or a specific attribute of a deity, sound arguments can be made about it.  I think we can establish through hard evidence the sun is not Apollo riding his chariot across the sky.  I think we can establish lightning is not Zeus throwing stuff around in a snit.  But in terms of generality, the amount of information available to support either side is equal - zero.  Whether one says there is or there is not, either position is equally irrational.
> 
> Consider a foot race and you are going to bet on the outcome.  There are two racers, called racer a and racer b.  Who the actual racers will be will be determined by drawing their name, at random, from a container with the name of every living human being on the planet.  Who do you think will win, a or b?  There is no way to judge that, so it is a 50/50 proposition.  And in this situation, you at least have some information - which is more than you have regarding the existence of God.  Yet you think you can come to a rational conclusion about the existence of God?  The notion is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of evidence.  Why there is no god
> 
> ev·i·dence
> 
> *1*.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  I have told you before I read your web site.  I've also told you I'm not a Christian.  There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God.  Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God.  Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult.  You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe because god is a *Baseless assertion and Unfalsifiable?
> 
> Falsifiability* or *refutability* of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called *falsifiable* if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A justification for calling belief knowledge.  A worthless justification.  If you cannot support a claim, then you don't pretend you don't have to support it - you don't make it.
> 
> The reason it can't be falsified is because there is no evidence.  None. Nada. Zip.  In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief.  You are a believer.
Click to expand...


You are just stupid and stubborn.  Whatever you want to think.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't even say 100% sure that there were no talking snakes or 350 year old men so I guess I can't even be a true atheist about Jesus Mo or Jo.  I wasn't there.
> 
> But then again I'd have to see that shit to believe it so I'm as close to 100% as you can get.  Is that what we are arguing over?  Less than 1%?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that you are a believer has been established.  Your willingness to concede there is a 1% chance your belief is wrong does not make it any less a belief.  What we are arguing over is this unquestioned adherence to a definition and the insistence that the definition creates reality.  This is the essence of dogma and dogma is one of the attributes of religion.
> 
> The definition given is that Atheists lack beliefs in gods.  You clearly don't lack beliefs but you go back and forth on admitting this because it conflicts with the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> It is said Atheists don't evangelize.  You have admitted you do exactly that, but you deny it is evangelizing (though you agree you are doing exactly what evangelists do) because you are an Atheist and Atheists don't evangelize.  Dogma.
> 
> Atheism as the belief there is no God (and you can only arrive at that conclusion via belief) is not religion.  It's just a belief and as valid as any other belief.  It is this dogmatic approach that an Atheist's beliefs aren't beliefs because Atheists lack beliefs that takes what is just a belief and transforms it into religion.  Now you are setting up standards that "this is what an Atheist is" and "they are doing Atheism wrong", and that is nothing but dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously nothing more than a throwaway, unproveable comment.....there is no valid way to quantify either.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  What odds do you give god?  50 50 odds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ????.....100/100......the chance that the universe we have is the result of random shit happening randomly?......0
Click to expand...


The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument, is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?

It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.

The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the ’cause’ could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see?  To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself.  So even most atheists admit that.  But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.
> 
> So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right?  So tell that bitch to shut the hell up.  As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.
> 
> I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong.  Wouldn't that be cool?  We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no hell.  There is no Christian God.  I'm 100% certain of that.  Not a shred of doubt in my mind.  Why is there doubt in yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Smith defines _implicit atheism_ as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists)
> 
> vs me:
> 
> Smith observes that some motivations for explicit atheism are rational and some not. Of the rational motivations, he says:
> 
> The most significant variety of atheism is explicit atheism of a philosophical nature. This atheism contends that the belief in god is irrational and should therefore be rejected. Since this version of explicit atheism rests on a criticism of theistic beliefs, it is best described as _critical atheism_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If by irrational it is meant the belief is based upon no evidence of any kind, I would agree.  However, if a belief based upon no evidence of any kind is irrational, then that term must be applied to all such beliefs - which would includes Atheism.
> 
> This really has nothing to do with philosophy, it is a realistic examination of facts.  If you want to look at a specific deity, or a specific attribute of a deity, sound arguments can be made about it.  I think we can establish through hard evidence the sun is not Apollo riding his chariot across the sky.  I think we can establish lightning is not Zeus throwing stuff around in a snit.  But in terms of generality, the amount of information available to support either side is equal - zero.  Whether one says there is or there is not, either position is equally irrational.
> 
> Consider a foot race and you are going to bet on the outcome.  There are two racers, called racer a and racer b.  Who the actual racers will be will be determined by drawing their name, at random, from a container with the name of every living human being on the planet.  Who do you think will win, a or b?  There is no way to judge that, so it is a 50/50 proposition.  And in this situation, you at least have some information - which is more than you have regarding the existence of God.  Yet you think you can come to a rational conclusion about the existence of God?  The notion is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of evidence.  Why there is no god
> 
> ev·i·dence
> 
> *1*.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  I have told you before I read your web site.  I've also told you I'm not a Christian.  There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God.  Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God.  Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult.  You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.
Click to expand...


So if the bible god is completely made up, what makes you think any god(s) are real?  Why can't you see that before Christianity was made up, god himself was made up?


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't a joke?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
> Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RFOLMAO.
> 
> OK, that is out of my system, for now.
> 
> This is the definition you insist is wrong.
> 
> A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.​
> Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?
> 
> In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.
> 
> So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for writing a letter to Webster, they only accept business or advertising letters or someone wishing to add a new word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you know this because...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do most bald people deny the existence of hair?.....
Click to expand...


Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If by irrational it is meant the belief is based upon no evidence of any kind, I would agree.  However, if a belief based upon no evidence of any kind is irrational, then that term must be applied to all such beliefs - which would includes Atheism.
> 
> This really has nothing to do with philosophy, it is a realistic examination of facts.  If you want to look at a specific deity, or a specific attribute of a deity, sound arguments can be made about it.  I think we can establish through hard evidence the sun is not Apollo riding his chariot across the sky.  I think we can establish lightning is not Zeus throwing stuff around in a snit.  But in terms of generality, the amount of information available to support either side is equal - zero.  Whether one says there is or there is not, either position is equally irrational.
> 
> Consider a foot race and you are going to bet on the outcome.  There are two racers, called racer a and racer b.  Who the actual racers will be will be determined by drawing their name, at random, from a container with the name of every living human being on the planet.  Who do you think will win, a or b?  There is no way to judge that, so it is a 50/50 proposition.  And in this situation, you at least have some information - which is more than you have regarding the existence of God.  Yet you think you can come to a rational conclusion about the existence of God?  The notion is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of evidence.  Why there is no god
> 
> ev·i·dence
> 
> *1*.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  I have told you before I read your web site.  I've also told you I'm not a Christian.  There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God.  Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God.  Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult.  You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe because god is a *Baseless assertion and Unfalsifiable?
> 
> Falsifiability* or *refutability* of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called *falsifiable* if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A justification for calling belief knowledge.  A worthless justification.  If you cannot support a claim, then you don't pretend you don't have to support it - you don't make it.
> 
> The reason it can't be falsified is because there is no evidence.  None. Nada. Zip.  In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief.  You are a believer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just stupid and stubborn.  Whatever you want to think.
Click to expand...


An ad hominem is not a replacement for evidence or reason.  Your conclusions are entirely unsupported by anything except belief. Whatever you want to think.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't a joke?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
> Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RFOLMAO.
> 
> OK, that is out of my system, for now.
> 
> This is the definition you insist is wrong.
> 
> A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.​
> Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?
> 
> In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.
> 
> So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for writing a letter to Webster, they only accept business or advertising letters or someone wishing to add a new word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you know this because...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do most bald people deny the existence of hair?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
Click to expand...


Bumper stickers.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no hell.  There is no Christian God.  I'm 100% certain of that.  Not a shred of doubt in my mind.  Why is there doubt in yours?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smith defines _implicit atheism_ as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists)
> 
> vs me:
> 
> Smith observes that some motivations for explicit atheism are rational and some not. Of the rational motivations, he says:
> 
> The most significant variety of atheism is explicit atheism of a philosophical nature. This atheism contends that the belief in god is irrational and should therefore be rejected. Since this version of explicit atheism rests on a criticism of theistic beliefs, it is best described as _critical atheism_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If by irrational it is meant the belief is based upon no evidence of any kind, I would agree.  However, if a belief based upon no evidence of any kind is irrational, then that term must be applied to all such beliefs - which would includes Atheism.
> 
> This really has nothing to do with philosophy, it is a realistic examination of facts.  If you want to look at a specific deity, or a specific attribute of a deity, sound arguments can be made about it.  I think we can establish through hard evidence the sun is not Apollo riding his chariot across the sky.  I think we can establish lightning is not Zeus throwing stuff around in a snit.  But in terms of generality, the amount of information available to support either side is equal - zero.  Whether one says there is or there is not, either position is equally irrational.
> 
> Consider a foot race and you are going to bet on the outcome.  There are two racers, called racer a and racer b.  Who the actual racers will be will be determined by drawing their name, at random, from a container with the name of every living human being on the planet.  Who do you think will win, a or b?  There is no way to judge that, so it is a 50/50 proposition.  And in this situation, you at least have some information - which is more than you have regarding the existence of God.  Yet you think you can come to a rational conclusion about the existence of God?  The notion is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of evidence.  Why there is no god
> 
> ev·i·dence
> 
> *1*.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  I have told you before I read your web site.  I've also told you I'm not a Christian.  There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God.  Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God.  Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult.  You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the bible god is completely made up, what makes you think any god(s) are real?  Why can't you see that before Christianity was made up, god himself was made up?
Click to expand...


I just feel that there is.  Nothing more than that, just a feeling.  Since there is no evidence to support either side, I'll go with what feels right. I don't claim this is knowledge, just belief.  I also think all attempts on the part of humans to define God are our own inventions, including yours.

I would ask you how you know god was made up but we both know you have nothing to back that up.  You just believe it.  I have no objection to your believing it.  I do object to someone who has nothing but belief claiming it is more than just belief.  If you want to claim your position is based upon evidence and reason, then you must produce both. If you say you just believe it, then the discussion is over.  You need provide no support for a belief.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of evidence.  Why there is no god
> 
> ev·i·dence
> 
> *1*.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  I have told you before I read your web site.  I've also told you I'm not a Christian.  There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God.  Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God.  Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult.  You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe because god is a *Baseless assertion and Unfalsifiable?
> 
> Falsifiability* or *refutability* of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called *falsifiable* if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A justification for calling belief knowledge.  A worthless justification.  If you cannot support a claim, then you don't pretend you don't have to support it - you don't make it.
> 
> The reason it can't be falsified is because there is no evidence.  None. Nada. Zip.  In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief.  You are a believer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just stupid and stubborn.  Whatever you want to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An ad hominem is not a replacement for evidence or reason.  Your conclusions are entirely unsupported by anything except belief. Whatever you want to think.
Click to expand...


noun: *evidence
1*.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

We've given you plenty of evidence that god doesn't exist.  First we shown you tons of evidence the Mo, Jo & Jesus god(s) don't exist and we even exposed generic god as being a fraud.

Put it this way.  If you believe in generic god, and you don't believe that god ever visited earth and talked to Mo, Joe & Jesus, then you are saying that ancient/primitive/superstitious/uneducated/unevolved man 400,000 years ago were right when they invented him.  

Chances are though they made him up and he does not actually exist but feel free to remain in the stone age.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  I have told you before I read your web site.  I've also told you I'm not a Christian.  There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God.  Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God.  Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult.  You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because god is a *Baseless assertion and Unfalsifiable?
> 
> Falsifiability* or *refutability* of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called *falsifiable* if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A justification for calling belief knowledge.  A worthless justification.  If you cannot support a claim, then you don't pretend you don't have to support it - you don't make it.
> 
> The reason it can't be falsified is because there is no evidence.  None. Nada. Zip.  In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief.  You are a believer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just stupid and stubborn.  Whatever you want to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An ad hominem is not a replacement for evidence or reason.  Your conclusions are entirely unsupported by anything except belief. Whatever you want to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> noun: *evidence
> 1*.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
> 
> We've given you plenty of evidence that god doesn't exist.  First we shown you tons of evidence the Mo, Jo & Jesus god(s) don't exist and we even exposed generic god as being a fraud.
> 
> Put it this way.  If you believe in generic god, and you don't believe that god ever visited earth and talked to Mo, Joe & Jesus, then you are saying that ancient/primitive/superstitious/uneducated/unevolved man 400,000 years ago were right when they invented him.
> 
> Chances are though they made him up and he does not actually exist but feel free to remain in the stone age.
Click to expand...


You have provided no evidence at all.  Not a shred.  I know you keep saying you have, but that simply is not true.  What you have provided is one unsupported claim after another.  You have provided web sites which are dedicated to disagreeing with Christianity and they provide not one shred of evidence.  You have not even defined what it is you say does not exist, other than an insistence that Christianity (though completely wrong) is the only possible option.  You have not shown what evidence would be required to show God does exist so you can show it doesn't by the absence of that evidence. 

Yours is a position based entirely upon belief.  No different than someone who concludes there is a God.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smith defines _implicit atheism_ as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists)
> 
> vs me:
> 
> Smith observes that some motivations for explicit atheism are rational and some not. Of the rational motivations, he says:
> 
> The most significant variety of atheism is explicit atheism of a philosophical nature. This atheism contends that the belief in god is irrational and should therefore be rejected. Since this version of explicit atheism rests on a criticism of theistic beliefs, it is best described as _critical atheism_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If by irrational it is meant the belief is based upon no evidence of any kind, I would agree.  However, if a belief based upon no evidence of any kind is irrational, then that term must be applied to all such beliefs - which would includes Atheism.
> 
> This really has nothing to do with philosophy, it is a realistic examination of facts.  If you want to look at a specific deity, or a specific attribute of a deity, sound arguments can be made about it.  I think we can establish through hard evidence the sun is not Apollo riding his chariot across the sky.  I think we can establish lightning is not Zeus throwing stuff around in a snit.  But in terms of generality, the amount of information available to support either side is equal - zero.  Whether one says there is or there is not, either position is equally irrational.
> 
> Consider a foot race and you are going to bet on the outcome.  There are two racers, called racer a and racer b.  Who the actual racers will be will be determined by drawing their name, at random, from a container with the name of every living human being on the planet.  Who do you think will win, a or b?  There is no way to judge that, so it is a 50/50 proposition.  And in this situation, you at least have some information - which is more than you have regarding the existence of God.  Yet you think you can come to a rational conclusion about the existence of God?  The notion is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of evidence.  Why there is no god
> 
> ev·i·dence
> 
> *1*.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  I have told you before I read your web site.  I've also told you I'm not a Christian.  There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God.  Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God.  Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult.  You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the bible god is completely made up, what makes you think any god(s) are real?  Why can't you see that before Christianity was made up, god himself was made up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just feel that there is.  Nothing more than that, just a feeling.  Since there is no evidence to support either side, I'll go with what feels right. I don't claim this is knowledge, just belief.  I also think all attempts on the part of humans to define God are our own inventions, including yours.
> 
> I would ask you how you know god was made up but we both know you have nothing to back that up.  You just believe it.  I have no objection to your believing it.  I do object to someone who has nothing but belief claiming it is more than just belief.  If you want to claim your position is based upon evidence and reason, then you must produce both. If you say you just believe it, then the discussion is over.  You need provide no support for a belief.
Click to expand...


I don't "just believe it".  I have looked at all the evidence and it makes sense.  

It is you who rejects logic and goes with "your feeling", not me.  Just like you, I would love for their to be a god.  I'm just able to look beyond what I want and look at it rationally.  

And I too for a long time, even though I doubted organized religions, chose to believe in god.  I hadn't given it enough thought yet at the time to decide there is no god.  And when I "wasn't sure" of course like you I chose to believe in a generic god.  Then I realized if all organized religions are made up, so too is god probably.  Now Boss has given me a lot of reasons why he believes in a god but not organized religions but I believe his reasons are bad too.  He thinks just because humans have always believed in god(s) that this is proof god exists.  I disagree.  I think our primitive ancestors originally made up the concept and later the concept was organized into religion(s).   

_“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”_ – Carl Sagan


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because god is a *Baseless assertion and Unfalsifiable?
> 
> Falsifiability* or *refutability* of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called *falsifiable* if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A justification for calling belief knowledge.  A worthless justification.  If you cannot support a claim, then you don't pretend you don't have to support it - you don't make it.
> 
> The reason it can't be falsified is because there is no evidence.  None. Nada. Zip.  In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief.  You are a believer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just stupid and stubborn.  Whatever you want to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An ad hominem is not a replacement for evidence or reason.  Your conclusions are entirely unsupported by anything except belief. Whatever you want to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> noun: *evidence
> 1*.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
> 
> We've given you plenty of evidence that god doesn't exist.  First we shown you tons of evidence the Mo, Jo & Jesus god(s) don't exist and we even exposed generic god as being a fraud.
> 
> Put it this way.  If you believe in generic god, and you don't believe that god ever visited earth and talked to Mo, Joe & Jesus, then you are saying that ancient/primitive/superstitious/uneducated/unevolved man 400,000 years ago were right when they invented him.
> 
> Chances are though they made him up and he does not actually exist but feel free to remain in the stone age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have provided no evidence at all.  Not a shred.  I know you keep saying you have, but that simply is not true.  What you have provided is one unsupported claim after another.  You have provided web sites which are dedicated to disagreeing with Christianity and they provide not one shred of evidence.  You have not even defined what it is you say does not exist, other than an insistence that Christianity (though completely wrong) is the only possible option.  You have not shown what evidence would be required to show God does exist so you can show it doesn't by the absence of that evidence.
> 
> Yours is a position based entirely upon belief.  No different than someone who concludes there is a God.
Click to expand...


That site debunks every religion not just Christianity.  

In reply to your insisting that I have not provided.....piss off.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A justification for calling belief knowledge.  A worthless justification.  If you cannot support a claim, then you don't pretend you don't have to support it - you don't make it.
> 
> The reason it can't be falsified is because there is no evidence.  None. Nada. Zip.  In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief.  You are a believer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just stupid and stubborn.  Whatever you want to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An ad hominem is not a replacement for evidence or reason.  Your conclusions are entirely unsupported by anything except belief. Whatever you want to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> noun: *evidence
> 1*.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
> 
> We've given you plenty of evidence that god doesn't exist.  First we shown you tons of evidence the Mo, Jo & Jesus god(s) don't exist and we even exposed generic god as being a fraud.
> 
> Put it this way.  If you believe in generic god, and you don't believe that god ever visited earth and talked to Mo, Joe & Jesus, then you are saying that ancient/primitive/superstitious/uneducated/unevolved man 400,000 years ago were right when they invented him.
> 
> Chances are though they made him up and he does not actually exist but feel free to remain in the stone age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have provided no evidence at all.  Not a shred.  I know you keep saying you have, but that simply is not true.  What you have provided is one unsupported claim after another.  You have provided web sites which are dedicated to disagreeing with Christianity and they provide not one shred of evidence.  You have not even defined what it is you say does not exist, other than an insistence that Christianity (though completely wrong) is the only possible option.  You have not shown what evidence would be required to show God does exist so you can show it doesn't by the absence of that evidence.
> 
> Yours is a position based entirely upon belief.  No different than someone who concludes there is a God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That site debunks every religion not just Christianity.
> 
> In reply to your insisting that I have not provided.....piss off.
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't.  Not even a little bit.  And you haven't, not even a little bit.  Sorry if I'm not willing to be converted.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If by irrational it is meant the belief is based upon no evidence of any kind, I would agree.  However, if a belief based upon no evidence of any kind is irrational, then that term must be applied to all such beliefs - which would includes Atheism.
> 
> This really has nothing to do with philosophy, it is a realistic examination of facts.  If you want to look at a specific deity, or a specific attribute of a deity, sound arguments can be made about it.  I think we can establish through hard evidence the sun is not Apollo riding his chariot across the sky.  I think we can establish lightning is not Zeus throwing stuff around in a snit.  But in terms of generality, the amount of information available to support either side is equal - zero.  Whether one says there is or there is not, either position is equally irrational.
> 
> Consider a foot race and you are going to bet on the outcome.  There are two racers, called racer a and racer b.  Who the actual racers will be will be determined by drawing their name, at random, from a container with the name of every living human being on the planet.  Who do you think will win, a or b?  There is no way to judge that, so it is a 50/50 proposition.  And in this situation, you at least have some information - which is more than you have regarding the existence of God.  Yet you think you can come to a rational conclusion about the existence of God?  The notion is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of evidence.  Why there is no god
> 
> ev·i·dence
> 
> *1*.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  I have told you before I read your web site.  I've also told you I'm not a Christian.  There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God.  Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God.  Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult.  You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the bible god is completely made up, what makes you think any god(s) are real?  Why can't you see that before Christianity was made up, god himself was made up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just feel that there is.  Nothing more than that, just a feeling.  Since there is no evidence to support either side, I'll go with what feels right. I don't claim this is knowledge, just belief.  I also think all attempts on the part of humans to define God are our own inventions, including yours.
> 
> I would ask you how you know god was made up but we both know you have nothing to back that up.  You just believe it.  I have no objection to your believing it.  I do object to someone who has nothing but belief claiming it is more than just belief.  If you want to claim your position is based upon evidence and reason, then you must produce both. If you say you just believe it, then the discussion is over.  You need provide no support for a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't "just believe it".  I have looked at all the evidence and it makes sense.
> 
> It is you who rejects logic and goes with "your feeling", not me.  Just like you, I would love for their to be a god.  I'm just able to look beyond what I want and look at it rationally.
> 
> And I too for a long time, even though I doubted organized religions, chose to believe in god.  I hadn't given it enough thought yet at the time to decide there is no god.  And when I "wasn't sure" of course like you I chose to believe in a generic god.  Then I realized if all organized religions are made up, so too is god probably.  Now Boss has given me a lot of reasons why he believes in a god but not organized religions but I believe his reasons are bad too.  He thinks just because humans have always believed in god(s) that this is proof god exists.  I disagree.  I think our primitive ancestors originally made up the concept and later the concept was organized into religion(s).
> 
> _“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”_ – Carl Sagan
Click to expand...


I will make this very easy.  You talk about "all the evidence".  Give me just one piece of hard, objective and relevant evidence.  Just one.  That's all I'm asking for.  Not a web site, not an argument, not a quote, not a bumper sticker quip....  evidence.  It has to be relevant...  you can't just point to a rock and say "there it is".  You have to be able to show it is evidence there is no God. 

You can either produce it or you can't.  I'll wait.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Why there is no god
> 
> 
> 
> why there is no reason to waste your time going to that silly web site......there are no proofs there.....there is no evidence there......there isn't even logic there......nothing but boldfaced statements similar to the drivel you post here every day......nothing at all to back them up......
> 
> I mean look at it.....
> "There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god."......this is your proof there is no God?.......I can say exactly the same thing about the claim there is no God.......oh, gosh, which one of us wins?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as you realize "There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god."
Click to expand...

so do I have to care that you reject what I accept?.......


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that you are a believer has been established.  Your willingness to concede there is a 1% chance your belief is wrong does not make it any less a belief.  What we are arguing over is this unquestioned adherence to a definition and the insistence that the definition creates reality.  This is the essence of dogma and dogma is one of the attributes of religion.
> 
> The definition given is that Atheists lack beliefs in gods.  You clearly don't lack beliefs but you go back and forth on admitting this because it conflicts with the definition.  Dogma.
> 
> It is said Atheists don't evangelize.  You have admitted you do exactly that, but you deny it is evangelizing (though you agree you are doing exactly what evangelists do) because you are an Atheist and Atheists don't evangelize.  Dogma.
> 
> Atheism as the belief there is no God (and you can only arrive at that conclusion via belief) is not religion.  It's just a belief and as valid as any other belief.  It is this dogmatic approach that an Atheist's beliefs aren't beliefs because Atheists lack beliefs that takes what is just a belief and transforms it into religion.  Now you are setting up standards that "this is what an Atheist is" and "they are doing Atheism wrong", and that is nothing but dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously nothing more than a throwaway, unproveable comment.....there is no valid way to quantify either.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  What odds do you give god?  50 50 odds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ????.....100/100......the chance that the universe we have is the result of random shit happening randomly?......0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument, is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?
Click to expand...

/shrugs....foolish questions remain foolish questions......nobody had to create God......only a god could be a 'cause'.......if you wish to choose another god as the 'cause' feel free...the world is your oyster......the universe can't be causeless because it had a beginning......what other explanations do you suggest?.....shit happening randomly?......


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.


or calling meaningless memes an argument?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If by irrational it is meant the belief is based upon no evidence of any kind, I would agree.  However, if a belief based upon no evidence of any kind is irrational, then that term must be applied to all such beliefs - which would includes Atheism.
> 
> This really has nothing to do with philosophy, it is a realistic examination of facts.  If you want to look at a specific deity, or a specific attribute of a deity, sound arguments can be made about it.  I think we can establish through hard evidence the sun is not Apollo riding his chariot across the sky.  I think we can establish lightning is not Zeus throwing stuff around in a snit.  But in terms of generality, the amount of information available to support either side is equal - zero.  Whether one says there is or there is not, either position is equally irrational.
> 
> Consider a foot race and you are going to bet on the outcome.  There are two racers, called racer a and racer b.  Who the actual racers will be will be determined by drawing their name, at random, from a container with the name of every living human being on the planet.  Who do you think will win, a or b?  There is no way to judge that, so it is a 50/50 proposition.  And in this situation, you at least have some information - which is more than you have regarding the existence of God.  Yet you think you can come to a rational conclusion about the existence of God?  The notion is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of evidence.  Why there is no god
> 
> ev·i·dence
> 
> *1*.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  I have told you before I read your web site.  I've also told you I'm not a Christian.  There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God.  Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God.  Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult.  You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the bible god is completely made up, what makes you think any god(s) are real?  Why can't you see that before Christianity was made up, god himself was made up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just feel that there is.  Nothing more than that, just a feeling.  Since there is no evidence to support either side, I'll go with what feels right. I don't claim this is knowledge, just belief.  I also think all attempts on the part of humans to define God are our own inventions, including yours.
> 
> I would ask you how you know god was made up but we both know you have nothing to back that up.  You just believe it.  I have no objection to your believing it.  I do object to someone who has nothing but belief claiming it is more than just belief.  If you want to claim your position is based upon evidence and reason, then you must produce both. If you say you just believe it, then the discussion is over.  You need provide no support for a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't "just believe it".  I have looked at all the evidence and it makes sense.
Click to expand...

this is why I have to consider atheists to be irrational.......half a dozen posts ago you agreed there was no evidence either way......


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A justification for calling belief knowledge.  A worthless justification.  If you cannot support a claim, then you don't pretend you don't have to support it - you don't make it.
> 
> The reason it can't be falsified is because there is no evidence.  None. Nada. Zip.  In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief.  You are a believer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just stupid and stubborn.  Whatever you want to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An ad hominem is not a replacement for evidence or reason.  Your conclusions are entirely unsupported by anything except belief. Whatever you want to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> noun: *evidence
> 1*.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
> 
> We've given you plenty of evidence that god doesn't exist.  First we shown you tons of evidence the Mo, Jo & Jesus god(s) don't exist and we even exposed generic god as being a fraud.
> 
> Put it this way.  If you believe in generic god, and you don't believe that god ever visited earth and talked to Mo, Joe & Jesus, then you are saying that ancient/primitive/superstitious/uneducated/unevolved man 400,000 years ago were right when they invented him.
> 
> Chances are though they made him up and he does not actually exist but feel free to remain in the stone age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have provided no evidence at all.  Not a shred.  I know you keep saying you have, but that simply is not true.  What you have provided is one unsupported claim after another.  You have provided web sites which are dedicated to disagreeing with Christianity and they provide not one shred of evidence.  You have not even defined what it is you say does not exist, other than an insistence that Christianity (though completely wrong) is the only possible option.  You have not shown what evidence would be required to show God does exist so you can show it doesn't by the absence of that evidence.
> 
> Yours is a position based entirely upon belief.  No different than someone who concludes there is a God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That site debunks every religion not just Christianity.
> 
> In reply to your insisting that I have not provided.....piss off.
Click to expand...

it doesn't debunk anything.....it just gives you a list of atheist memes to copy and paste......


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of evidence.  Why there is no god
> 
> ev·i·dence
> 
> *1*.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  I have told you before I read your web site.  I've also told you I'm not a Christian.  There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God.  Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God.  Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult.  You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the bible god is completely made up, what makes you think any god(s) are real?  Why can't you see that before Christianity was made up, god himself was made up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just feel that there is.  Nothing more than that, just a feeling.  Since there is no evidence to support either side, I'll go with what feels right. I don't claim this is knowledge, just belief.  I also think all attempts on the part of humans to define God are our own inventions, including yours.
> 
> I would ask you how you know god was made up but we both know you have nothing to back that up.  You just believe it.  I have no objection to your believing it.  I do object to someone who has nothing but belief claiming it is more than just belief.  If you want to claim your position is based upon evidence and reason, then you must produce both. If you say you just believe it, then the discussion is over.  You need provide no support for a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't "just believe it".  I have looked at all the evidence and it makes sense.
> 
> It is you who rejects logic and goes with "your feeling", not me.  Just like you, I would love for their to be a god.  I'm just able to look beyond what I want and look at it rationally.
> 
> And I too for a long time, even though I doubted organized religions, chose to believe in god.  I hadn't given it enough thought yet at the time to decide there is no god.  And when I "wasn't sure" of course like you I chose to believe in a generic god.  Then I realized if all organized religions are made up, so too is god probably.  Now Boss has given me a lot of reasons why he believes in a god but not organized religions but I believe his reasons are bad too.  He thinks just because humans have always believed in god(s) that this is proof god exists.  I disagree.  I think our primitive ancestors originally made up the concept and later the concept was organized into religion(s).
> 
> _“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”_ – Carl Sagan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will make this very easy.  You talk about "all the evidence".  Give me just one piece of hard, objective and relevant evidence.  Just one.  That's all I'm asking for.  Not a web site, not an argument, not a quote, not a bumper sticker quip....  evidence.  It has to be relevant...  you can't just point to a rock and say "there it is".  You have to be able to show it is evidence there is no God.
> 
> You can either produce it or you can't.  I'll wait.
Click to expand...


I already have and you just keep going in circles.  It's like trying to play with a dog


PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just stupid and stubborn.  Whatever you want to think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An ad hominem is not a replacement for evidence or reason.  Your conclusions are entirely unsupported by anything except belief. Whatever you want to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> noun: *evidence
> 1*.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
> 
> We've given you plenty of evidence that god doesn't exist.  First we shown you tons of evidence the Mo, Jo & Jesus god(s) don't exist and we even exposed generic god as being a fraud.
> 
> Put it this way.  If you believe in generic god, and you don't believe that god ever visited earth and talked to Mo, Joe & Jesus, then you are saying that ancient/primitive/superstitious/uneducated/unevolved man 400,000 years ago were right when they invented him.
> 
> Chances are though they made him up and he does not actually exist but feel free to remain in the stone age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have provided no evidence at all.  Not a shred.  I know you keep saying you have, but that simply is not true.  What you have provided is one unsupported claim after another.  You have provided web sites which are dedicated to disagreeing with Christianity and they provide not one shred of evidence.  You have not even defined what it is you say does not exist, other than an insistence that Christianity (though completely wrong) is the only possible option.  You have not shown what evidence would be required to show God does exist so you can show it doesn't by the absence of that evidence.
> 
> Yours is a position based entirely upon belief.  No different than someone who concludes there is a God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That site debunks every religion not just Christianity.
> 
> In reply to your insisting that I have not provided.....piss off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Not even a little bit.  And you haven't, not even a little bit.  Sorry if I'm not willing to be converted.
Click to expand...


You sound just like my uneducated dad, god love him.  LOL.

I try to explain to him all the reasons there "probably" is no god and he just won't listen.  He's not listening or hearing me.  Close minded.  

I say, "but dad science says" and he says, "then science is stupid if they think that".

What are his reasons?  Because he can't believe or imagine all this happened by itself.  That's it.  That's all you and he have.  That's exactly what our primitive uneducated ancestors thought too.  It is why it is so easy to con people into believing and why the majority of the people on this planet believe in that shit.  Its irrational but we all understand why people believe.    

I'll go with science and logic.  You go with what your heart/feelings/emotions tell you.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of evidence.  Why there is no god
> 
> ev·i·dence
> 
> *1*.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  I have told you before I read your web site.  I've also told you I'm not a Christian.  There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God.  Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God.  Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult.  You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the bible god is completely made up, what makes you think any god(s) are real?  Why can't you see that before Christianity was made up, god himself was made up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just feel that there is.  Nothing more than that, just a feeling.  Since there is no evidence to support either side, I'll go with what feels right. I don't claim this is knowledge, just belief.  I also think all attempts on the part of humans to define God are our own inventions, including yours.
> 
> I would ask you how you know god was made up but we both know you have nothing to back that up.  You just believe it.  I have no objection to your believing it.  I do object to someone who has nothing but belief claiming it is more than just belief.  If you want to claim your position is based upon evidence and reason, then you must produce both. If you say you just believe it, then the discussion is over.  You need provide no support for a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't "just believe it".  I have looked at all the evidence and it makes sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is why I have to consider atheists to be irrational.......half a dozen posts ago you agreed there was no evidence either way......
Click to expand...


Not to the unfalseafiable but there is tone of "evidence" that this imaginary man in your head is not real.  There is lot of different types of "evidence".  I can deduce by the things you say your god is just made up in your head.  I can deduce with science why, what part of the brain came up with religion/gods.  I can look at how 999 other religions before yours were all made up and that is sort of real good evidence to me that yours is no different.  I can deduce miracles don't exist or have never been "proven" but then I'm sure your dumb ass will argue that too.


----------



## PostmodernProph

quite frankly, I don't think you could deduce your way out of a paper bag.....



> there is tone of "evidence" that this imaginary man in your head is not real


I would be interested in seeing just one item of evidence you have that God is not real.....


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  I have told you before I read your web site.  I've also told you I'm not a Christian.  There is no evidence presented in that site to show there is no God.  Only arguments against the proposition that there is, and specifically a Christian God.  Since there is no evidence that there is a God, that is not particularly difficult.  You need to find a new set of bible tracts to hand out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if the bible god is completely made up, what makes you think any god(s) are real?  Why can't you see that before Christianity was made up, god himself was made up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just feel that there is.  Nothing more than that, just a feeling.  Since there is no evidence to support either side, I'll go with what feels right. I don't claim this is knowledge, just belief.  I also think all attempts on the part of humans to define God are our own inventions, including yours.
> 
> I would ask you how you know god was made up but we both know you have nothing to back that up.  You just believe it.  I have no objection to your believing it.  I do object to someone who has nothing but belief claiming it is more than just belief.  If you want to claim your position is based upon evidence and reason, then you must produce both. If you say you just believe it, then the discussion is over.  You need provide no support for a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't "just believe it".  I have looked at all the evidence and it makes sense.
> 
> It is you who rejects logic and goes with "your feeling", not me.  Just like you, I would love for their to be a god.  I'm just able to look beyond what I want and look at it rationally.
> 
> And I too for a long time, even though I doubted organized religions, chose to believe in god.  I hadn't given it enough thought yet at the time to decide there is no god.  And when I "wasn't sure" of course like you I chose to believe in a generic god.  Then I realized if all organized religions are made up, so too is god probably.  Now Boss has given me a lot of reasons why he believes in a god but not organized religions but I believe his reasons are bad too.  He thinks just because humans have always believed in god(s) that this is proof god exists.  I disagree.  I think our primitive ancestors originally made up the concept and later the concept was organized into religion(s).
> 
> _“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”_ – Carl Sagan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will make this very easy.  You talk about "all the evidence".  Give me just one piece of hard, objective and relevant evidence.  Just one.  That's all I'm asking for.  Not a web site, not an argument, not a quote, not a bumper sticker quip....  evidence.  It has to be relevant...  you can't just point to a rock and say "there it is".  You have to be able to show it is evidence there is no God.
> 
> You can either produce it or you can't.  I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have and you just keep going in circles.  It's like trying to play with a dog
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> An ad hominem is not a replacement for evidence or reason.  Your conclusions are entirely unsupported by anything except belief. Whatever you want to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> noun: *evidence
> 1*.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
> 
> We've given you plenty of evidence that god doesn't exist.  First we shown you tons of evidence the Mo, Jo & Jesus god(s) don't exist and we even exposed generic god as being a fraud.
> 
> Put it this way.  If you believe in generic god, and you don't believe that god ever visited earth and talked to Mo, Joe & Jesus, then you are saying that ancient/primitive/superstitious/uneducated/unevolved man 400,000 years ago were right when they invented him.
> 
> Chances are though they made him up and he does not actually exist but feel free to remain in the stone age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have provided no evidence at all.  Not a shred.  I know you keep saying you have, but that simply is not true.  What you have provided is one unsupported claim after another.  You have provided web sites which are dedicated to disagreeing with Christianity and they provide not one shred of evidence.  You have not even defined what it is you say does not exist, other than an insistence that Christianity (though completely wrong) is the only possible option.  You have not shown what evidence would be required to show God does exist so you can show it doesn't by the absence of that evidence.
> 
> Yours is a position based entirely upon belief.  No different than someone who concludes there is a God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That site debunks every religion not just Christianity.
> 
> In reply to your insisting that I have not provided.....piss off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Not even a little bit.  And you haven't, not even a little bit.  Sorry if I'm not willing to be converted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound just like my uneducated dad, god love him.  LOL.
> 
> I try to explain to him all the reasons there "probably" is no god and he just won't listen.  He's not listening or hearing me.  Close minded.
> 
> I say, "but dad science says" and he says, "then science is stupid if they think that".
> 
> What are his reasons?  Because he can't believe or imagine all this happened by itself.  That's it.  That's all you and he have.  That's exactly what our primitive uneducated ancestors thought too.  It is why it is so easy to con people into believing and why the majority of the people on this planet believe in that shit.  Its irrational but we all understand why people believe.
> 
> I'll go with science and logic.  You go with what your heart/feelings/emotions tell you.
Click to expand...


So you can't produce one piece of evidence and you can't admit that you can't.  But you think you are more educated than your Dad.  LOL indeed.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> quite frankly, I don't think you could deduce your way out of a paper bag.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is tone of "evidence" that this imaginary man in your head is not real
> 
> 
> 
> I would be interested in seeing just one item of evidence you have that God is not real.....
Click to expand...




PostmodernProph said:


> quite frankly, I don't think you could deduce your way out of a paper bag.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is tone of "evidence" that this imaginary man in your head is not real
> 
> 
> 
> I would be interested in seeing just one item of evidence you have that God is not real.....
Click to expand...

Your three gods are not the true gods. Kronos is the true God. I would be interested in seeing just one item of evidence you have that Kronos is not the real, true God.


----------



## Tuatara

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't a joke?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
> Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RFOLMAO.
> 
> OK, that is out of my system, for now.
> 
> This is the definition you insist is wrong.
> 
> A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.​
> Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?
> 
> In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.
> 
> So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for writing a letter to Webster, they only accept business or advertising letters or someone wishing to add a new word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you know this because...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do most bald people deny the existence of hair?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bumper stickers.
Click to expand...

Yet true.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> quite frankly, I don't think you could deduce your way out of a paper bag.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is tone of "evidence" that this imaginary man in your head is not real
> 
> 
> 
> I would be interested in seeing just one item of evidence you have that God is not real.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> quite frankly, I don't think you could deduce your way out of a paper bag.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is tone of "evidence" that this imaginary man in your head is not real
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would be interested in seeing just one item of evidence you have that God is not real.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your three gods are not the true gods. Kronos is the true God. I would be interested in seeing just one item of evidence you have that Kronos is not the real, true God.
Click to expand...

?????.....apparently the ton of evidence has lost weight......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Tuatara said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't a joke?
> 
> RFOLMAO.
> 
> OK, that is out of my system, for now.
> 
> This is the definition you insist is wrong.
> 
> A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.​
> Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?
> 
> In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.
> 
> So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?
> 
> And you know this because...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do most bald people deny the existence of hair?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bumper stickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet true.
Click to expand...

truly silly......bald people don't deny the existence of hair......people who don't collect stamps don't deny the existence of stamps......


----------



## PratchettFan

Tuatara said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't a joke?
> 
> RFOLMAO.
> 
> OK, that is out of my system, for now.
> 
> This is the definition you insist is wrong.
> 
> A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.​
> Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?
> 
> In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.
> 
> So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?
> 
> And you know this because...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do most bald people deny the existence of hair?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bumper stickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet true.
Click to expand...


So you claim.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> quite frankly, I don't think you could deduce your way out of a paper bag.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is tone of "evidence" that this imaginary man in your head is not real
> 
> 
> 
> I would be interested in seeing just one item of evidence you have that God is not real.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> quite frankly, I don't think you could deduce your way out of a paper bag.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is tone of "evidence" that this imaginary man in your head is not real
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would be interested in seeing just one item of evidence you have that God is not real.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your three gods are not the true gods. Kronos is the true God. I would be interested in seeing just one item of evidence you have that Kronos is not the real, true God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?????.....apparently the ton of evidence has lost weight......
Click to expand...

There has never been any evidence to support any of your gods.

You can't lose what you never had.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color
> 
> 
> 
> do most bald people deny the existence of hair?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bumper stickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> truly silly......bald people don't deny the existence of hair......people who don't collect stamps don't deny the existence of stamps......
Click to expand...

Neither stamps nor hair are supernatural inventions of man. 

Bad analogies and meaningless comparisons only further degrade your attempt at argument.


----------



## PratchettFan

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> do most bald people deny the existence of hair?.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bumper stickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> truly silly......bald people don't deny the existence of hair......people who don't collect stamps don't deny the existence of stamps......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither stamps nor hair are supernatural inventions of man.
> 
> Bad analogies and meaningless comparisons only further degrade your attempt at argument.
Click to expand...


Which is why I called them bumper stickers.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> quite frankly, I don't think you could deduce your way out of a paper bag.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is tone of "evidence" that this imaginary man in your head is not real
> 
> 
> 
> I would be interested in seeing just one item of evidence you have that God is not real.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> quite frankly, I don't think you could deduce your way out of a paper bag.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is tone of "evidence" that this imaginary man in your head is not real
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would be interested in seeing just one item of evidence you have that God is not real.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your three gods are not the true gods. Kronos is the true God. I would be interested in seeing just one item of evidence you have that Kronos is not the real, true God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?????.....apparently the ton of evidence has lost weight......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There has never been any evidence to support any of your gods.
> 
> You can't lose what you never had.
Click to expand...

you lost what you claimed you had.....a ton of evidence.....apparently you're now admitting you never had it......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> do most bald people deny the existence of hair?.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bumper stickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> truly silly......bald people don't deny the existence of hair......people who don't collect stamps don't deny the existence of stamps......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither stamps nor hair are supernatural inventions of man.
> 
> Bad analogies and meaningless comparisons only further degrade your attempt at argument.
Click to expand...

of course its a bad analogy.......that's why I pointed out what makes it a bad analogy.......but tuatara keeps trying to use it......let's make a pact to remind him its a bad analogy every time he uses it......


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> quite frankly, I don't think you could deduce your way out of a paper bag.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is tone of "evidence" that this imaginary man in your head is not real
> 
> 
> 
> I would be interested in seeing just one item of evidence you have that God is not real.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> quite frankly, I don't think you could deduce your way out of a paper bag.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is tone of "evidence" that this imaginary man in your head is not real
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would be interested in seeing just one item of evidence you have that God is not real.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your three gods are not the true gods. Kronos is the true God. I would be interested in seeing just one item of evidence you have that Kronos is not the real, true God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?????.....apparently the ton of evidence has lost weight......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There has never been any evidence to support any of your gods.
> 
> You can't lose what you never had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you lost what you claimed you had.....a ton of evidence.....apparently you're now admitting you never had it......
Click to expand...

That makes no sense.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> quite frankly, I don't think you could deduce your way out of a paper bag.....
> 
> I would be interested in seeing just one item of evidence you have that God is not real.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> quite frankly, I don't think you could deduce your way out of a paper bag.....
> 
> I would be interested in seeing just one item of evidence you have that God is not real.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your three gods are not the true gods. Kronos is the true God. I would be interested in seeing just one item of evidence you have that Kronos is not the real, true God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?????.....apparently the ton of evidence has lost weight......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There has never been any evidence to support any of your gods.
> 
> You can't lose what you never had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you lost what you claimed you had.....a ton of evidence.....apparently you're now admitting you never had it......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

why not......it should be very easy to follow......you said you had a ton of evidence.......now you can't find it.......


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your three gods are not the true gods. Kronos is the true God. I would be interested in seeing just one item of evidence you have that Kronos is not the real, true God.
> 
> 
> 
> ?????.....apparently the ton of evidence has lost weight......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There has never been any evidence to support any of your gods.
> 
> You can't lose what you never had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you lost what you claimed you had.....a ton of evidence.....apparently you're now admitting you never had it......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why not......it should be very easy to follow......you said you had a ton of evidence.......now you can't find it.......
Click to expand...

It seems..... You're a bit.....confused...... as usual.....


----------



## PratchettFan

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your three gods are not the true gods. Kronos is the true God. I would be interested in seeing just one item of evidence you have that Kronos is not the real, true God.
> 
> 
> 
> ?????.....apparently the ton of evidence has lost weight......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There has never been any evidence to support any of your gods.
> 
> You can't lose what you never had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you lost what you claimed you had.....a ton of evidence.....apparently you're now admitting you never had it......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why not......it should be very easy to follow......you said you had a ton of evidence.......now you can't find it.......
Click to expand...

 
Sealy is the one who said he had a ton of evidence, not Hollie.


----------



## PostmodernProph

PratchettFan said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> ?????.....apparently the ton of evidence has lost weight......
> 
> 
> 
> There has never been any evidence to support any of your gods.
> 
> You can't lose what you never had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you lost what you claimed you had.....a ton of evidence.....apparently you're now admitting you never had it......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why not......it should be very easy to follow......you said you had a ton of evidence.......now you can't find it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sealy is the one who said he had a ton of evidence, not Hollie.
Click to expand...

ah, sometimes they seem to merge together into one meaningless, annoying hum.........


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> quite frankly, I don't think you could deduce your way out of a paper bag.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is tone of "evidence" that this imaginary man in your head is not real
> 
> 
> 
> I would be interested in seeing just one item of evidence you have that God is not real.....
Click to expand...


Listen stupid.  I try to have this conversation with my dad and like you, he can't even take in the information I'm giving him.  The entire time I'm explaining why what he just said is wrong, he's shaking his head and thinking about his next thought to say while NEVER listening to a word we say.  I have to assume this is exactly what you are doing.  Just poo pooing all 46 bits of evidence I've given you.

Why there is no god

I would print that shit off and take it to my dad but he wouldn't read one fucking sentence.  You have taken it one step further.  You are just blanket saying that all 46 have no merit.  Well I'm sure you have given it great thought.  NOT!  I'm sure if you read any of it you were only 5 words in to every point and already formulating a comeback or reasons why what you are reading is wrong.  

For example, you Christians really believe that the bible was written by people who saw Jesus do what he do.  This weekend is the SECOND time I've heard that claim said on TCT religion tv.  We all know that the bible was written by hearsay.  In other words, who's ever pen wrote the words MAYBE was hearing the disciples tell their stories but in most cases that isn't even true.  Most if not all the bible was written 3rd or 4th hand ore even more.  And which bibles?  Bibles have been edited, blablabla.  

You know what?  Fuck all 46 arguments.  If you can get past 1 and 2 and you are still a Christian then you are gullible and brainwashed.  But the other 44 reasons you are wrong are my "proof".  What more proof should I need?  That your imaginary friend is fake?  You sure are full of yourself.  A god cares for you and watches you and protects you.  OMG!  LOL


----------



## sealybobo

The Theist argument comes down to this.  They can't believe there is no god.  Even without any evidence either way, they choose to believe there is.  Not just generic god mind you but Jesus Jo or Mo God.  Before them it was Zeus, Herra, Hercules, etc.  

The other reason theists believe?  They want there to be a god.  Wishful thinking.  

3rd?  They've been brainwashed.  Religion is one way to control the masses.  

4th.  We've always believed.  What is my answer to that?  Just remember how uneducated our grandfathers were in the early 1900's.  Now x that back to the year 0.  They were SHEEP!  Suckers!  Slaves!  Gullible, superstitious, fearful, curious,


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.
> 
> 
> 
> obviously nothing more than a throwaway, unproveable comment.....there is no valid way to quantify either.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  What odds do you give god?  50 50 odds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ????.....100/100......the chance that the universe we have is the result of random shit happening randomly?......0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument, is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only a god could be a 'cause'......
> ......the universe can't be causeless because it had a beginning......what other explanations do you suggest?.....shit happening randomly?......
Click to expand...


_Only a god could be a cause?  That's what they said about lightening.

God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.”_- Neil deGrasse Tyson

The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument [2], is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?

It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.

The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the ’cause’ could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Note 1: Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.

Number 8 Why there is no god

Not that it matters.  You guys will just argue in circles and never respect any of our points so why bother with you.  I'm hear to save the future not people who are too far brainwashed.  How many people have you converted since being on USMB?  LOL.


----------



## dblack

sealy - you really come pretty close to making the argument that atheism is a religion. Is that your intent?


----------



## PratchettFan

dblack said:


> sealy - you really come pretty close to making the argument that atheism is a religion. Is that your intent?


 
Not that Atheism is a religion.  That is can be treated as a religion.  There is no question Sealy demonstrates quite clearly that it can.  I too have wondered if that is intentional.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> You are just blanket saying that all 46 have no merit.


of course I am.....none of them have merit......



> We all know that the bible was written by hearsay.


no we don't all know it....some atheist somewhere claimed it and you keep repeating it......what we know is that that particular argument is one of those without merit.....


> Fuck all 46 arguments.


I'm pretty sure that's been the plan all along.......all of them are worthless.....



> What more proof should I need?


One item of real evidence......just as I asked for before......


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> obviously nothing more than a throwaway, unproveable comment.....there is no valid way to quantify either.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  What odds do you give god?  50 50 odds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ????.....100/100......the chance that the universe we have is the result of random shit happening randomly?......0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument, is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only a god could be a 'cause'......
> ......the universe can't be causeless because it had a beginning......what other explanations do you suggest?.....shit happening randomly?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Only a god could be a cause?  That's what they said about lightening._
Click to expand...


that would be the abiogenesis guys......lightning strikes a mud puddle and life crawls out......


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  What odds do you give god?  50 50 odds?
> 
> 
> 
> ????.....100/100......the chance that the universe we have is the result of random shit happening randomly?......0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument, is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only a god could be a 'cause'......
> ......the universe can't be causeless because it had a beginning......what other explanations do you suggest?.....shit happening randomly?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Only a god could be a cause?  That's what they said about lightening._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that would be the abiogenesis guys......lightning strikes a mud puddle and life crawls out......
Click to expand...

Nope. Per you YEC'ists, the gawds just snapped their eternal digits 6,000 years ago and all of existence was set in place.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> ????.....100/100......the chance that the universe we have is the result of random shit happening randomly?......0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument, is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only a god could be a 'cause'......
> ......the universe can't be causeless because it had a beginning......what other explanations do you suggest?.....shit happening randomly?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Only a god could be a cause?  That's what they said about lightening._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that would be the abiogenesis guys......lightning strikes a mud puddle and life crawls out......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Per you YEC'ists, the gawds just snapped their eternal digits 6,000 years ago and all of existence was set in place.
Click to expand...

Hollie's only remaining argument......she taps her ruby slippers together and says "there's no place like a young earth, there's no place like a young earth"..........


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just blanket saying that all 46 have no merit.
> 
> 
> 
> of course I am.....none of them have merit......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all know that the bible was written by hearsay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no we don't all know it....some atheist somewhere claimed it and you keep repeating it......what we know is that that particular argument is one of those without merit.....
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck all 46 arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pretty sure that's been the plan all along.......all of them are worthless.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What more proof should I need?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One item of real evidence......just as I asked for before......
Click to expand...


So you don't believe the majority of scholars when they admit that, for example:

Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

According to tradition and early church fathers, the author of Mark is Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the apostle Peter.  The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, and which tells against the tradition that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching. Various elements within the gospel, including the importance of the authority of Peter and the broadness of the basic theology, suggest that the author wrote in Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish Christian community which had earlier absorbed the influence of pre-Pauline beliefs and then developed them further independent of Paul.

In other words Mark didn't write Mark.  

And Matthew, Luke & John didn't write their books either.  Amazing so many Christians don't know this.  But even the ones who do somehow are able to explain it away.

All claims of Jesus come from hearsay.

Did Jesus exist


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> ????.....100/100......the chance that the universe we have is the result of random shit happening randomly?......0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument, is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only a god could be a 'cause'......
> ......the universe can't be causeless because it had a beginning......what other explanations do you suggest?.....shit happening randomly?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Only a god could be a cause?  That's what they said about lightening._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that would be the abiogenesis guys......lightning strikes a mud puddle and life crawls out......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Per you YEC'ists, the gawds just snapped their eternal digits 6,000 years ago and all of existence was set in place.
Click to expand...


If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just blanket saying that all 46 have no merit.
> 
> 
> 
> of course I am.....none of them have merit......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all know that the bible was written by hearsay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no we don't all know it....some atheist somewhere claimed it and you keep repeating it......what we know is that that particular argument is one of those without merit.....
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck all 46 arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pretty sure that's been the plan all along.......all of them are worthless.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What more proof should I need?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One item of real evidence......just as I asked for before......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't believe the majority of scholars when they admit that, for example:
> 
> Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> According to tradition and early church fathers, the author of Mark is Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the apostle Peter.  The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, and which tells against the tradition that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching. Various elements within the gospel, including the importance of the authority of Peter and the broadness of the basic theology, suggest that the author wrote in Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish Christian community which had earlier absorbed the influence of pre-Pauline beliefs and then developed them further independent of Paul.
> 
> In other words Mark didn't write Mark.
> 
> And Matthew, Luke & John didn't write their books either.  Amazing so many Christians don't know this.  But even the ones who do somehow are able to explain it away.
> 
> All claims of Jesus come from hearsay.
> 
> Did Jesus exist
Click to expand...

obviously I'm not stupid enough to believe that a majority of scholars actually believe that.....I will concede a majority of atheist scholars believe that.....but after all, who actually listens to atheists who claim to be scholars of biblical theology.........


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument, is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?
> 
> 
> 
> only a god could be a 'cause'......
> ......the universe can't be causeless because it had a beginning......what other explanations do you suggest?.....shit happening randomly?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Only a god could be a cause?  That's what they said about lightening._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that would be the abiogenesis guys......lightning strikes a mud puddle and life crawls out......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Per you YEC'ists, the gawds just snapped their eternal digits 6,000 years ago and all of existence was set in place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe
Click to expand...


of course to do that one has to completely disregard the scientific method........


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> only a god could be a 'cause'......
> ......the universe can't be causeless because it had a beginning......what other explanations do you suggest?.....shit happening randomly?......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Only a god could be a cause?  That's what they said about lightening._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that would be the abiogenesis guys......lightning strikes a mud puddle and life crawls out......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Per you YEC'ists, the gawds just snapped their eternal digits 6,000 years ago and all of existence was set in place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course to do that one has to completely disregard the scientific method........
Click to expand...

You YEC'ists do that with literal interpretations of bible tales and fables.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just blanket saying that all 46 have no merit.
> 
> 
> 
> of course I am.....none of them have merit......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all know that the bible was written by hearsay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no we don't all know it....some atheist somewhere claimed it and you keep repeating it......what we know is that that particular argument is one of those without merit.....
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck all 46 arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pretty sure that's been the plan all along.......all of them are worthless.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What more proof should I need?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One item of real evidence......just as I asked for before......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't believe the majority of scholars when they admit that, for example:
> 
> Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> According to tradition and early church fathers, the author of Mark is Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the apostle Peter.  The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, and which tells against the tradition that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching. Various elements within the gospel, including the importance of the authority of Peter and the broadness of the basic theology, suggest that the author wrote in Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish Christian community which had earlier absorbed the influence of pre-Pauline beliefs and then developed them further independent of Paul.
> 
> In other words Mark didn't write Mark.
> 
> And Matthew, Luke & John didn't write their books either.  Amazing so many Christians don't know this.  But even the ones who do somehow are able to explain it away.
> 
> All claims of Jesus come from hearsay.
> 
> Did Jesus exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously I'm not stupid enough to believe that a majority of scholars actually believe that.....I will concede a majority of atheist scholars believe that.....but after all, who actually listens to atheists who claim to be scholars of biblical theology.........
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're stupid enough. Give yourself credit for that.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just blanket saying that all 46 have no merit.
> 
> 
> 
> of course I am.....none of them have merit......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all know that the bible was written by hearsay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no we don't all know it....some atheist somewhere claimed it and you keep repeating it......what we know is that that particular argument is one of those without merit.....
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck all 46 arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pretty sure that's been the plan all along.......all of them are worthless.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What more proof should I need?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One item of real evidence......just as I asked for before......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't believe the majority of scholars when they admit that, for example:
> 
> Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> According to tradition and early church fathers, the author of Mark is Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the apostle Peter.  The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, and which tells against the tradition that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching. Various elements within the gospel, including the importance of the authority of Peter and the broadness of the basic theology, suggest that the author wrote in Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish Christian community which had earlier absorbed the influence of pre-Pauline beliefs and then developed them further independent of Paul.
> 
> In other words Mark didn't write Mark.
> 
> And Matthew, Luke & John didn't write their books either.  Amazing so many Christians don't know this.  But even the ones who do somehow are able to explain it away.
> 
> All claims of Jesus come from hearsay.
> 
> Did Jesus exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously I'm not stupid enough to believe that a majority of scholars actually believe that.....I will concede a majority of atheist scholars believe that.....but after all, who actually listens to atheists who claim to be scholars of biblical theology.........
Click to expand...


So basically only Christians believe that the bible was written by Paul or John or Luke.  The rest of the world admits/understands that AT LEAST someone else wrote the words.  You can not honestly say you believe that John or Paul took pen to paper.  You'd have to be a fool to think that.  But that's EXACTLY what TCT is saying!  LIARS!  Flat out LIARS!  The Gospel According to Paul, only Paul didn't write Paul.  Amazing you don't know it.

I say it wasn't even from Paul's mouth to the writers pen/paper.  I'm saying it was 2 or 3 or 4 generations later and people started writing about what happened to Jesus.  80 plus years later.  So not even 2nd hand accounts.  This my friend is hearsay. 

Anyways, I just found this and realize this is why you guys are religious.  The primary psychological role of traditional religion is deathist rationalization, that is, rationalizing the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality.


----------



## sealybobo

And not even all Christians believe the Gospels were first hand accounts.  But that doesn't stop them from being Christians and I doubt it will stop  you.  You'll just explain that one away in your minds just like most of you don't believe the Noah story anymore but still you believe God had to come to earth via Mary's vagina.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> I say it wasn't even from Paul's mouth to the writers pen/paper.


well, there you have it....since you've said it (or read it from some AtheistsRUs website), is there really any reason to go on with life?.....its been decided.....


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say it wasn't even from Paul's mouth to the writers pen/paper.
> 
> 
> 
> well, there you have it....since you've said it (or read it from some AtheistsRUs website), is there really any reason to go on with life?.....its been decided.....
Click to expand...


You better go on with life!  Why would you piss away this rare brief moment you have?  When it's over it is OVER.  Better enjoy it.  

Lots of reasons to go on without god as a matter of fact "when I became convinced that the universe was natural, that all the ghosts and gods were myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles turned to dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space.

I was free to think. Free to express my thoughts, free to live in my own ideal. Free to live for myself and those I loved. Free to use all my faculties, all my senses. Free to spread imagination’s wings, free to investigate, to guess, and dream and hope. Free to judge and determine for myself. Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the inspired books that savages have produced, and the barbarous legends of the past. Free from sanctified mistakes and “holy” lies. Free from the fear of eternal pain, free from the winged monsters of the night. Free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free.

There were no prohibited places in all of the realm of thought. No error, no space where fancy could not spread her painted wings. No chains for my limbs. No lashes for my back. No flames for my flesh. No Master’s frown or threat, no following in another’s steps. No need to bow or cringe or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free; I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.

My heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heros, the thinkers who gave their lives for liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought to those who fell on the fierce fields of war. To those who died in dungeons, bound in chains, to those by fire consumed, to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then, I vowed to grasp the torch that they held, and hold it high, That light might conquer darkness still.

-Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)


----------



## CrusaderFrank

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just blanket saying that all 46 have no merit.
> 
> 
> 
> of course I am.....none of them have merit......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all know that the bible was written by hearsay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no we don't all know it....some atheist somewhere claimed it and you keep repeating it......what we know is that that particular argument is one of those without merit.....
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck all 46 arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pretty sure that's been the plan all along.......all of them are worthless.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What more proof should I need?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One item of real evidence......just as I asked for before......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't believe the majority of scholars when they admit that, for example:
> 
> Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> According to tradition and early church fathers, the author of Mark is Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the apostle Peter.  The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, and which tells against the tradition that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching. Various elements within the gospel, including the importance of the authority of Peter and the broadness of the basic theology, suggest that the author wrote in Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish Christian community which had earlier absorbed the influence of pre-Pauline beliefs and then developed them further independent of Paul.
> 
> In other words Mark didn't write Mark.
> 
> And Matthew, Luke & John didn't write their books either.  Amazing so many Christians don't know this.  But even the ones who do somehow are able to explain it away.
> 
> All claims of Jesus come from hearsay.
> 
> Did Jesus exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> obviously I'm not stupid enough to believe that a majority of scholars actually believe that.....I will concede a majority of atheist scholars believe that.....but after all, who actually listens to atheists who claim to be scholars of biblical theology.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically only Christians believe that the bible was written by Paul or John or Luke.  The rest of the world admits/understands that AT LEAST someone else wrote the words.  You can not honestly say you believe that John or Paul took pen to paper.  You'd have to be a fool to think that.  But that's EXACTLY what TCT is saying!  LIARS!  Flat out LIARS!  The Gospel According to Paul, only Paul didn't write Paul.  Amazing you don't know it.
> 
> I say it wasn't even from Paul's mouth to the writers pen/paper.  I'm saying it was 2 or 3 or 4 generations later and people started writing about what happened to Jesus.  80 plus years later.  So not even 2nd hand accounts.  This my friend is hearsay.
> 
> Anyways, I just found this and realize this is why you guys are religious.  The primary psychological role of traditional religion is deathist rationalization, that is, rationalizing the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality.
Click to expand...


And, of course, you'd be totally wrong


----------



## doniston1

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]


Atheism may not in itself be a religion, but atheists may  have a religion, I know, because I am one and I do have a religion.  I have absolute faith and belief in a higher power, but it is not a deity.  It is natural phenomina and described and proven by science.


----------



## Inevitable

There are two religions that are atheist, atheist in the strictest sense that they don't believe in a god or gods.

One is scientology, which is really a cult. And the other is LaVey's church of Satan. I am not familiar with other satanic churches but LaVey states and believes that gods were created by man and therefore don't exist. Thus instead of having a religion based on the worshipping of a god the church focuses on teachings regarding the true nature of man. And it holds that gods are fiction.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Inevitable said:


> There are two religions that are atheist, atheist in the strictest sense that they don't believe in a god or gods.
> 
> One is scientology, which is really a cult. And the other is LaVey's church of Satan. I am not familiar with other satanic churches but LaVey states and believes that gods were created by man and therefore don't exist. Thus instead of having a religion based on the worshipping of a god the church focuses on teachings regarding the true nature of man. And it holds that gods are fiction.





You need to do a little more research.  Atheism is not Satanism, and I don't care what LaVey's Church of Satan says. Ridiculous.


----------



## Esmeralda

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.


Oh, this is absolute nonsense. There is no empirical evidence of a god.  In science, nothing is proven without empirical evidence.  Your assertions, logically, would mean that everything science disproves because there  is no empirical evidence to prove it is actually only a belief of 'faith.'


----------



## Esmeralda

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion
> 
> 
> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> 
> number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?
Click to expand...

Boy, these people are really nutso.  Based on this, believing strongly and with ardor and faith in babies coming from a pumpkin patch is a religion. Interesting.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Esmeralda said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion
> 
> 
> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> 
> number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boy, these people are really nutso.  Based on this, believing strongly and with ardor and faith in babies coming from a pumpkin patch is a religion. Interesting.
Click to expand...




I like that.  I'm gonna have to write that one down.


----------



## PratchettFan

Esmeralda said:


> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, this is absolute nonsense. There is no empirical evidence of a god.  In science, nothing is proven without empirical evidence.  Your assertions, logically, would mean that everything science disproves because there  is no empirical evidence to prove it is actually only a belief of 'faith.'
Click to expand...

 
No, that would mean a bad application of science.  A lack of empirical evidence to prove something does not disprove it.  At least not if you want to claim you are using science.


----------



## Inevitable

Carla_Danger said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two religions that are atheist, atheist in the strictest sense that they don't believe in a god or gods.
> 
> One is scientology, which is really a cult. And the other is LaVey's church of Satan. I am not familiar with other satanic churches but LaVey states and believes that gods were created by man and therefore don't exist. Thus instead of having a religion based on the worshipping of a god the church focuses on teachings regarding the true nature of man. And it holds that gods are fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to do a little more research.  Atheism is not Satanism, and I don't care what LaVey's Church of Satan says. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yet Anton LeVay's Satanic church is atheist. They don't worship a deity, they have no theism.

I am not saying that all satanists are atheist, or that atheism is Satanism. Just that _The Church of Satan_ is atheist in their practice.

I honestly don't see a real difference between the views. Atheism is without theistic deities.

And further I don't see the church of Satan as necessarily negative. It's a religion by the standard that any religion is.

So I really don't see what the problem is. If atheists share the views of LeVay's "church" why then are you offended by it being called an atheist "church" if these deities don't exist why worry?

You said nothing about scientology being an atheist religion I personally would be far more insulted by being compared to scientology.


----------



## emilynghiem

Carla_Danger said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two religions that are atheist, atheist in the strictest sense that they don't believe in a god or gods.
> 
> One is scientology, which is really a cult. And the other is LaVey's church of Satan. I am not familiar with other satanic churches but LaVey states and believes that gods were created by man and therefore don't exist. Thus instead of having a religion based on the worshipping of a god the church focuses on teachings regarding the true nature of man. And it holds that gods are fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to do a little more research.  Atheism is not Satanism, and I don't care what LaVey's Church of Satan says. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Hi Carla_Danger
It's the other way.

Inevitable is saying that the LaVey church of Satan is an Atheist religion.

That is like saying a Tabby cat is a Feline.
He is NOT saying all Felines are Tabby cats.

I think his points are interesting.

With Scientology I thought they did believe in God,
but if they teach there is no God that could count as an Atheist religion.

I totally get what Inevitable is saying. Very good!

Carla_Danger this actually HELPS your argument
if you can show how most Atheists are NOT like this.

some people believe Liberalism or Secular Humanism
is a godless religion, or political systems like Marxist or socialism/communism etc.
are political beliefs or religions.

So if you make a religion out of rejecting or replacing God with something else,
like using Government instead of God, that could be why this comes across as
making a Religion out of whatever you believe or don't believe in.

This explains a lot, how to determine the difference!

Thanks!


----------



## emilynghiem

Esmeralda said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion
> 
> 
> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> 
> number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boy, these people are really nutso.  Based on this, believing strongly and with ardor and faith in babies coming from a pumpkin patch is a religion. Interesting.
Click to expand...


Yes Esmeralda, it CAN become a religion.

Just like depending on Government for rights and health care
has been legislated and mandated as a National Religion
that all taxpayers must buy into or be fined by penalties.

If you believe that "health care is a right" and make that your creed
to put your authority in Govt to mandate this, then you have made that your religion.

Some people make the Second Amendment their religion.
Some the separation of church or state, or state from federal,
or "limited govt" their religious creed. Prochoice and Prolife
are as vigilant in defending their views and faith in what they believe to be
natural rights, as Hindus and Muslims willing to go to war.

Whatever you worship as absolute and inalienable
CAN BECOME your religion.


----------



## Esmeralda

emilynghiem said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion
> 
> 
> *Full Definition of RELIGION*
> 1
> _a_ *:*  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_>
> 
> _b _ _(1)_ *:*  the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:*  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2
> *:*  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> 3
> _archaic_ *:*  scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness
> 4
> *:*  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
> 
> number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.
> 
> Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boy, these people are really nutso.  Based on this, believing strongly and with ardor and faith in babies coming from a pumpkin patch is a religion. Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Esmeralda, it CAN become a religion.
> 
> Just like depending on Government for rights and health care
> has been legislated and mandated as a National Religion
> that all taxpayers must buy into or be fined by penalties.
> 
> If you believe that "health care is a right" and make that your creed
> to put your authority in Govt to mandate this, then you have made that your religion.
> 
> Some people make the Second Amendment their religion.
> Some the separation of church or state, or state from federal,
> or "limited govt" their religious creed. Prochoice and Prolife
> are as vigilant in defending their views and faith in what they believe to be
> natural rights, as Hindus and Muslims willing to go to war.
> 
> Whatever you worship as absolute and inalienable
> CAN BECOME your religion.
Click to expand...


----------



## Taz

Not believing in religion is not a religion. How dumb are you folks?


----------



## Taz

Inevitable said:


> There are two religions that are atheist, atheist in the strictest sense that they don't believe in a god or gods.
> 
> One is scientology, which is really a cult. And the other is LaVey's church of Satan. I am not familiar with other satanic churches but LaVey states and believes that gods were created by man and therefore don't exist. Thus instead of having a religion based on the worshipping of a god the church focuses on teachings regarding the true nature of man. And it holds that gods are fiction.


Scientology is a scam and LaVey worship Satan, who is their god. So not atheists.


----------



## Inevitable

Taz said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two religions that are atheist, atheist in the strictest sense that they don't believe in a god or gods.
> 
> One is scientology, which is really a cult. And the other is LaVey's church of Satan. I am not familiar with other satanic churches but LaVey states and believes that gods were created by man and therefore don't exist. Thus instead of having a religion based on the worshipping of a god the church focuses on teachings regarding the true nature of man. And it holds that gods are fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> Scientology is a scam and LaVey worship Satan, who is their god. So not atheists.
Click to expand...

LaVey doesn't worship Satan. 

Neither of these groups have a God. So yes they are atheist.


----------



## Inevitable

Taz said:


> Not believing in religion is not a religion. How dumb are you folks?


Atheism is without theism. It really isn't without religion, that would be areligious. I am an areligious theist.

And there are two religions that don't believe in God. One was Anton LeVay's church which you stupidly claimed worships Satan. Proving how dumb you are. A quick Google search will reveal the truth. And scientology which has no deity.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PratchettFan  Here's the appropriate thread for your discussion.




PratchettFan said:


> Then you can provide the evidence to support the claim which was made?  Because all of this started when I said it was pure faith.  Show me how it isn't.  And if it isn't, and I am not supposed to question it, then I refer you to the definition above.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Inevitable said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not believing in religion is not a religion. How dumb are you folks?
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is without theism. It really isn't without religion, that would be areligious. I am an areligious theist.
> 
> And there are two religions that don't believe in God. One was Anton LeVay's church which you stupidly claimed worships Satan. Proving how dumb you are. A quick Google search will reveal the truth. And scientology which has no deity.
Click to expand...



Atheism is completely without religion. I know this because as soon as I became an atheist, I lost my religion. That's the great thing about being an atheist....it requires so little of your time.


----------



## emilynghiem

Carla_Danger said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not believing in religion is not a religion. How dumb are you folks?
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is without theism. It really isn't without religion, that would be areligious. I am an areligious theist.
> 
> And there are two religions that don't believe in God. One was Anton LeVay's church which you stupidly claimed worships Satan. Proving how dumb you are. A quick Google search will reveal the truth. And scientology which has no deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is completely without religion. I know this because as soon as I became an atheist, I lost my religion. That's the great thing about being an atheist....it requires so little of your time.
Click to expand...


If you use the scientific method "religiously" then that becomes your religion.
or some variation of it, such as:

1. you either believe something is true or false
2. you compare it to other sources and check for conflicts
3. you either resolve the conflicts and expand/refine your perception
4. if resolution fails, you try to assess where the problem lies
using steps 1, 2, 3 above in a repeat application


----------



## emilynghiem

Inevitable said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not believing in religion is not a religion. How dumb are you folks?
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is without theism. It really isn't without religion, that would be areligious. I am an areligious theist.
> 
> And there are two religions that don't believe in God. One was Anton LeVay's church which you stupidly claimed worships Satan. Proving how dumb you are. A quick Google search will reveal the truth. And scientology which has no deity.
Click to expand...


Hi Inevitable 
but you are not without fans. I am one of them. ;-)
I'm also a secular gentile who is Christian in spirit, but I use natural laws as expressed in Constitution principles
similar to how Christians use the Bible.

(I may be a Buddhist Constitutionalist because I don't believe in political bullying by coercion or exclusion that "causes suffering," but believe in resolving conflicts to establish mutual understanding and peace.  Otherwise, people do not have equal security but continue living in anxiety, fearing they must compete with each other; so this creates a vicious cycle of oppression.  I see it more in terms of ending suffering because we are interconnected.)

My bf is also a theist but not religious, does not relate to the Christian God or Jesus, and may be a Constitutionalist.
I call him a "self-righteous gentile" as a joke, but he's really more moderate and more libertarian than conservative.

I think America is in a stage where the naturalist and secular humanists are going to have to step up and help resolve political and religious conflicts, if nobody else is neutral enough to facilitate and mediate through them.

It may fall on people like you who can make sense of these messes and sort out the gems from the rocks.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Carla_Danger said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not believing in religion is not a religion. How dumb are you folks?
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is without theism. It really isn't without religion, that would be areligious. I am an areligious theist.
> 
> And there are two religions that don't believe in God. One was Anton LeVay's church which you stupidly claimed worships Satan. Proving how dumb you are. A quick Google search will reveal the truth. And scientology which has no deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is completely without religion. I know this because as soon as I became an atheist, I lost my religion. That's the great thing about being an atheist....it requires so little of your time.
Click to expand...

You sound just like a new convert.   Sheesh.  State it all you want, Carly, bu t you are no more right than Protectionist yammering on about the protection clause or Pop23 about babies and anti marriage equality.


----------



## Carla_Danger

JakeStarkey said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not believing in religion is not a religion. How dumb are you folks?
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is without theism. It really isn't without religion, that would be areligious. I am an areligious theist.
> 
> And there are two religions that don't believe in God. One was Anton LeVay's church which you stupidly claimed worships Satan. Proving how dumb you are. A quick Google search will reveal the truth. And scientology which has no deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is completely without religion. I know this because as soon as I became an atheist, I lost my religion. That's the great thing about being an atheist....it requires so little of your time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound just like a new convert.   Sheesh.  State it all you want, Carly, bu t you are no more right than Protectionist yammering on about the protection clause or Pop23 about babies and anti marriage equality.
Click to expand...



You could knock two of those out just by getting rid of religion.  LOL!


----------



## Carla_Danger

emilynghiem said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not believing in religion is not a religion. How dumb are you folks?
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is without theism. It really isn't without religion, that would be areligious. I am an areligious theist.
> 
> And there are two religions that don't believe in God. One was Anton LeVay's church which you stupidly claimed worships Satan. Proving how dumb you are. A quick Google search will reveal the truth. And scientology which has no deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is completely without religion. I know this because as soon as I became an atheist, I lost my religion. That's the great thing about being an atheist....it requires so little of your time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you use the scientific method "religiously" then that becomes your religion.
> or some variation of it, such as:
> 
> 1. you either believe something is true or false
> 2. you compare it to other sources and check for conflicts
> 3. you either resolve the conflicts and expand/refine your perception
> 4. if resolution fails, you try to assess where the problem lies
> using steps 1, 2, 3 above in a repeat application
Click to expand...



Oh brother.


----------



## Inevitable

Carla_Danger said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not believing in religion is not a religion. How dumb are you folks?
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is without theism. It really isn't without religion, that would be areligious. I am an areligious theist.
> 
> And there are two religions that don't believe in God. One was Anton LeVay's church which you stupidly claimed worships Satan. Proving how dumb you are. A quick Google search will reveal the truth. And scientology which has no deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is completely without religion. I know this because as soon as I became an atheist, I lost my religion. That's the great thing about being an atheist....it requires so little of your time.
Click to expand...


That is not exactly true. There are two religions that I know of that are atheist. Anton LeVey's church of Satan, and KSW.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Inevitable said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not believing in religion is not a religion. How dumb are you folks?
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is without theism. It really isn't without religion, that would be areligious. I am an areligious theist.
> 
> And there are two religions that don't believe in God. One was Anton LeVay's church which you stupidly claimed worships Satan. Proving how dumb you are. A quick Google search will reveal the truth. And scientology which has no deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is completely without religion. I know this because as soon as I became an atheist, I lost my religion. That's the great thing about being an atheist....it requires so little of your time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not exactly true. There are two religions that I know of that are atheist. Anton LeVey's church of Satan, and KSW.
Click to expand...



Atheists who don't believe in a god also aren't going to believe in this god's supernatural competitor, and I have no idea what KSW is.

So no, I think that claim is false.


----------



## Montrovant

Carla_Danger said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not believing in religion is not a religion. How dumb are you folks?
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is without theism. It really isn't without religion, that would be areligious. I am an areligious theist.
> 
> And there are two religions that don't believe in God. One was Anton LeVay's church which you stupidly claimed worships Satan. Proving how dumb you are. A quick Google search will reveal the truth. And scientology which has no deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is completely without religion. I know this because as soon as I became an atheist, I lost my religion. That's the great thing about being an atheist....it requires so little of your time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not exactly true. There are two religions that I know of that are atheist. Anton LeVey's church of Satan, and KSW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists who don't believe in a god also aren't going to believe in this god's supernatural competitor, and I have no idea what KSW is.
> 
> So no, I think that claim is false.
Click to expand...


It depends on what you consider a religion.  Satanism LeVey style is really more philosophy than religion to me, but it does also have trappings of magic involved which might make it fit into a definition of religion.  From what I remember the use of anti-Christian, demonic style names is symbolic rather than from a belief those beings are real.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]


For not being a religion it is  certainly extraordinarily dogmatic and doctrinaire even though it expounds a single doctrine.


----------



## eots

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]


----------



## Carla_Danger

eots said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
Click to expand...



That's nothing more than community center.


----------



## LittleNipper

Religion is any belief structure that says, "What I am, what I do, what I say, what I know, what I believe ----- makes me important." In this Atheism is decidedly a religious belief.


----------



## Carla_Danger

LittleNipper said:


> Religion is any belief structure that says, "What I am, what I do, what I say, what I know, what I believe ----- makes me important." In this Atheism is decidedly a religious belief.




No it's not. There is no doctrine...no set of beliefs for atheists.


----------



## Carla_Danger

You all are late to this thread. You need to start from the beginning.  LOL!

We've already been over all of this. Got it covered!


----------



## LittleNipper

Carla_Danger said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is any belief structure that says, "What I am, what I do, what I say, what I know, what I believe ----- makes me important." In this Atheism is decidedly a religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. There is no doctrine...no set of beliefs for atheists.
Click to expand...

Atheists believe that there can be no God.
Atheists believe that life originated from nothing.
Atheists believe that morality originated from Man.
Atheists believe that man is improving through evolution.
Atheists believe that anyone who believes in God is inferior.
I'm sure there are other "doctrines."


----------



## asaratis

LittleNipper said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is any belief structure that says, "What I am, what I do, what I say, what I know, what I believe ----- makes me important." In this Atheism is decidedly a religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. There is no doctrine...no set of beliefs for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheists believe that there can be no God.
> Atheists believe that life originated from nothing.
> Atheists believe that morality originated from Man.
> Atheists believe that man is improving through evolution.
> Atheists believe that anyone who believes in God is inferior.
> I'm sure there are other "doctrines."
Click to expand...

Exactly!

There are churches for atheists.  Atheists can become Ministers of the 'flock'.  Atheism is definitely a religion.  It is a godless religion, but a religion none the less.

Is it the simple fact that 'religion' relates to 'belief' regarding the god or gods eluded to within the context of the word 'religion' that makes the atheists repugnant in being characterized as a member of a religion.  What atheists cannot fathom is that promoting disbelief is nothing more than promoting belief in a juxtaposed argument.

One does not have to be religious to be a member of a religion.  Atheists that continually argue their point are being religious.  Atheists that shut the fuck up are simply not practicing their religion.

God bless America!


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is any belief structure that says, "What I am, what I do, what I say, what I know, what I believe ----- makes me important." In this Atheism is decidedly a religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. There is no doctrine...no set of beliefs for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheists believe that there can be no God.
> Atheists believe that life originated from nothing.
> Atheists believe that morality originated from Man.
> Atheists believe that man is improving through evolution.
> Atheists believe that anyone who believes in God is inferior.
> I'm sure there are other "doctrines."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> There are churches for atheists.  Atheists can become Ministers of the 'flock'.  Atheism is definitely a religion.  It is a godless religion, but a religion none the less.
> 
> Is it the simple fact that 'religion' relates to 'belief' regarding the god or gods eluded to within the context of the word 'religion' that makes the atheists repugnant in being characterized as a member of a religion.  What atheists cannot fathom is that promoting disbelief is nothing more than promoting belief in a juxtaposed argument.
> 
> One does not have to be religious to be a member of a religion.  Atheists that continually argue their point are being religious.  Atheists that shut the fuck up are simply not practicing their religion.
> 
> God bless America!
Click to expand...



You know better than that.  We've been through this before.


----------



## Carla_Danger

LittleNipper said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is any belief structure that says, "What I am, what I do, what I say, what I know, what I believe ----- makes me important." In this Atheism is decidedly a religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. There is no doctrine...no set of beliefs for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheists believe that there can be no God.
> Atheists believe that life originated from nothing.
> Atheists believe that morality originated from Man.
> Atheists believe that man is improving through evolution.
> Atheists believe that anyone who believes in God is inferior.
> I'm sure there are other "doctrines."
Click to expand...



Atheists don't believe in the tooth fairy either.  That is not a religion.

My non belief in Bigfoot is not a religion.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Carla_Danger said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is any belief structure that says, "What I am, what I do, what I say, what I know, what I believe ----- makes me important." In this Atheism is decidedly a religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. There is no doctrine...no set of beliefs for atheists.
Click to expand...


A doctrine is a belief that is taught to be true. It is not necessarily a set of beliefs but could be a single belief. Now you may say that the tenet "God does not exist" isn't a doctrine or a belief but rather it is non-belief in the existence of God. But you are still making a statement and it is a statement of truth to people who prescribed to that tenet and it is that alone which makes it doctrine. If you make a truth claim then you have a doctrine whether you like it or not. When you say with absolute conviction and certainty that "There is no God and the only right way is atheism" then you are being doctrinaire and dogmatic in your "non-belief". It is the truth claim that makes doctrine regardless if that claim is negative or not.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not believing in religion is not a religion. How dumb are you folks?
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is without theism. It really isn't without religion, that would be areligious. I am an areligious theist.
> 
> And there are two religions that don't believe in God. One was Anton LeVay's church which you stupidly claimed worships Satan. Proving how dumb you are. A quick Google search will reveal the truth. And scientology which has no deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is completely without religion. I know this because as soon as I became an atheist, I lost my religion. That's the great thing about being an atheist....it requires so little of your time.
Click to expand...

So why do you spend so much of your time denigrating religion and defending your own belief?  My GAWD, woman!  You have made a fucking RELIGION of it!


----------



## Carla_Danger

CynthiaZ said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is any belief structure that says, "What I am, what I do, what I say, what I know, what I believe ----- makes me important." In this Atheism is decidedly a religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. There is no doctrine...no set of beliefs for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A doctrine is a belief that is taught to be true. It is not necessarily a set of beliefs but could be a single belief. Now you may say that the tenet "God does not exist" isn't a doctrine or a belief but rather it is non-belief in the existence of God. But you are still making a statement and it is a statement of truth to people who prescribed to that tenet and it is that alone which makes it doctrine. If you make a truth claim then you have a doctrine whether you like it or not. When you say with absolute conviction and certainty that "There is no God and the only right way is atheism" then you are being doctrinaire and dogmatic in your "non-belief". It is the truth claim that makes doctrine regardless if that claim is negative or not.
Click to expand...



I've never said the only "right" way is atheism, and I can't say for sure that there is no Gawd, I just don't live my life as if one exists.

Atheism is no more of a religion than not believing in Bigfoot.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not believing in religion is not a religion. How dumb are you folks?
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is without theism. It really isn't without religion, that would be areligious. I am an areligious theist.
> 
> And there are two religions that don't believe in God. One was Anton LeVay's church which you stupidly claimed worships Satan. Proving how dumb you are. A quick Google search will reveal the truth. And scientology which has no deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is completely without religion. I know this because as soon as I became an atheist, I lost my religion. That's the great thing about being an atheist....it requires so little of your time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do you spend so much of your time denigrating religion and defending your own belief?  My GAWD, woman!  You have made a fucking RELIGION of it!
Click to expand...



No, that's you trying to put me on the same shelf with you crazy fundies.


----------



## asaratis

CynthiaZ said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is any belief structure that says, "What I am, what I do, what I say, what I know, what I believe ----- makes me important." In this Atheism is decidedly a religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. There is no doctrine...no set of beliefs for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A doctrine is a belief that is taught to be true. It is not necessarily a set of beliefs but could be a single belief. Now you may say that the tenet "God does not exist" isn't a doctrine or a belief but rather it is non-belief in the existence of God. But you are still making a statement and it is a statement of truth to people who prescribed to that tenet and it is that alone which makes it doctrine. If you make a truth claim then you have a doctrine whether you like it or not. When you say with absolute conviction and certainty that "There is no God and the only right way is atheism" then you are being doctrinaire and dogmatic in your "non-belief". It is the truth claim that makes doctrine regardless if that claim is negative or not.
Click to expand...

This is quite true.  I would alter it only to say that not having a belief that X exists is not the same as having a belief that X does not exist.  Anyone that argues, "God does not exist!" is expressing a belief!


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is any belief structure that says, "What I am, what I do, what I say, what I know, what I believe ----- makes me important." In this Atheism is decidedly a religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. There is no doctrine...no set of beliefs for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A doctrine is a belief that is taught to be true. It is not necessarily a set of beliefs but could be a single belief. Now you may say that the tenet "God does not exist" isn't a doctrine or a belief but rather it is non-belief in the existence of God. But you are still making a statement and it is a statement of truth to people who prescribed to that tenet and it is that alone which makes it doctrine. If you make a truth claim then you have a doctrine whether you like it or not. When you say with absolute conviction and certainty that "There is no God and the only right way is atheism" then you are being doctrinaire and dogmatic in your "non-belief". It is the truth claim that makes doctrine regardless if that claim is negative or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is quite true.  I would alter it only to say that not having a belief that X exists is not the same as having a belief that X does not exist.  Anyone that argues, "God does not exist!" is expressing a belief!
Click to expand...



The tooth fairy does not exist.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is any belief structure that says, "What I am, what I do, what I say, what I know, what I believe ----- makes me important." In this Atheism is decidedly a religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. There is no doctrine...no set of beliefs for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A doctrine is a belief that is taught to be true. It is not necessarily a set of beliefs but could be a single belief. Now you may say that the tenet "God does not exist" isn't a doctrine or a belief but rather it is non-belief in the existence of God. But you are still making a statement and it is a statement of truth to people who prescribed to that tenet and it is that alone which makes it doctrine. If you make a truth claim then you have a doctrine whether you like it or not. When you say with absolute conviction and certainty that "There is no God and the only right way is atheism" then you are being doctrinaire and dogmatic in your "non-belief". It is the truth claim that makes doctrine regardless if that claim is negative or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said the only "right" way is atheism, and I can't say for sure that there is no Gawd, I just don't live my life as if one exists.
> 
> Atheism is no more of a religion than not believing in Bigfoot.
Click to expand...

If you don't live your life as if one exists, why do you spend so much time promoting the belief that one doesn't exist?  If something does not exist, there should be no thought of its existence, one way or the other.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is any belief structure that says, "What I am, what I do, what I say, what I know, what I believe ----- makes me important." In this Atheism is decidedly a religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. There is no doctrine...no set of beliefs for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A doctrine is a belief that is taught to be true. It is not necessarily a set of beliefs but could be a single belief. Now you may say that the tenet "God does not exist" isn't a doctrine or a belief but rather it is non-belief in the existence of God. But you are still making a statement and it is a statement of truth to people who prescribed to that tenet and it is that alone which makes it doctrine. If you make a truth claim then you have a doctrine whether you like it or not. When you say with absolute conviction and certainty that "There is no God and the only right way is atheism" then you are being doctrinaire and dogmatic in your "non-belief". It is the truth claim that makes doctrine regardless if that claim is negative or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is quite true.  I would alter it only to say that not having a belief that X exists is not the same as having a belief that X does not exist.  Anyone that argues, "God does not exist!" is expressing a belief!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The tooth fairy does not exist.
Click to expand...

That is a belief that you hold.

To the three year old that awakens to find a quarter under the pillow, it does.  Your silly straw man is evidence of your frustration.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is any belief structure that says, "What I am, what I do, what I say, what I know, what I believe ----- makes me important." In this Atheism is decidedly a religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. There is no doctrine...no set of beliefs for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A doctrine is a belief that is taught to be true. It is not necessarily a set of beliefs but could be a single belief. Now you may say that the tenet "God does not exist" isn't a doctrine or a belief but rather it is non-belief in the existence of God. But you are still making a statement and it is a statement of truth to people who prescribed to that tenet and it is that alone which makes it doctrine. If you make a truth claim then you have a doctrine whether you like it or not. When you say with absolute conviction and certainty that "There is no God and the only right way is atheism" then you are being doctrinaire and dogmatic in your "non-belief". It is the truth claim that makes doctrine regardless if that claim is negative or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said the only "right" way is atheism, and I can't say for sure that there is no Gawd, I just don't live my life as if one exists.
> 
> Atheism is no more of a religion than not believing in Bigfoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't live your life as if one exists, why do you spend so much time promoting the belief that one doesn't exist?  If something does not exist, there should be no thought of its existence, one way or the other.
Click to expand...



To promote suggests that I try to get others to sign up for something. Have I ever made any suggestions to you, that you should give atheism a try?

The answer is no.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is any belief structure that says, "What I am, what I do, what I say, what I know, what I believe ----- makes me important." In this Atheism is decidedly a religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. There is no doctrine...no set of beliefs for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A doctrine is a belief that is taught to be true. It is not necessarily a set of beliefs but could be a single belief. Now you may say that the tenet "God does not exist" isn't a doctrine or a belief but rather it is non-belief in the existence of God. But you are still making a statement and it is a statement of truth to people who prescribed to that tenet and it is that alone which makes it doctrine. If you make a truth claim then you have a doctrine whether you like it or not. When you say with absolute conviction and certainty that "There is no God and the only right way is atheism" then you are being doctrinaire and dogmatic in your "non-belief". It is the truth claim that makes doctrine regardless if that claim is negative or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is quite true.  I would alter it only to say that not having a belief that X exists is not the same as having a belief that X does not exist.  Anyone that argues, "God does not exist!" is expressing a belief!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The tooth fairy does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a belief that you hold.
> 
> To the three year old that awakens to find a quarter under the pillow, it does.  Your silly straw man is evidence of your frustration.
Click to expand...



That is not a religion. The only one here who's angry is you.  You're angry that I will not let you put my atheism on the same shelf as your crazy.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is any belief structure that says, "What I am, what I do, what I say, what I know, what I believe ----- makes me important." In this Atheism is decidedly a religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. There is no doctrine...no set of beliefs for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A doctrine is a belief that is taught to be true. It is not necessarily a set of beliefs but could be a single belief. Now you may say that the tenet "God does not exist" isn't a doctrine or a belief but rather it is non-belief in the existence of God. But you are still making a statement and it is a statement of truth to people who prescribed to that tenet and it is that alone which makes it doctrine. If you make a truth claim then you have a doctrine whether you like it or not. When you say with absolute conviction and certainty that "There is no God and the only right way is atheism" then you are being doctrinaire and dogmatic in your "non-belief". It is the truth claim that makes doctrine regardless if that claim is negative or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said the only "right" way is atheism, and I can't say for sure that there is no Gawd, I just don't live my life as if one exists.
> 
> Atheism is no more of a religion than not believing in Bigfoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't live your life as if one exists, why do you spend so much time promoting the belief that one doesn't exist?  If something does not exist, there should be no thought of its existence, one way or the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To promote suggests that I try to get others to sign up for something. Have I ever made any suggestions to you, that you should give atheism a try?
> 
> The answer is no.
Click to expand...

To argue a debatable point is to seek concurrence.  By expressing your belief that there is no god, you are attempting to convince others that your belief is reality.  Your argument here in this one thread is nothing more than what a person would expect to hear in the way of advice from a church elder or from a 'teacher' or from a pulpit on any given Sunday....just depends on which religion you belong to.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Carla_Danger said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is any belief structure that says, "What I am, what I do, what I say, what I know, what I believe ----- makes me important." In this Atheism is decidedly a religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. There is no doctrine...no set of beliefs for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A doctrine is a belief that is taught to be true. It is not necessarily a set of beliefs but could be a single belief. Now you may say that the tenet "God does not exist" isn't a doctrine or a belief but rather it is non-belief in the existence of God. But you are still making a statement and it is a statement of truth to people who prescribed to that tenet and it is that alone which makes it doctrine. If you make a truth claim then you have a doctrine whether you like it or not. When you say with absolute conviction and certainty that "There is no God and the only right way is atheism" then you are being doctrinaire and dogmatic in your "non-belief". It is the truth claim that makes doctrine regardless if that claim is negative or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said the only "right" way is atheism, and I can't say for sure that there is no Gawd, I just don't live my life as if one exists.
> 
> Atheism is no more of a religion than not believing in Bigfoot.
Click to expand...


Well that is fine with me. If your atheism is just merely a personal opinion then by no means should any one mistake it for religious conviction because mere opinion does not equal conviction. But if you certain beyond a shadow of doubt that the absolute truth is that God does not exist and all other opinions regarding this matter are wrong then you are being a bit more than religious. You personally might not be this way but I have certainly seen atheist who are that way. To them atheism is the only right answer to the question whether God exists or not.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. There is no doctrine...no set of beliefs for atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A doctrine is a belief that is taught to be true. It is not necessarily a set of beliefs but could be a single belief. Now you may say that the tenet "God does not exist" isn't a doctrine or a belief but rather it is non-belief in the existence of God. But you are still making a statement and it is a statement of truth to people who prescribed to that tenet and it is that alone which makes it doctrine. If you make a truth claim then you have a doctrine whether you like it or not. When you say with absolute conviction and certainty that "There is no God and the only right way is atheism" then you are being doctrinaire and dogmatic in your "non-belief". It is the truth claim that makes doctrine regardless if that claim is negative or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is quite true.  I would alter it only to say that not having a belief that X exists is not the same as having a belief that X does not exist.  Anyone that argues, "God does not exist!" is expressing a belief!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The tooth fairy does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a belief that you hold.
> 
> To the three year old that awakens to find a quarter under the pillow, it does.  Your silly straw man is evidence of your frustration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a religion. The only one here who's angry is you.  You're angry that I will not let you put my atheism on the same shelf as your crazy.
Click to expand...


I didn't say that belief in the tooth fairy is a religion.  It's a construct of man to entertain children, just as are Santa and the Easter Bunny.  Once the child is gone, there is no need for the belief...except to pass it down to one's children...for entertainment purposes and a few toothless smiles.


----------



## MaryL

Are people implying there ISN'T a TOOTH FAIRY? ALL Those teeth for all those  quarters was just...a lie? But Jesus is still real, right? Wow, almost peed myself.


----------



## asaratis

MaryL said:


> Are people implying there ISN'T a TOOTH FAIRY? ALL Those teeth for all those  quarters was just...a lie? But Jesus is still real, right? Wow, almost peed myself.


Yes, Dorothy...there is a difference between the two.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is any belief structure that says, "What I am, what I do, what I say, what I know, what I believe ----- makes me important." In this Atheism is decidedly a religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. There is no doctrine...no set of beliefs for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A doctrine is a belief that is taught to be true. It is not necessarily a set of beliefs but could be a single belief. Now you may say that the tenet "God does not exist" isn't a doctrine or a belief but rather it is non-belief in the existence of God. But you are still making a statement and it is a statement of truth to people who prescribed to that tenet and it is that alone which makes it doctrine. If you make a truth claim then you have a doctrine whether you like it or not. When you say with absolute conviction and certainty that "There is no God and the only right way is atheism" then you are being doctrinaire and dogmatic in your "non-belief". It is the truth claim that makes doctrine regardless if that claim is negative or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said the only "right" way is atheism, and I can't say for sure that there is no Gawd, I just don't live my life as if one exists.
> 
> Atheism is no more of a religion than not believing in Bigfoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that is fine with me. If your atheism is just merely a personal opinion then by no means should any one mistake it for religious conviction because mere opinion does not equal conviction. But if you certain beyond a shadow of doubt that the absolute truth is that God does not exist and all other opinions regarding this matter are wrong then you are being a bit more than religious. You personally might not be this way but I have certainly seen atheist who are that way. To them atheism is the only right answer to the question whether God exists or not.
Click to expand...


I think it's important to define our various gawds here. Most references to the gawds are directed to the judeo- christian gawds for no other reason than those are the culturally correct gawds. Your references to the gawds do not represent a generic, one size fits all gawds but a very specific configuration of gawds.  I would argue that you can select science, history, art, etc with abandon but you cannot do the same with gawds. I can only accept a claim of regeneration as an inarguable position (unsupported, but not debatable) on behalf of the religionist for their gawds, and that means there is no possibility of interpretation on the part of the theist. 

As to whether gawds exist, which gawds are you referring to?


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A doctrine is a belief that is taught to be true. It is not necessarily a set of beliefs but could be a single belief. Now you may say that the tenet "God does not exist" isn't a doctrine or a belief but rather it is non-belief in the existence of God. But you are still making a statement and it is a statement of truth to people who prescribed to that tenet and it is that alone which makes it doctrine. If you make a truth claim then you have a doctrine whether you like it or not. When you say with absolute conviction and certainty that "There is no God and the only right way is atheism" then you are being doctrinaire and dogmatic in your "non-belief". It is the truth claim that makes doctrine regardless if that claim is negative or not.
> 
> 
> 
> This is quite true.  I would alter it only to say that not having a belief that X exists is not the same as having a belief that X does not exist.  Anyone that argues, "God does not exist!" is expressing a belief!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The tooth fairy does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a belief that you hold.
> 
> To the three year old that awakens to find a quarter under the pillow, it does.  Your silly straw man is evidence of your frustration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a religion. The only one here who's angry is you.  You're angry that I will not let you put my atheism on the same shelf as your crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that belief in the tooth fairy is a religion.  It's a construct of man to entertain children, just as are Santa and the Easter Bunny.  Once the child is gone, there is no need for the belief...except to pass it down to one's children...for entertainment purposes and a few toothless smiles.
Click to expand...

What, specifically, separates Santa and the Easter Bunny as constructs of man from any of the thousands of versions of gawds?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is quite true.  I would alter it only to say that not having a belief that X exists is not the same as having a belief that X does not exist.  Anyone that argues, "God does not exist!" is expressing a belief!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tooth fairy does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a belief that you hold.
> 
> To the three year old that awakens to find a quarter under the pillow, it does.  Your silly straw man is evidence of your frustration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a religion. The only one here who's angry is you.  You're angry that I will not let you put my atheism on the same shelf as your crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that belief in the tooth fairy is a religion.  It's a construct of man to entertain children, just as are Santa and the Easter Bunny.  Once the child is gone, there is no need for the belief...except to pass it down to one's children...for entertainment purposes and a few toothless smiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What, specifically, separates Santa and the Easter Bunny as constructs of man from any of the thousands of versions of gawds?
Click to expand...

Although this question is likely rhetorical, the answer is nonetheless warranted: nothing.


----------



## LittleNipper

Usually, when a mature learned person says that he or she "believes" in Santa, that person is playing a little game or acting out a sort of jest. To a child the thought of Santa is part of his or her environment and system of actuality as this child has been lead to believe. So the Atheist is either acting out a belief that there is no God or is simply clowning around...


----------



## Carla_Danger

LittleNipper said:


> Usually, when a mature learned person says that he or she "believes" in Santa, that person is playing a little game or acting out a sort of jest. To a child the thought of Santa is part of his or her environment and system of actuality as this child has been lead to believe. So the Atheist is either acting out a belief that there is no God or is simply clowning around...




You can word it any way you like.  Simply not believing in gawd, is not a religion.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Usually, when a mature learned person says that he or she "believes" in Santa, that person is playing a little game or acting out a sort of jest. To a child the thought of Santa is part of his or her environment and system of actuality as this child has been lead to believe. So the Atheist is either acting out a belief that there is no God or is simply clowning around...



Let's rethink this: To a child the thought of Gawds is part of his or her environment and system of actuality as this child has been lead to believe. 

How interesting. Substituting gawds for Santa in your statement alters nothing regarding the context of what a child will believe.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually, when a mature learned person says that he or she "believes" in Santa, that person is playing a little game or acting out a sort of jest. To a child the thought of Santa is part of his or her environment and system of actuality as this child has been lead to believe. So the Atheist is either acting out a belief that there is no God or is simply clowning around...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's rethink this: To a child the thought of Gawds is part of his or her environment and system of actuality as this child has been lead to believe.
> 
> How interesting. Substituting gawds for Santa in your statement alters nothing regarding the context of what a child will believe.
Click to expand...



I grew out of both, except one did take me 40 years.  And I did have to go to Religulous Anonymous for 8 years to get over my past religion.  I was a late bloomer!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Carla_Danger said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually, when a mature learned person says that he or she "believes" in Santa, that person is playing a little game or acting out a sort of jest. To a child the thought of Santa is part of his or her environment and system of actuality as this child has been lead to believe. So the Atheist is either acting out a belief that there is no God or is simply clowning around...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can word it any way you like.  Simply not believing in gawd, is not a religion.
Click to expand...

Correct.

It takes no 'act of faith' to acknowledge the fact that religion and 'god' are creations of man.

As already noted, there is no 'Santa' or 'Easter bunny,' and no one is challenged who makes that statement; nor does anyone perceive as 'religion' to acknowledge the fact that there are is no 'Santa' or 'Easter bunny,' where the same applies to those acknowledging the fact that there is no 'god' as perceived by theists, as such an acknowledgment does not manifest as 'religion.'


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is quite true.  I would alter it only to say that not having a belief that X exists is not the same as having a belief that X does not exist.  Anyone that argues, "God does not exist!" is expressing a belief!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tooth fairy does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a belief that you hold.
> 
> To the three year old that awakens to find a quarter under the pillow, it does.  Your silly straw man is evidence of your frustration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a religion. The only one here who's angry is you.  You're angry that I will not let you put my atheism on the same shelf as your crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that belief in the tooth fairy is a religion.  It's a construct of man to entertain children, just as are Santa and the Easter Bunny.  Once the child is gone, there is no need for the belief...except to pass it down to one's children...for entertainment purposes and a few toothless smiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What, specifically, separates Santa and the Easter Bunny as constructs of man from any of the thousands of versions of gawds?
Click to expand...

Neither Santa nor the Easter Bunny caused the resetting of the world's system of counting years.  BC and AD, recently amended to pacify the atheists, represent two distinct periods on either side of a significant happening related solely to Jesus Christ.  There's the period before Him and the period after Him.  This distinction can be attached only to Jesus.

Jesus changed the world.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually, when a mature learned person says that he or she "believes" in Santa, that person is playing a little game or acting out a sort of jest. To a child the thought of Santa is part of his or her environment and system of actuality as this child has been lead to believe. So the Atheist is either acting out a belief that there is no God or is simply clowning around...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can word it any way you like.  Simply not believing in gawd, is not a religion.
Click to expand...

Correct.  Simply "not believing" is not a religion. However, proclaiming your belief that there is no god is a religious argument.  Your faith in and promotion of the belief that there is no god is no different from my faith in and promotion of the belief that there is.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is any belief structure that says, "What I am, what I do, what I say, what I know, what I believe ----- makes me important." In this Atheism is decidedly a religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. There is no doctrine...no set of beliefs for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A doctrine is a belief that is taught to be true. It is not necessarily a set of beliefs but could be a single belief. Now you may say that the tenet "God does not exist" isn't a doctrine or a belief but rather it is non-belief in the existence of God. But you are still making a statement and it is a statement of truth to people who prescribed to that tenet and it is that alone which makes it doctrine. If you make a truth claim then you have a doctrine whether you like it or not. When you say with absolute conviction and certainty that "There is no God and the only right way is atheism" then you are being doctrinaire and dogmatic in your "non-belief". It is the truth claim that makes doctrine regardless if that claim is negative or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said the only "right" way is atheism, and I can't say for sure that there is no Gawd, I just don't live my life as if one exists.
> 
> Atheism is no more of a religion than not believing in Bigfoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that is fine with me. If your atheism is just merely a personal opinion then by no means should any one mistake it for religious conviction because mere opinion does not equal conviction. But if you certain beyond a shadow of doubt that the absolute truth is that God does not exist and all other opinions regarding this matter are wrong then you are being a bit more than religious. You personally might not be this way but I have certainly seen atheist who are that way. To them atheism is the only right answer to the question whether God exists or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's important to define our various gawds here. Most references to the gawds are directed to the judeo- christian gawds for no other reason than those are the culturally correct gawds. Your references to the gawds do not represent a generic, one size fits all gawds but a very specific configuration of gawds.  I would argue that you can select science, history, art, etc with abandon but you cannot do the same with gawds. I can only accept a claim of regeneration as an inarguable position (unsupported, but not debatable) on behalf of the religionist for their gawds, and that means there is no possibility of interpretation on the part of the theist.
> 
> As to whether gawds exist, which gawds are you referring to?
Click to expand...

 
As to which Gods exist or not is not the point of this thread. We are discussing whether atheists can be religious or not and if atheism is a religion to some atheists.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually, when a mature learned person says that he or she "believes" in Santa, that person is playing a little game or acting out a sort of jest. To a child the thought of Santa is part of his or her environment and system of actuality as this child has been lead to believe. So the Atheist is either acting out a belief that there is no God or is simply clowning around...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can word it any way you like.  Simply not believing in gawd, is not a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.  Simply "not believing" is not a religion. However, proclaiming your belief that there is no god is a religious argument.  Your faith in and promotion of the belief that there is no god is no different from my faith in and promotion of the belief that there is.
Click to expand...

That's an unworkable analogy. It's a simple matter to conclude that _your_ gawds, the gawds that have come and gone _before_ your gawds, Santa, the Easter Bunny etc., don't exist. There's no requirement for faith to reach such conclusions. Additionally, such a conclusion requires no traditions, tax exceptions, multiple versions of texts detailing magical events, men in robes wearing big pointy hats, magic beads, rituals, special crackers and wine, holy men managing child sex syndicates, et., etc.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. There is no doctrine...no set of beliefs for atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A doctrine is a belief that is taught to be true. It is not necessarily a set of beliefs but could be a single belief. Now you may say that the tenet "God does not exist" isn't a doctrine or a belief but rather it is non-belief in the existence of God. But you are still making a statement and it is a statement of truth to people who prescribed to that tenet and it is that alone which makes it doctrine. If you make a truth claim then you have a doctrine whether you like it or not. When you say with absolute conviction and certainty that "There is no God and the only right way is atheism" then you are being doctrinaire and dogmatic in your "non-belief". It is the truth claim that makes doctrine regardless if that claim is negative or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said the only "right" way is atheism, and I can't say for sure that there is no Gawd, I just don't live my life as if one exists.
> 
> Atheism is no more of a religion than not believing in Bigfoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that is fine with me. If your atheism is just merely a personal opinion then by no means should any one mistake it for religious conviction because mere opinion does not equal conviction. But if you certain beyond a shadow of doubt that the absolute truth is that God does not exist and all other opinions regarding this matter are wrong then you are being a bit more than religious. You personally might not be this way but I have certainly seen atheist who are that way. To them atheism is the only right answer to the question whether God exists or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's important to define our various gawds here. Most references to the gawds are directed to the judeo- christian gawds for no other reason than those are the culturally correct gawds. Your references to the gawds do not represent a generic, one size fits all gawds but a very specific configuration of gawds.  I would argue that you can select science, history, art, etc with abandon but you cannot do the same with gawds. I can only accept a claim of regeneration as an inarguable position (unsupported, but not debatable) on behalf of the religionist for their gawds, and that means there is no possibility of interpretation on the part of the theist.
> 
> As to whether gawds exist, which gawds are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As to which Gods exist or not is not the point of this thread. We are discussing whether atheists can be religious or not and if atheism is a religion to some atheists.
Click to expand...

That's been addressed previously. Atheism is no more a religion than you disbelieving in Odin as the one true gawd is a religion.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tooth fairy does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a belief that you hold.
> 
> To the three year old that awakens to find a quarter under the pillow, it does.  Your silly straw man is evidence of your frustration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a religion. The only one here who's angry is you.  You're angry that I will not let you put my atheism on the same shelf as your crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that belief in the tooth fairy is a religion.  It's a construct of man to entertain children, just as are Santa and the Easter Bunny.  Once the child is gone, there is no need for the belief...except to pass it down to one's children...for entertainment purposes and a few toothless smiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What, specifically, separates Santa and the Easter Bunny as constructs of man from any of the thousands of versions of gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither Santa nor the Easter Bunny caused the resetting of the world's system of counting years.  BC and AD, recently amended to pacify the atheists, represent two distinct periods on either side of a significant happening related solely to Jesus Christ.  There's the period before Him and the period after Him.  This distinction can be attached only to Jesus.
> 
> Jesus changed the world.
Click to expand...

The jeebus changed the world no more than a host of other figures who were the object of legend building. The gawd Isis was worshipped for 5,000 years, far outlasting jeebus. It's interesting to note that Isis was a relatively obscure gawd but grew in importance as the Egyptian Dynasties progressed. There are obvious parallels to jeebus.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ASARATIS SAID:

“[P]roclaiming your belief that there is no god is a religious argument. Your faith in and promotion of the belief that there is no god is no different from my faith in and promotion of the belief that there is.”

Incorrect,

To acknowledge the fact that there is no 'god' as perceived by theists is not a 'belief,' nor is it 'religion'; one cannot make a 'religious argument' where no 'religion' is present to begin with.

Again, theism is the aberration, the contrivance, a myth created by man, where theists incorrectly perceive their faith as 'fact' and their beliefs as 'objective truth,' when in fact that's not the case.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A doctrine is a belief that is taught to be true. It is not necessarily a set of beliefs but could be a single belief. Now you may say that the tenet "God does not exist" isn't a doctrine or a belief but rather it is non-belief in the existence of God. But you are still making a statement and it is a statement of truth to people who prescribed to that tenet and it is that alone which makes it doctrine. If you make a truth claim then you have a doctrine whether you like it or not. When you say with absolute conviction and certainty that "There is no God and the only right way is atheism" then you are being doctrinaire and dogmatic in your "non-belief". It is the truth claim that makes doctrine regardless if that claim is negative or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said the only "right" way is atheism, and I can't say for sure that there is no Gawd, I just don't live my life as if one exists.
> 
> Atheism is no more of a religion than not believing in Bigfoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that is fine with me. If your atheism is just merely a personal opinion then by no means should any one mistake it for religious conviction because mere opinion does not equal conviction. But if you certain beyond a shadow of doubt that the absolute truth is that God does not exist and all other opinions regarding this matter are wrong then you are being a bit more than religious. You personally might not be this way but I have certainly seen atheist who are that way. To them atheism is the only right answer to the question whether God exists or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's important to define our various gawds here. Most references to the gawds are directed to the judeo- christian gawds for no other reason than those are the culturally correct gawds. Your references to the gawds do not represent a generic, one size fits all gawds but a very specific configuration of gawds.  I would argue that you can select science, history, art, etc with abandon but you cannot do the same with gawds. I can only accept a claim of regeneration as an inarguable position (unsupported, but not debatable) on behalf of the religionist for their gawds, and that means there is no possibility of interpretation on the part of the theist.
> 
> As to whether gawds exist, which gawds are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As to which Gods exist or not is not the point of this thread. We are discussing whether atheists can be religious or not and if atheism is a religion to some atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's been addressed previously. Atheism is no more a religion than you disbelieving in Odin as the one true gawd is a religion.
Click to expand...

 Except when atheists are being doctrinaire and dogmatic about their atheism. And by the way atheism equals not believing in god or gods, atheism does not equal not religious hence the reason we have non-theistic religions such  some forms of Buddhism, Jainism, Raelism and Satanism


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said the only "right" way is atheism, and I can't say for sure that there is no Gawd, I just don't live my life as if one exists.
> 
> Atheism is no more of a religion than not believing in Bigfoot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is fine with me. If your atheism is just merely a personal opinion then by no means should any one mistake it for religious conviction because mere opinion does not equal conviction. But if you certain beyond a shadow of doubt that the absolute truth is that God does not exist and all other opinions regarding this matter are wrong then you are being a bit more than religious. You personally might not be this way but I have certainly seen atheist who are that way. To them atheism is the only right answer to the question whether God exists or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's important to define our various gawds here. Most references to the gawds are directed to the judeo- christian gawds for no other reason than those are the culturally correct gawds. Your references to the gawds do not represent a generic, one size fits all gawds but a very specific configuration of gawds.  I would argue that you can select science, history, art, etc with abandon but you cannot do the same with gawds. I can only accept a claim of regeneration as an inarguable position (unsupported, but not debatable) on behalf of the religionist for their gawds, and that means there is no possibility of interpretation on the part of the theist.
> 
> As to whether gawds exist, which gawds are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As to which Gods exist or not is not the point of this thread. We are discussing whether atheists can be religious or not and if atheism is a religion to some atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's been addressed previously. Atheism is no more a religion than you disbelieving in Odin as the one true gawd is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when atheists are being doctrinaire and dogmatic about their atheism. And by the way atheism equals not believing in god or gods, atheism does not equal not religious hence the reason we have non-theistic religions such  some forms of Buddhism, Jainism, Raelism and Satanism
Click to expand...

Again, you make the mistake of 'presumption of fact' with regard to the existent of a 'god,' that there exists some sort of 'evidence' that 'god' exists, or that there is some 'possibility' that 'god' as perceived by theists 'exists,' when in fact that's not the case.

When acknowledging the truth one is being neither doctrinaire nor dogmatic, as being free from faith exists absent doctrine or dogma.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said the only "right" way is atheism, and I can't say for sure that there is no Gawd, I just don't live my life as if one exists.
> 
> Atheism is no more of a religion than not believing in Bigfoot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is fine with me. If your atheism is just merely a personal opinion then by no means should any one mistake it for religious conviction because mere opinion does not equal conviction. But if you certain beyond a shadow of doubt that the absolute truth is that God does not exist and all other opinions regarding this matter are wrong then you are being a bit more than religious. You personally might not be this way but I have certainly seen atheist who are that way. To them atheism is the only right answer to the question whether God exists or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's important to define our various gawds here. Most references to the gawds are directed to the judeo- christian gawds for no other reason than those are the culturally correct gawds. Your references to the gawds do not represent a generic, one size fits all gawds but a very specific configuration of gawds.  I would argue that you can select science, history, art, etc with abandon but you cannot do the same with gawds. I can only accept a claim of regeneration as an inarguable position (unsupported, but not debatable) on behalf of the religionist for their gawds, and that means there is no possibility of interpretation on the part of the theist.
> 
> As to whether gawds exist, which gawds are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As to which Gods exist or not is not the point of this thread. We are discussing whether atheists can be religious or not and if atheism is a religion to some atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's been addressed previously. Atheism is no more a religion than you disbelieving in Odin as the one true gawd is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when atheists are being doctrinaire and dogmatic about their atheism. And by the way atheism equals not believing in god or gods, atheism does not equal not religious hence the reason we have non-theistic religions such  some forms of Buddhism, Jainism, Raelism and Satanism
Click to expand...

I don't see christian non-believers as being doctrinaire and dogmatic about their non-belief. And I think it's important to point out that the "Atheism is a religion" comments come exclusively from the more excitable component of the Christians on the board, at least in my experience. I get a sense of real anger coming from the more dogmatic Christians who take any criticism or critique of their dogma as an affront to their religious beliefs.

Although this has been gone over both repeatedly and tediously, Atheism has no practices, customs, beliefs or “ideologies.” To claim a conclusion as to the non-existence of something is a religion is nonsense. To be A-theistic belief is not a religion. There is no religion of A-Bigfoot'ism or A-Santa'Clausism. In reality, there is no real A-theist asserted philosophy, all of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic claims. Atheism is simply the rejection of the Theistic model as undemonstrated, unsupported and bereft substantiation not at all unlike the conclusion relative to Bigfoot and Nessie. 

It appears to me that the visceral reaction of selected christian board members to rejection of their beliefs is a conclusion that they're intent to force their dogmatic opinions as "evidence" to fit into their particular world-view is flawed and untenable. The more excitable Christians apparently believe their entire world-view and existence breaks apart and collapses into nothingness if the fundamentalist interpretation of their creation fables aren't upheld (you know what, they're right-- if any part of any of the bibles is not _literally_ true, then the whole thing is suspect, so they have every reason to be in panic mode).


----------



## asaratis

Any attempt to proselytize  (the act of attempting to educate or convert people to another religion or opinion) promotes a belief.  Atheists simply worship a void.

...and they proselytize fiercely because they are in such a small minority.  They are among a cult of arrogant pseudo-intellectuals that worship each other.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Any attempt to proselytize  (the act of attempting to educate or convert people to another religion or opinion) promotes a belief.  Atheists simply worship a void.
> 
> ...and they proselytize fiercely because they are in such a small minority.  They are among a cult of arrogant pseudo-intellectuals that worship each other.


Wow. How whacked out is that? 

So, to educate someone regarding the, oh, well, let's pick thunder and lightning as an example,  as not coming from the gawds is trying to convert someone to _A-superstition and fear'ism?
_
Did you happen to read my earlier comments regarding the more excitable of the christian dogmatists?

Oops, sorry. My carma just ran over your dogma.


----------



## asaratis

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is fine with me. If your atheism is just merely a personal opinion then by no means should any one mistake it for religious conviction because mere opinion does not equal conviction. But if you certain beyond a shadow of doubt that the absolute truth is that God does not exist and all other opinions regarding this matter are wrong then you are being a bit more than religious. You personally might not be this way but I have certainly seen atheist who are that way. To them atheism is the only right answer to the question whether God exists or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's important to define our various gawds here. Most references to the gawds are directed to the judeo- christian gawds for no other reason than those are the culturally correct gawds. Your references to the gawds do not represent a generic, one size fits all gawds but a very specific configuration of gawds.  I would argue that you can select science, history, art, etc with abandon but you cannot do the same with gawds. I can only accept a claim of regeneration as an inarguable position (unsupported, but not debatable) on behalf of the religionist for their gawds, and that means there is no possibility of interpretation on the part of the theist.
> 
> As to whether gawds exist, which gawds are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As to which Gods exist or not is not the point of this thread. We are discussing whether atheists can be religious or not and if atheism is a religion to some atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's been addressed previously. Atheism is no more a religion than you disbelieving in Odin as the one true gawd is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when atheists are being doctrinaire and dogmatic about their atheism. And by the way atheism equals not believing in god or gods, atheism does not equal not religious hence the reason we have non-theistic religions such  some forms of Buddhism, Jainism, Raelism and Satanism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you make the mistake of 'presumption of fact' with regard to the existent of a 'god,' that there exists some sort of 'evidence' that 'god' exists, or that there is some 'possibility' that 'god' as perceived by theists 'exists,' when in fact that's not the case.
> 
> When acknowledging the truth one is being neither doctrinaire nor dogmatic, as being free from faith exists absent doctrine or dogma.
Click to expand...

Just as there is no proof that God exists, there is no proof that God does not exist.   You claim presumes an unsubstantiated, unprovable posit...that you claim to be a fact.  Your argument is nothing more than the negative of the believer's argument.  No concrete proof on either side.  Especially on yours.  One cannot prove a negative. One can only point to one's perceived ridiculousness of a posit that something exists.

The existence of Russell's Tea Pot (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) is a ridiculous posit. The 'analogy' fails in that there is no fundamental similarity between any supernatural being and any man-made construct, such as a tea pot or cartoon character.

The arrogance of atheists is displayed in their insistence that there is nothing that they do not understand.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any attempt to proselytize  (the act of attempting to educate or convert people to another religion or opinion) promotes a belief.  Atheists simply worship a void.
> 
> ...and they proselytize fiercely because they are in such a small minority.  They are among a cult of arrogant pseudo-intellectuals that worship each other.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. How whacked out is that?
> 
> So, to educate someone regarding the, oh, well, let's pick thunder and lightning as an example,  as not coming from the gawds is trying to convert someone to _A-superstition and fear'ism?
> _
> Did you happen to read my earlier comments regarding the more excitable of the christian dogmatists?
> 
> Oops, sorry. My carma just ran over your dogma.
Click to expand...

Not all that believe in God hold that all happenings are controlled by God.  Some believe in a clock-maker...who created all this around us with a big bang and then sat back to watch the evolution and eventual extinguishing of life...on this and other planets.  He MADE IT ALL EXIST!


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> all of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic claims



Could you please clarify this statement.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's important to define our various gawds here. Most references to the gawds are directed to the judeo- christian gawds for no other reason than those are the culturally correct gawds. Your references to the gawds do not represent a generic, one size fits all gawds but a very specific configuration of gawds.  I would argue that you can select science, history, art, etc with abandon but you cannot do the same with gawds. I can only accept a claim of regeneration as an inarguable position (unsupported, but not debatable) on behalf of the religionist for their gawds, and that means there is no possibility of interpretation on the part of the theist.
> 
> As to whether gawds exist, which gawds are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As to which Gods exist or not is not the point of this thread. We are discussing whether atheists can be religious or not and if atheism is a religion to some atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's been addressed previously. Atheism is no more a religion than you disbelieving in Odin as the one true gawd is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when atheists are being doctrinaire and dogmatic about their atheism. And by the way atheism equals not believing in god or gods, atheism does not equal not religious hence the reason we have non-theistic religions such  some forms of Buddhism, Jainism, Raelism and Satanism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you make the mistake of 'presumption of fact' with regard to the existent of a 'god,' that there exists some sort of 'evidence' that 'god' exists, or that there is some 'possibility' that 'god' as perceived by theists 'exists,' when in fact that's not the case.
> 
> When acknowledging the truth one is being neither doctrinaire nor dogmatic, as being free from faith exists absent doctrine or dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as there is no proof that God exists, there is no proof that God does not exist.   You claim presumes an unsubstantiated, unprovable posit...that you claim to be a fact.  Your argument is nothing more than the negative of the believer's argument.  No concrete proof on either side.  Especially on yours.  One cannot prove a negative. One can only point to one's perceived ridiculousness of a posit that something exists.
> 
> The existence of Russell's Tea Pot (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) is a ridiculous posit. The 'analogy' fails in that there is no fundamental similarity between any supernatural being and any man-made construct, such as a tea pot or cartoon character.
> 
> The arrogance of atheists is displayed in their insistence that there is nothing that they do not understand.
Click to expand...

Ah. As usual, the "you can't prove it isn't" weasel is let loose.

You can't disprove the existence of Russell's Tea Pot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the one true gawd. 

You may want to gather several cans of Chef Boyardee; one for your altar and one for your car's dashboard.


----------



## CynthiaZ

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is fine with me. If your atheism is just merely a personal opinion then by no means should any one mistake it for religious conviction because mere opinion does not equal conviction. But if you certain beyond a shadow of doubt that the absolute truth is that God does not exist and all other opinions regarding this matter are wrong then you are being a bit more than religious. You personally might not be this way but I have certainly seen atheist who are that way. To them atheism is the only right answer to the question whether God exists or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's important to define our various gawds here. Most references to the gawds are directed to the judeo- christian gawds for no other reason than those are the culturally correct gawds. Your references to the gawds do not represent a generic, one size fits all gawds but a very specific configuration of gawds.  I would argue that you can select science, history, art, etc with abandon but you cannot do the same with gawds. I can only accept a claim of regeneration as an inarguable position (unsupported, but not debatable) on behalf of the religionist for their gawds, and that means there is no possibility of interpretation on the part of the theist.
> 
> As to whether gawds exist, which gawds are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As to which Gods exist or not is not the point of this thread. We are discussing whether atheists can be religious or not and if atheism is a religion to some atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's been addressed previously. Atheism is no more a religion than you disbelieving in Odin as the one true gawd is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when atheists are being doctrinaire and dogmatic about their atheism. And by the way atheism equals not believing in god or gods, atheism does not equal not religious hence the reason we have non-theistic religions such  some forms of Buddhism, Jainism, Raelism and Satanism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you make the mistake of 'presumption of fact' with regard to the existent of a 'god,' that there exists some sort of 'evidence' that 'god' exists, or that there is some 'possibility' that 'god' as perceived by theists 'exists,' when in fact that's not the case.
> 
> When acknowledging the truth one is being neither doctrinaire nor dogmatic, as being free from faith exists absent doctrine or dogma.
Click to expand...



You seem to be in some other thread than this one. This thread is about as to whether atheist can be religious or not. And with some of you in absolutely denying that such could ever be the case even though we have strong evidence that non-theistic religions do exist and have existed for thousands of years and that a religion or cult can be built around atheism such as LaVey's Church of Satan or Dawkin's New Atheism


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> all of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic claims
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please clarify this statement.
Click to expand...

Sure. In my daily life, I don't go around announcing "hey, I'm a non-believer, gawd dammit". None of the non-believers I know have any need to make such an announcement. My non-belief is a personal and private matter that just doesn't come up much.

The only time I have any comment on religious matters at all is when religionists arrogantly insist that their particular religion or their partisan gawds are true and extant and need to be a part of the public school syllabus or symbols of their religious beliefs need to be prominently displayed so as to suggest that the State or Federal government promotes a particular religion. 

Within ten blocks or so from where I live, there are 4 churches of various subdivisions of christianity and one synagogue. Neither myself nor the "In_ternational Association of Atheists Whose Job It Is To Comment on Religion_" have ever canvassed a neighborhood looking for converts or had any comment whatever on anyone's religious belief.


----------



## asaratis

CynthiaZ said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's important to define our various gawds here. Most references to the gawds are directed to the judeo- christian gawds for no other reason than those are the culturally correct gawds. Your references to the gawds do not represent a generic, one size fits all gawds but a very specific configuration of gawds.  I would argue that you can select science, history, art, etc with abandon but you cannot do the same with gawds. I can only accept a claim of regeneration as an inarguable position (unsupported, but not debatable) on behalf of the religionist for their gawds, and that means there is no possibility of interpretation on the part of the theist.
> 
> As to whether gawds exist, which gawds are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As to which Gods exist or not is not the point of this thread. We are discussing whether atheists can be religious or not and if atheism is a religion to some atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's been addressed previously. Atheism is no more a religion than you disbelieving in Odin as the one true gawd is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when atheists are being doctrinaire and dogmatic about their atheism. And by the way atheism equals not believing in god or gods, atheism does not equal not religious hence the reason we have non-theistic religions such  some forms of Buddhism, Jainism, Raelism and Satanism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you make the mistake of 'presumption of fact' with regard to the existent of a 'god,' that there exists some sort of 'evidence' that 'god' exists, or that there is some 'possibility' that 'god' as perceived by theists 'exists,' when in fact that's not the case.
> 
> When acknowledging the truth one is being neither doctrinaire nor dogmatic, as being free from faith exists absent doctrine or dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be in some other thread than this one. This thread is about as to whether atheist can be religious or not. And with some of you in absolutely denying that such could ever be the case even though we have strong evidence that non-theistic religions do exist and have existed for thousands of years and that a religion or cult can be built around atheism such as LaVey's Church of Satan or Dawkin's New Atheism
Click to expand...

Yes.  We've already seen web pages for Atheist Churches...and ads to say that you too can become an Atheist Minister!

If that's not a religion, I'll kiss your ass!


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any attempt to proselytize  (the act of attempting to educate or convert people to another religion or opinion) promotes a belief.  Atheists simply worship a void.
> 
> ...and they proselytize fiercely because they are in such a small minority.  They are among a cult of arrogant pseudo-intellectuals that worship each other.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. How whacked out is that?
> 
> So, to educate someone regarding the, oh, well, let's pick thunder and lightning as an example,  as not coming from the gawds is trying to convert someone to _A-superstition and fear'ism?
> _
> Did you happen to read my earlier comments regarding the more excitable of the christian dogmatists?
> 
> Oops, sorry. My carma just ran over your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all that believe in God hold that all happenings are controlled by God.  Some believe in a clock-maker...who created all this around us with a big bang and then sat back to watch the evolution and eventual extinguishing of life...on this and other planets.  He MADE IT ALL EXIST!
Click to expand...


"......... because I say so!"

There. Fixed that for you. You forgot to append the above to your pronouncement. The one that's totally unsupported, completely absent evidence and the pronouncement contradicted by other religionists. 

Your argument is with all the other religions that make the same pronouncement as yours.


"Guns or knives, Butch?"

_-Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
_


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to which Gods exist or not is not the point of this thread. We are discussing whether atheists can be religious or not and if atheism is a religion to some atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> That's been addressed previously. Atheism is no more a religion than you disbelieving in Odin as the one true gawd is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when atheists are being doctrinaire and dogmatic about their atheism. And by the way atheism equals not believing in god or gods, atheism does not equal not religious hence the reason we have non-theistic religions such  some forms of Buddhism, Jainism, Raelism and Satanism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you make the mistake of 'presumption of fact' with regard to the existent of a 'god,' that there exists some sort of 'evidence' that 'god' exists, or that there is some 'possibility' that 'god' as perceived by theists 'exists,' when in fact that's not the case.
> 
> When acknowledging the truth one is being neither doctrinaire nor dogmatic, as being free from faith exists absent doctrine or dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be in some other thread than this one. This thread is about as to whether atheist can be religious or not. And with some of you in absolutely denying that such could ever be the case even though we have strong evidence that non-theistic religions do exist and have existed for thousands of years and that a religion or cult can be built around atheism such as LaVey's Church of Satan or Dawkin's New Atheism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  We've already seen web pages for Atheist Churches...and ads to say that you too can become an Atheist Minister!
> 
> If that's not a religion, I'll kiss your ass!
Click to expand...


You're welcome to attend services. 

Bring your own snakes.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any attempt to proselytize  (the act of attempting to educate or convert people to another religion or opinion) promotes a belief.  Atheists simply worship a void.
> 
> ...and they proselytize fiercely because they are in such a small minority.  They are among a cult of arrogant pseudo-intellectuals that worship each other.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. How whacked out is that?
> 
> So, to educate someone regarding the, oh, well, let's pick thunder and lightning as an example,  as not coming from the gawds is trying to convert someone to _A-superstition and fear'ism?
> _
> Did you happen to read my earlier comments regarding the more excitable of the christian dogmatists?
> 
> Oops, sorry. My carma just ran over your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all that believe in God hold that all happenings are controlled by God.  Some believe in a clock-maker...who created all this around us with a big bang and then sat back to watch the evolution and eventual extinguishing of life...on this and other planets.  He MADE IT ALL EXIST!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "......... because I say so!"
> 
> There. Fixed that for you. You forgot to append the above to your pronouncement. The one that's totally unsupported, completely absent evidence and the pronouncement contradicted by other religionists.
> 
> Your argument is with all the other religions that make the same pronouncement as yours.
> 
> 
> "Guns or knives, Butch?"
> 
> _-Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid_
Click to expand...

Try again. What I state is a belief about a supernatural being, it's truth has nothing to do with the fact that I said it.  You belief regarding the same supernatural being falls under exactly the same metric.  If God does not exist, it is not because you said so.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any attempt to proselytize  (the act of attempting to educate or convert people to another religion or opinion) promotes a belief.  Atheists simply worship a void.
> 
> ...and they proselytize fiercely because they are in such a small minority.  They are among a cult of arrogant pseudo-intellectuals that worship each other.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. How whacked out is that?
> 
> So, to educate someone regarding the, oh, well, let's pick thunder and lightning as an example,  as not coming from the gawds is trying to convert someone to _A-superstition and fear'ism?
> _
> Did you happen to read my earlier comments regarding the more excitable of the christian dogmatists?
> 
> Oops, sorry. My carma just ran over your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all that believe in God hold that all happenings are controlled by God.  Some believe in a clock-maker...who created all this around us with a big bang and then sat back to watch the evolution and eventual extinguishing of life...on this and other planets.  He MADE IT ALL EXIST!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "......... because I say so!"
> 
> There. Fixed that for you. You forgot to append the above to your pronouncement. The one that's totally unsupported, completely absent evidence and the pronouncement contradicted by other religionists.
> 
> Your argument is with all the other religions that make the same pronouncement as yours.
> 
> 
> "Guns or knives, Butch?"
> 
> _-Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try again. What I state is a belief about a supernatural being, it's truth has nothing to do with the fact that I said it.  You belief regarding the same supernatural being falls under exactly the same metric.  If God does not exist, it is not because you said so.
Click to expand...

Please do try again. The burden of proof falls to you making the positive statement regarding your gawds just as it does with those making the positive assertion of their gawds. 

As noted earlier, your argument for gawds is really directed at all the claims for gawds competing with your gawds.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any attempt to proselytize  (the act of attempting to educate or convert people to another religion or opinion) promotes a belief.  Atheists simply worship a void.
> 
> ...and they proselytize fiercely because they are in such a small minority.  They are among a cult of arrogant pseudo-intellectuals that worship each other.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. How whacked out is that?
> 
> So, to educate someone regarding the, oh, well, let's pick thunder and lightning as an example,  as not coming from the gawds is trying to convert someone to _A-superstition and fear'ism?
> _
> Did you happen to read my earlier comments regarding the more excitable of the christian dogmatists?
> 
> Oops, sorry. My carma just ran over your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all that believe in God hold that all happenings are controlled by God.  Some believe in a clock-maker...who created all this around us with a big bang and then sat back to watch the evolution and eventual extinguishing of life...on this and other planets.  He MADE IT ALL EXIST!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "......... because I say so!"
> 
> There. Fixed that for you. You forgot to append the above to your pronouncement. The one that's totally unsupported, completely absent evidence and the pronouncement contradicted by other religionists.
> 
> Your argument is with all the other religions that make the same pronouncement as yours.
> 
> 
> "Guns or knives, Butch?"
> 
> _-Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try again. What I state is a belief about a supernatural being, it's truth has nothing to do with the fact that I said it.  You belief regarding the same supernatural being falls under exactly the same metric.  If God does not exist, it is not because you said so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please do try again. The burden of proof falls to you making the positive statement regarding your gawds just as it does with those making the positive assertion of their gawds.
> 
> As noted earlier, your argument for gawds is really directed at all the claims for gawds competing with your gawds.
Click to expand...

...and when you state unequivocally that God does not exist, the burden is on you.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> all of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic claims
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please clarify this statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure. In my daily life, I don't go around announcing "hey, I'm a non-believer, gawd dammit". None of the non-believers I know have any need to make such an announcement. My non-belief is a personal and private matter that just doesn't come up much.
> 
> The only time I have any comment on religious matters at all is when religionists arrogantly insist that their particular religion or their partisan gawds are true and extant and need to be a part of the public school syllabus or symbols of their religious beliefs need to be prominently displayed so as to suggest that the State or Federal government promotes a particular religion.
> 
> Within ten blocks or so from where I live, there are 4 churches of various subdivisions of christianity and one synagogue. Neither myself nor the "In_ternational Association of Atheists Whose Job It Is To Comment on Religion_" have ever canvassed a neighborhood looking for converts or had any comment whatever on anyone's religious belief.
Click to expand...


So from what stance do you or any other atheists critique religion if not from an ideological stance that is grounded in your atheism?


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. How whacked out is that?
> 
> So, to educate someone regarding the, oh, well, let's pick thunder and lightning as an example,  as not coming from the gawds is trying to convert someone to _A-superstition and fear'ism?
> _
> Did you happen to read my earlier comments regarding the more excitable of the christian dogmatists?
> 
> Oops, sorry. My carma just ran over your dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> Not all that believe in God hold that all happenings are controlled by God.  Some believe in a clock-maker...who created all this around us with a big bang and then sat back to watch the evolution and eventual extinguishing of life...on this and other planets.  He MADE IT ALL EXIST!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "......... because I say so!"
> 
> There. Fixed that for you. You forgot to append the above to your pronouncement. The one that's totally unsupported, completely absent evidence and the pronouncement contradicted by other religionists.
> 
> Your argument is with all the other religions that make the same pronouncement as yours.
> 
> 
> "Guns or knives, Butch?"
> 
> _-Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try again. What I state is a belief about a supernatural being, it's truth has nothing to do with the fact that I said it.  You belief regarding the same supernatural being falls under exactly the same metric.  If God does not exist, it is not because you said so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please do try again. The burden of proof falls to you making the positive statement regarding your gawds just as it does with those making the positive assertion of their gawds.
> 
> As noted earlier, your argument for gawds is really directed at all the claims for gawds competing with your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and when you state unequivocally that God does not exist, the burden is on you.
Click to expand...

When have I stated that?

As it is you making the positive assertion of your gawds, why are you continuing to fail to meet your obligation?


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> all of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic claims
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please clarify this statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure. In my daily life, I don't go around announcing "hey, I'm a non-believer, gawd dammit". None of the non-believers I know have any need to make such an announcement. My non-belief is a personal and private matter that just doesn't come up much.
> 
> The only time I have any comment on religious matters at all is when religionists arrogantly insist that their particular religion or their partisan gawds are true and extant and need to be a part of the public school syllabus or symbols of their religious beliefs need to be prominently displayed so as to suggest that the State or Federal government promotes a particular religion.
> 
> Within ten blocks or so from where I live, there are 4 churches of various subdivisions of christianity and one synagogue. Neither myself nor the "In_ternational Association of Atheists Whose Job It Is To Comment on Religion_" have ever canvassed a neighborhood looking for converts or had any comment whatever on anyone's religious belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So from what stance do you or any other atheists critique religion if not from an ideological stance that is grounded in your atheism?
Click to expand...

It's really just a rational conclusion that your gawds and the gawds of others do not exist.

I would propose that you are A-theistic belief with regard to gawds other than the ones you worship. That would make you atheistic with regard to the Hindu gawds as I am atheistic with regard to your gawds.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all that believe in God hold that all happenings are controlled by God.  Some believe in a clock-maker...who created all this around us with a big bang and then sat back to watch the evolution and eventual extinguishing of life...on this and other planets.  He MADE IT ALL EXIST!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "......... because I say so!"
> 
> There. Fixed that for you. You forgot to append the above to your pronouncement. The one that's totally unsupported, completely absent evidence and the pronouncement contradicted by other religionists.
> 
> Your argument is with all the other religions that make the same pronouncement as yours.
> 
> 
> "Guns or knives, Butch?"
> 
> _-Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try again. What I state is a belief about a supernatural being, it's truth has nothing to do with the fact that I said it.  You belief regarding the same supernatural being falls under exactly the same metric.  If God does not exist, it is not because you said so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please do try again. The burden of proof falls to you making the positive statement regarding your gawds just as it does with those making the positive assertion of their gawds.
> 
> As noted earlier, your argument for gawds is really directed at all the claims for gawds competing with your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and when you state unequivocally that God does not exist, the burden is on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When have I stated that?
> 
> As it is you making the positive assertion of your gawds, why are you continuing to fail to meet your obligation?
Click to expand...


And you are making an extraordinary claim by claiming your belief that God does not exist is an absolute truth. Any time someone claim that what they believe is an absolute truth then they have made an extraordinary claim and they better have the extraordinary evidence to back it up.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> a rational conclusion that your gawds and the gawds of others do not exist.



That is an ideology


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> a rational conclusion that your gawds and the gawds of others do not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is an ideology
Click to expand...

Conclusions are not ideologies. I make decisions and reach conclusions every day about the choices I make. There is no ideological imperative involved.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> a rational conclusion that your gawds and the gawds of others do not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is an ideology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conclusions are not ideologies. I make decisions and reach conclusions every day about the choices I make. There is no ideological imperative involved.
Click to expand...

No, you say that God does not exist because you see no evidence of it.  That is not a logical conclusion.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "......... because I say so!"
> 
> There. Fixed that for you. You forgot to append the above to your pronouncement. The one that's totally unsupported, completely absent evidence and the pronouncement contradicted by other religionists.
> 
> Your argument is with all the other religions that make the same pronouncement as yours.
> 
> 
> "Guns or knives, Butch?"
> 
> _-Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid_
> 
> 
> 
> Try again. What I state is a belief about a supernatural being, it's truth has nothing to do with the fact that I said it.  You belief regarding the same supernatural being falls under exactly the same metric.  If God does not exist, it is not because you said so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please do try again. The burden of proof falls to you making the positive statement regarding your gawds just as it does with those making the positive assertion of their gawds.
> 
> As noted earlier, your argument for gawds is really directed at all the claims for gawds competing with your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and when you state unequivocally that God does not exist, the burden is on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When have I stated that?
> 
> As it is you making the positive assertion of your gawds, why are you continuing to fail to meet your obligation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are making an extraordinary claim by claiming your belief that God does not exist is an absolute truth. Any time someone claim that what they believe is an absolute truth then they have made an extraordinary claim and they better have the extraordinary evidence to back it up.
Click to expand...

You're making the same ridiculous argument as the other excitable religionist. It's a perfectly rational conclusion that your gawds do not exist. Your gawds possess exactly the same standard of proof as every other human invention of gawd, ie:. none.

I have no interest in the juvenile "prove it isn't" argument. Your inability to offer even the most basic elements of a positive argument for your gawds is the issue you're not able to resolve.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> a rational conclusion that your gawds and the gawds of others do not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is an ideology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conclusions are not ideologies. I make decisions and reach conclusions every day about the choices I make. There is no ideological imperative involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you say that God does not exist because you see no evidence of it.  That is not a logical conclusion.
Click to expand...

That is not my argument.

Do you realize that you're in a near state of panic because you're unable to make a positive case for your gawds?

The obvious resolution for your dilemma would be for you to offer such a positive assertion and then support your claim. But of course you can't.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> a rational conclusion that your gawds and the gawds of others do not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is an ideology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conclusions are not ideologies. I make decisions and reach conclusions every day about the choices I make. There is no ideological imperative involved.
Click to expand...


You made a statement about your conclusion. You believe that your conclusion is rational but provided no proof nor any evidence that your conclusion is indeed rational. Your belief that your conclusion is rational implies that you  believe your conclusion is truth and all other opinions contrary to your conclusion are wrong and those who hold opinions contrary to your conclusion are irrational. You belief that your conclusion is rational and implied belief that others are wrong also an Us vs Them mentality.  And that hints at believing that you somehow atheism is somehow superior to theism because you believe it is more rational if not the only rational stance to take when it comes to the question as to whether God does or does not exist.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> a rational conclusion that your gawds and the gawds of others do not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is an ideology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conclusions are not ideologies. I make decisions and reach conclusions every day about the choices I make. There is no ideological imperative involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a statement about your conclusion. You believe that your conclusion is rational but provided no proof nor any evidence that your conclusion is indeed rational. Your belief that your conclusion is rational implies that you  believe your conclusion is truth and all other opinions contrary to your conclusion are wrong and those who hold opinions contrary to your conclusion are irrational. You belief that your conclusion is rational and implied belief that others are wrong also an Us vs Them mentality.  And that hints at believing that you somehow atheism is somehow superior to theism because you believe it is more rational if not the only rational stance to take when it comes to the question as to whether God does or does not exist.
Click to expand...

I already gave you the reasons why it is a rational conclusion such that your gawds do not exist.

Make your best case for your gawds (delineating how your gawds are rationally supported vs. all the other gawds), and anyone reading this thread can reach their own conclusions.

You can do that, right?


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> a rational conclusion that your gawds and the gawds of others do not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is an ideology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conclusions are not ideologies. I make decisions and reach conclusions every day about the choices I make. There is no ideological imperative involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a statement about your conclusion. You believe that your conclusion is rational but provided no proof nor any evidence that your conclusion is indeed rational. Your belief that your conclusion is rational implies that you  believe your conclusion is truth and all other opinions contrary to your conclusion are wrong and those who hold opinions contrary to your conclusion are irrational. You belief that your conclusion is rational and implied belief that others are wrong also an Us vs Them mentality.  And that hints at believing that you somehow atheism is somehow superior to theism because you believe it is more rational if not the only rational stance to take when it comes to the question as to whether God does or does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already gave you the reasons why it is a rational conclusion such that your gawds do not exist.
> 
> Make your best case for your gawds (delineating how your gawds are rationally supported vs. all the other gawds), and anyone reading this thread can reach their own conclusions.
> 
> You can do that, right?
Click to expand...


If you did give a case as to how you came to this rational conclusion maybe you should point it out to me or reiterate again so we all may see the logic and rationality that brought you to this conclusion given that you have no idea what my concept of God is and neither do you have idea about what any other person God concept is about. But yet you say you have come to the rational conclusion that these God concepts cannot possibly exist. Please show us all how you came to that rational conclusion.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> a rational conclusion that your gawds and the gawds of others do not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is an ideology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conclusions are not ideologies. I make decisions and reach conclusions every day about the choices I make. There is no ideological imperative involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a statement about your conclusion. You believe that your conclusion is rational but provided no proof nor any evidence that your conclusion is indeed rational. Your belief that your conclusion is rational implies that you  believe your conclusion is truth and all other opinions contrary to your conclusion are wrong and those who hold opinions contrary to your conclusion are irrational. You belief that your conclusion is rational and implied belief that others are wrong also an Us vs Them mentality.  And that hints at believing that you somehow atheism is somehow superior to theism because you believe it is more rational if not the only rational stance to take when it comes to the question as to whether God does or does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already gave you the reasons why it is a rational conclusion such that your gawds do not exist.
> 
> Make your best case for your gawds (delineating how your gawds are rationally supported vs. all the other gawds), and anyone reading this thread can reach their own conclusions.
> 
> You can do that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you did give a case as to how you came to this rational conclusion maybe you should point it out to me or reiterate again so we all may see the logic and rationality that brought you to this conclusion given that you have no idea what my concept of God is and neither do you have idea about what any other person God concept is about. But yet you say you have come to the rational conclusion that these God concepts cannot possibly exist. Please show us all how you came to that rational conclusion.
Click to expand...


So why is it that you steadfastly refuse to make a rational case for your gawds? As you believe it is irrational that someone would reject your "because I say so" argument, I would have thought that you, making the positive assertion for partisan gawds, could rationally make the case that lays out the groundwork for belief in those gawds.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is an ideology
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusions are not ideologies. I make decisions and reach conclusions every day about the choices I make. There is no ideological imperative involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a statement about your conclusion. You believe that your conclusion is rational but provided no proof nor any evidence that your conclusion is indeed rational. Your belief that your conclusion is rational implies that you  believe your conclusion is truth and all other opinions contrary to your conclusion are wrong and those who hold opinions contrary to your conclusion are irrational. You belief that your conclusion is rational and implied belief that others are wrong also an Us vs Them mentality.  And that hints at believing that you somehow atheism is somehow superior to theism because you believe it is more rational if not the only rational stance to take when it comes to the question as to whether God does or does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already gave you the reasons why it is a rational conclusion such that your gawds do not exist.
> 
> Make your best case for your gawds (delineating how your gawds are rationally supported vs. all the other gawds), and anyone reading this thread can reach their own conclusions.
> 
> You can do that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you did give a case as to how you came to this rational conclusion maybe you should point it out to me or reiterate again so we all may see the logic and rationality that brought you to this conclusion given that you have no idea what my concept of God is and neither do you have idea about what any other person God concept is about. But yet you say you have come to the rational conclusion that these God concepts cannot possibly exist. Please show us all how you came to that rational conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why is it that you steadfastly refuse to make a rational case for your gawds? As you believe it is irrational that someone would reject your "because I say so" argument, I would have thought that you, making the positive assertion for partisan gawds, could rationally make the case that lays out the groundwork for belief in those gawds.
Click to expand...



When I say "I believe that God exist" I am making a statement of faith I am not saying that I have the absolute truth but that I take it on faith that my concept of God exist. A statement of faith is hardly a positive assertion, I am not absolutely sure God exist but I believe on my faith that God exist. It is you who are making the positive assertion when you claim that you have the absolute truth and only rational conclusion when it comes to the question as to whether God exists or not.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusions are not ideologies. I make decisions and reach conclusions every day about the choices I make. There is no ideological imperative involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made a statement about your conclusion. You believe that your conclusion is rational but provided no proof nor any evidence that your conclusion is indeed rational. Your belief that your conclusion is rational implies that you  believe your conclusion is truth and all other opinions contrary to your conclusion are wrong and those who hold opinions contrary to your conclusion are irrational. You belief that your conclusion is rational and implied belief that others are wrong also an Us vs Them mentality.  And that hints at believing that you somehow atheism is somehow superior to theism because you believe it is more rational if not the only rational stance to take when it comes to the question as to whether God does or does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already gave you the reasons why it is a rational conclusion such that your gawds do not exist.
> 
> Make your best case for your gawds (delineating how your gawds are rationally supported vs. all the other gawds), and anyone reading this thread can reach their own conclusions.
> 
> You can do that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you did give a case as to how you came to this rational conclusion maybe you should point it out to me or reiterate again so we all may see the logic and rationality that brought you to this conclusion given that you have no idea what my concept of God is and neither do you have idea about what any other person God concept is about. But yet you say you have come to the rational conclusion that these God concepts cannot possibly exist. Please show us all how you came to that rational conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why is it that you steadfastly refuse to make a rational case for your gawds? As you believe it is irrational that someone would reject your "because I say so" argument, I would have thought that you, making the positive assertion for partisan gawds, could rationally make the case that lays out the groundwork for belief in those gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When I say "I believe that God exist" I am making a statement of faith I am not saying that I have the absolute truth but that I take it on faith that my concept of God exist. A statement of faith is hardly a positive assertion, I am not absolutely sure God exist but I believe on my faith that God exist. It is you who are making the positive assertion when you claim that you have the absolute truth and only rational conclusion when it comes to the question as to whether God exists or not.
Click to expand...

We agree that your statement of faith is no better supported in terms of your partisan gawds than any other version of competing gawds. 

I conclude your gawds are no better supported than any other version of partisan gawds. 

You certainly could resolve your confusion and the confusion shared by those who believe in competing models of gawds with a simple assembly of facts supporting your partisan gawds.

As usual, we're left with you making specious claims to gawds which you refuse to offer support for.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made a statement about your conclusion. You believe that your conclusion is rational but provided no proof nor any evidence that your conclusion is indeed rational. Your belief that your conclusion is rational implies that you  believe your conclusion is truth and all other opinions contrary to your conclusion are wrong and those who hold opinions contrary to your conclusion are irrational. You belief that your conclusion is rational and implied belief that others are wrong also an Us vs Them mentality.  And that hints at believing that you somehow atheism is somehow superior to theism because you believe it is more rational if not the only rational stance to take when it comes to the question as to whether God does or does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> I already gave you the reasons why it is a rational conclusion such that your gawds do not exist.
> 
> Make your best case for your gawds (delineating how your gawds are rationally supported vs. all the other gawds), and anyone reading this thread can reach their own conclusions.
> 
> You can do that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you did give a case as to how you came to this rational conclusion maybe you should point it out to me or reiterate again so we all may see the logic and rationality that brought you to this conclusion given that you have no idea what my concept of God is and neither do you have idea about what any other person God concept is about. But yet you say you have come to the rational conclusion that these God concepts cannot possibly exist. Please show us all how you came to that rational conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why is it that you steadfastly refuse to make a rational case for your gawds? As you believe it is irrational that someone would reject your "because I say so" argument, I would have thought that you, making the positive assertion for partisan gawds, could rationally make the case that lays out the groundwork for belief in those gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When I say "I believe that God exist" I am making a statement of faith I am not saying that I have the absolute truth but that I take it on faith that my concept of God exist. A statement of faith is hardly a positive assertion, I am not absolutely sure God exist but I believe on my faith that God exist. It is you who are making the positive assertion when you claim that you have the absolute truth and only rational conclusion when it comes to the question as to whether God exists or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We agree that your statement of faith is no better supported in terms of your partisan gawds than any other version of competing gawds.
> 
> I conclude your gawds are no better supported than any other version of partisan gawds.
> 
> You certainly could resolve your confusion and the confusion shared by those who believe in competing models of gawds with a simple assembly of facts supporting your partisan gawds.
> 
> As usual, we're left with you making specious claims to gawds which you refuse to offer support for.
Click to expand...


1. You conclude that my God concept is not better supported than others even though you have no idea what my God concept is and neither have any evidence that it is less supported. So given you lack evidence it is better not to come to that conclusion.

2. I am not confused about anything and once again I am not making a claim to absolute truth as you are but merely making a statement of faith.

3. I have not in this thread made any claims about God other than having said I believe God exist and that is a claim about myself rather than God so I have no idea what you are talking. Where is this specious claim that I made?

And by the way are you or are you not going to provide any evidence of your claims that your conclusion is indeed rational because you don't seem very forthcoming in that matter. I really want to know how you came to the rational conclusion that my personal God concept is wrong and does not exist even though you have no information on what I believe and don't believe about God. How anyone can come to a rational conclusion about a subject they have absolutely no information on is beyond me. You must be psychic or something or maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster gave you a revelation of my beliefs.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is fine with me. If your atheism is just merely a personal opinion then by no means should any one mistake it for religious conviction because mere opinion does not equal conviction. But if you certain beyond a shadow of doubt that the absolute truth is that God does not exist and all other opinions regarding this matter are wrong then you are being a bit more than religious. You personally might not be this way but I have certainly seen atheist who are that way. To them atheism is the only right answer to the question whether God exists or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's important to define our various gawds here. Most references to the gawds are directed to the judeo- christian gawds for no other reason than those are the culturally correct gawds. Your references to the gawds do not represent a generic, one size fits all gawds but a very specific configuration of gawds.  I would argue that you can select science, history, art, etc with abandon but you cannot do the same with gawds. I can only accept a claim of regeneration as an inarguable position (unsupported, but not debatable) on behalf of the religionist for their gawds, and that means there is no possibility of interpretation on the part of the theist.
> 
> As to whether gawds exist, which gawds are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As to which Gods exist or not is not the point of this thread. We are discussing whether atheists can be religious or not and if atheism is a religion to some atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's been addressed previously. Atheism is no more a religion than you disbelieving in Odin as the one true gawd is a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when atheists are being doctrinaire and dogmatic about their atheism. And by the way atheism equals not believing in god or gods, atheism does not equal not religious hence the reason we have non-theistic religions such  some forms of Buddhism, Jainism, Raelism and Satanism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see christian non-believers as being doctrinaire and dogmatic about their non-belief. And I think it's important to point out that the "Atheism is a religion" comments come exclusively from the more excitable component of the Christians on the board, at least in my experience. I get a sense of real anger coming from the more dogmatic Christians who take any criticism or critique of their dogma as an affront to their religious beliefs.
> 
> Although this has been gone over both repeatedly and tediously, Atheism has no practices, customs, beliefs or “ideologies.” To claim a conclusion as to the non-existence of something is a religion is nonsense. To be A-theistic belief is not a religion. There is no religion of A-Bigfoot'ism or A-Santa'Clausism. In reality, there is no real A-theist asserted philosophy, all of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic claims. Atheism is simply the rejection of the Theistic model as undemonstrated, unsupported and bereft substantiation not at all unlike the conclusion relative to Bigfoot and Nessie.
> 
> It appears to me that the visceral reaction of selected christian board members to rejection of their beliefs is a conclusion that they're intent to force their dogmatic opinions as "evidence" to fit into their particular world-view is flawed and untenable. The more excitable Christians apparently believe their entire world-view and existence breaks apart and collapses into nothingness if the fundamentalist interpretation of their creation fables aren't upheld (you know what, they're right-- if any part of any of the bibles is not _literally_ true, then the whole thing is suspect, so they have every reason to be in panic mode).
Click to expand...



That's so true.  It's only Christian's that really, really, want atheism to be a religion, and insist that it is.  I guess they can't fathom living without religion.


----------



## Carla_Danger

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> a rational conclusion that your gawds and the gawds of others do not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is an ideology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conclusions are not ideologies. I make decisions and reach conclusions every day about the choices I make. There is no ideological imperative involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a statement about your conclusion. You believe that your conclusion is rational but provided no proof nor any evidence that your conclusion is indeed rational. Your belief that your conclusion is rational implies that you  believe your conclusion is truth and all other opinions contrary to your conclusion are wrong and those who hold opinions contrary to your conclusion are irrational. You belief that your conclusion is rational and implied belief that others are wrong also an Us vs Them mentality.  And that hints at believing that you somehow atheism is somehow superior to theism because you believe it is more rational if not the only rational stance to take when it comes to the question as to whether God does or does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already gave you the reasons why it is a rational conclusion such that your gawds do not exist.
> 
> Make your best case for your gawds (delineating how your gawds are rationally supported vs. all the other gawds), and anyone reading this thread can reach their own conclusions.
> 
> You can do that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you did give a case as to how you came to this rational conclusion maybe you should point it out to me or reiterate again so we all may see the logic and rationality that brought you to this conclusion given that you have no idea what my concept of God is and neither do you have idea about what any other person God concept is about. But yet you say you have come to the rational conclusion that these God concepts cannot possibly exist. Please show us all how you came to that rational conclusion.
Click to expand...




You do agree that religion is faith based, right?


----------



## CynthiaZ

Carla_Danger said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is an ideology
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusions are not ideologies. I make decisions and reach conclusions every day about the choices I make. There is no ideological imperative involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a statement about your conclusion. You believe that your conclusion is rational but provided no proof nor any evidence that your conclusion is indeed rational. Your belief that your conclusion is rational implies that you  believe your conclusion is truth and all other opinions contrary to your conclusion are wrong and those who hold opinions contrary to your conclusion are irrational. You belief that your conclusion is rational and implied belief that others are wrong also an Us vs Them mentality.  And that hints at believing that you somehow atheism is somehow superior to theism because you believe it is more rational if not the only rational stance to take when it comes to the question as to whether God does or does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already gave you the reasons why it is a rational conclusion such that your gawds do not exist.
> 
> Make your best case for your gawds (delineating how your gawds are rationally supported vs. all the other gawds), and anyone reading this thread can reach their own conclusions.
> 
> You can do that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you did give a case as to how you came to this rational conclusion maybe you should point it out to me or reiterate again so we all may see the logic and rationality that brought you to this conclusion given that you have no idea what my concept of God is and neither do you have idea about what any other person God concept is about. But yet you say you have come to the rational conclusion that these God concepts cannot possibly exist. Please show us all how you came to that rational conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do agree that religion is faith based, right?
Click to expand...


Of course I do. Given that God is a metaphysical concept how else am I to approach this concept except by faith? But given that there are a lot more metaphysical concepts other than God that must be taken in faith.


----------



## Carla_Danger

CynthiaZ said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusions are not ideologies. I make decisions and reach conclusions every day about the choices I make. There is no ideological imperative involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made a statement about your conclusion. You believe that your conclusion is rational but provided no proof nor any evidence that your conclusion is indeed rational. Your belief that your conclusion is rational implies that you  believe your conclusion is truth and all other opinions contrary to your conclusion are wrong and those who hold opinions contrary to your conclusion are irrational. You belief that your conclusion is rational and implied belief that others are wrong also an Us vs Them mentality.  And that hints at believing that you somehow atheism is somehow superior to theism because you believe it is more rational if not the only rational stance to take when it comes to the question as to whether God does or does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already gave you the reasons why it is a rational conclusion such that your gawds do not exist.
> 
> Make your best case for your gawds (delineating how your gawds are rationally supported vs. all the other gawds), and anyone reading this thread can reach their own conclusions.
> 
> You can do that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you did give a case as to how you came to this rational conclusion maybe you should point it out to me or reiterate again so we all may see the logic and rationality that brought you to this conclusion given that you have no idea what my concept of God is and neither do you have idea about what any other person God concept is about. But yet you say you have come to the rational conclusion that these God concepts cannot possibly exist. Please show us all how you came to that rational conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do agree that religion is faith based, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I do. Given that God is a metaphysical concept how else am I to approach this concept except by faith? But given that there are a lot more metaphysical concepts other than God that must be taken in faith.
Click to expand...



Basically, you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Carla_Danger said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made a statement about your conclusion. You believe that your conclusion is rational but provided no proof nor any evidence that your conclusion is indeed rational. Your belief that your conclusion is rational implies that you  believe your conclusion is truth and all other opinions contrary to your conclusion are wrong and those who hold opinions contrary to your conclusion are irrational. You belief that your conclusion is rational and implied belief that others are wrong also an Us vs Them mentality.  And that hints at believing that you somehow atheism is somehow superior to theism because you believe it is more rational if not the only rational stance to take when it comes to the question as to whether God does or does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> I already gave you the reasons why it is a rational conclusion such that your gawds do not exist.
> 
> Make your best case for your gawds (delineating how your gawds are rationally supported vs. all the other gawds), and anyone reading this thread can reach their own conclusions.
> 
> You can do that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you did give a case as to how you came to this rational conclusion maybe you should point it out to me or reiterate again so we all may see the logic and rationality that brought you to this conclusion given that you have no idea what my concept of God is and neither do you have idea about what any other person God concept is about. But yet you say you have come to the rational conclusion that these God concepts cannot possibly exist. Please show us all how you came to that rational conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do agree that religion is faith based, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I do. Given that God is a metaphysical concept how else am I to approach this concept except by faith? But given that there are a lot more metaphysical concepts other than God that must be taken in faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.
Click to expand...


No I am not. What I am saying is that my belief in God is a matter of faith. I am not saying that I have no evidence as to whether God exist, in fact I do but it is personal evidence that only pertains to me and it is this evidence that leads me to believe that the existence of God is plausible. I have faith in the evidence that is available to me.


----------



## Carla_Danger

CynthiaZ said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already gave you the reasons why it is a rational conclusion such that your gawds do not exist.
> 
> Make your best case for your gawds (delineating how your gawds are rationally supported vs. all the other gawds), and anyone reading this thread can reach their own conclusions.
> 
> You can do that, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you did give a case as to how you came to this rational conclusion maybe you should point it out to me or reiterate again so we all may see the logic and rationality that brought you to this conclusion given that you have no idea what my concept of God is and neither do you have idea about what any other person God concept is about. But yet you say you have come to the rational conclusion that these God concepts cannot possibly exist. Please show us all how you came to that rational conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do agree that religion is faith based, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I do. Given that God is a metaphysical concept how else am I to approach this concept except by faith? But given that there are a lot more metaphysical concepts other than God that must be taken in faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I am not. What I am saying is that my belief in God is a matter of faith. I am not saying that I have no evidence as to whether God exist, in fact I do but it is personal evidence that only pertains to me and it is this evidence that leads me to believe that the existence of God is plausible. I have faith in the evidence that is available to me.
Click to expand...



Basically, you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Carla_Danger said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you did give a case as to how you came to this rational conclusion maybe you should point it out to me or reiterate again so we all may see the logic and rationality that brought you to this conclusion given that you have no idea what my concept of God is and neither do you have idea about what any other person God concept is about. But yet you say you have come to the rational conclusion that these God concepts cannot possibly exist. Please show us all how you came to that rational conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do agree that religion is faith based, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I do. Given that God is a metaphysical concept how else am I to approach this concept except by faith? But given that there are a lot more metaphysical concepts other than God that must be taken in faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I am not. What I am saying is that my belief in God is a matter of faith. I am not saying that I have no evidence as to whether God exist, in fact I do but it is personal evidence that only pertains to me and it is this evidence that leads me to believe that the existence of God is plausible. I have faith in the evidence that is available to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.
Click to expand...

Basically I am conceding no such thing . I have faith that God exist based on my own personal experiences in regards to the question whether God exists or not. I by faith believe my own person experiences are sufficient evidence to me and me alone that the existence of God is plausible and given the evidence available to me I by faith alone believe that God exists and that personal evidence has merit to me and to me alone.


----------



## Carla_Danger

CynthiaZ said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do agree that religion is faith based, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I do. Given that God is a metaphysical concept how else am I to approach this concept except by faith? But given that there are a lot more metaphysical concepts other than God that must be taken in faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I am not. What I am saying is that my belief in God is a matter of faith. I am not saying that I have no evidence as to whether God exist, in fact I do but it is personal evidence that only pertains to me and it is this evidence that leads me to believe that the existence of God is plausible. I have faith in the evidence that is available to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Basically I am conceding no such thing . I have faith that God exist based on my own personal experiences in regards to the question whether God exists or not. I by faith believe my own person experiences are sufficient evidence to me and me alone that the existence of God is plausible and given the evidence available to me I by faith alone believe that God exists and that personal evidence has merit to me and to me alone.
Click to expand...



You said that your belief in Gawd was a matter of faith. Faith is based on doctrines of religion rather than proof. That is the definition of faith. You saying you have evidence to you, and you alone, is no evidence. So you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.


----------



## Carla_Danger

CynthiaZ said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do agree that religion is faith based, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I do. Given that God is a metaphysical concept how else am I to approach this concept except by faith? But given that there are a lot more metaphysical concepts other than God that must be taken in faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I am not. What I am saying is that my belief in God is a matter of faith. I am not saying that I have no evidence as to whether God exist, in fact I do but it is personal evidence that only pertains to me and it is this evidence that leads me to believe that the existence of God is plausible. I have faith in the evidence that is available to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Basically I am conceding no such thing . I have faith that God exist based on my own personal experiences in regards to the question whether God exists or not. I by faith believe my own person experiences are sufficient evidence to me and me alone that the existence of God is plausible and given the evidence available to me I by faith alone believe that God exists and that personal evidence has merit to me and to me alone.
Click to expand...



No one talks about faith in gravity. There's no need for faith when talking about gravity. People only speak of faith when they wish to substitute emotion for evidence.


----------



## Treeshepherd

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.



Religion involves both doctrine and practice.

Surely you have ethics which are not derived from logical machine language. 

Surely you have practices, exercises and disciplines for self-improvement.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Treeshepherd said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religion involves both doctrine and practice.
> 
> Surely you have ethics which are not derived from logical machine language.
> 
> Surely you have practices, exercises and disciplines for self-improvement.
Click to expand...



Sure, but that has nothing to do with faith/religion. People don't need religion to evolve ethics and morality.


----------



## Treeshepherd

Carla_Danger said:


> Sure, but that has nothing to do with faith/religion. People don't need religion to evolve ethics and morality.



If you have a set of ethics and morality, and you have a practice that helps to attune you with those ideals, then you have a religion.

And from what I can tell from your other posts, you feel that your religion is quite superior.


----------



## Treeshepherd

After all, it is completely logical to lie, steal and murder if there is material gain to be had.


----------



## Hollie

Treeshepherd said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religion involves both doctrine and practice.
> 
> Surely you have ethics which are not derived from logical machine language.
> 
> Surely you have practices, exercises and disciplines for self-improvement.
Click to expand...

"Shirley" you have a middling familiarity with the bibles and the behavior of the christian gawds? Those behaviors are hardly disciplines or examples for self-improvement. 

Using various gawds as a model for value systems regarding morality seems a bit skewed to me. If you told me that you have “felt” the presence of the gods and their moral compass, well, that’s fine but to me, that has relatively little impact… unless of course you knew for certain that another of those “god of love” humanity wiping floods or virgin slaughters, or one of those long nights accompanied with the sacrificial lamb’s blood being painted on the door thingys was to be visited upon us. If that’s about to happen… umm… call me, (it didn’t work out so well for the lambs).


----------



## Hollie

Treeshepherd said:


> After all, it is completely logical to lie, steal and murder if there is material gain to be had.


There are times when I will concede that religion is a "....good with the bad" appropriation in that it may suppress the more base elements of portions of humanity.

If fear of a cosmic spanking is what keeps you lying, stealing and murdering, your religion serves some purpose.


----------



## jillian

TheOldSchool said:


> Tax exempt churches have been started for crazier reasons than what you said.
> 
> So get to it chop chop!



what does that even mean?


----------



## jillian

Treeshepherd said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religion involves both doctrine and practice.
> 
> Surely you have ethics which are not derived from logical machine language.
> 
> Surely you have practices, exercises and disciplines for self-improvement.
Click to expand...


some of the most moral people i've ever met are atheists. their moral code exists for doing what they believe is right, not for acting out of fear.

some of the slimiest people i have ever met, both on this board and in real life, profess a deep belief in religion. 

but just to get back to the topic, atheism is an absence of believe. it is not a religion.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Carla_Danger said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is any belief structure that says, "What I am, what I do, what I say, what I know, what I believe ----- makes me important." In this Atheism is decidedly a religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not. There is no doctrine...no set of beliefs for atheists.
Click to expand...

??????....so you have no beliefs in common with other atheists.....not even a little one like "there are no gods"?.......


----------



## Carla_Danger

Treeshepherd said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but that has nothing to do with faith/religion. People don't need religion to evolve ethics and morality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a set of ethics and morality, and you have a practice that helps to attune you with those ideals, then you have a religion.
> 
> And from what I can tell from your other posts, you feel that your religion is quite superior.
Click to expand...



That's because you're a ding-dong.


















You can read all of the above for inspiration, and a lesson in ethics and morality.


----------



## Carla_Danger

jillian said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religion involves both doctrine and practice.
> 
> Surely you have ethics which are not derived from logical machine language.
> 
> Surely you have practices, exercises and disciplines for self-improvement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> some of the most moral people i've ever met are atheists. their moral code exists for doing what they believe is right, not for acting out of fear.
> 
> some of the slimiest people i have ever met, both on this board and in real life, profess a deep belief in religion.
> 
> but just to get back to the topic, atheism is an absence of believe. it is not a religion.
Click to expand...


----------



## Treeshepherd

jillian said:


> some of the most moral people i've ever met are atheists. their moral code exists for doing what they believe is right, not for acting out of fear.



Most of my friends and family are atheists. I'm not questioning their level of morality or character. I ask questions about the source of their values. I've never claimed to be a person of high moral character myself.

Some atheist posters here write as if morality just evolved within our DNA information coding. I do recognize that we all have a conscience. But, what I'm saying is that there's a cultural layer to morality. If you don't want to call that 'religion' because you think you're set apart in some way from dumb religious people, so be it. But, the source of your ethics is not logic.


----------



## Treeshepherd

Carla_Danger said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but that has nothing to do with faith/religion. People don't need religion to evolve ethics and morality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a set of ethics and morality, and you have a practice that helps to attune you with those ideals, then you have a religion.
> 
> And from what I can tell from your other posts, you feel that your religion is quite superior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you're a ding-dong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can read all of the above for inspiration, and a lesson in ethics and morality.
Click to expand...


You can't learn anything from those books because toys don't become conscious and begin to talk, and elephants can't actually be concerned with microscopic kingdoms. Show me evidence that these things are real! I'm being facetious, of course.

"_When Horton Hears a Who, is there a sermon to be heard?

What about The Cat in the Hat and The Lorax ? Are those characters metaphors for Christ? And Oh, the Places You'll Go!— if you'll only follow the Great Commission.
No one has ever doubted the layers of meaning in the stories of Dr. Seuss....
So when Horton's world of Who-ville was "saved by the Smallest of All," Robert Short saw the savior of the Whos as a symbol for the Savior of all people. From Green Eggs and Ham to How the Grinch Stole Christmas , Short has reinterpreted many of Theodor Seuss Geisel's stories as subtle messages of Christian doctrine in the new book, The Parables of Dr. Seuss.
 "I was amazed at what I found when I started looking at it — all this Christian imagery was very carefully factored into his stories," Short said._..""
Christian doctrine disguised in Dr. Seuss stories - USATODAY.com

Suess was the product of a Christian upbringing. Biblical imagery was the source material of his spiritual education. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, his books have many similarities with the form of the Christian parable. You'll completely reject the idea as unpalatable, but the 3 books you listed echo the religious values of our religious heritage. 

In fact, The Little Engine That Could is a common teaching tool in Christian Sunday schools and in sermons.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Treeshepherd said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but that has nothing to do with faith/religion. People don't need religion to evolve ethics and morality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a set of ethics and morality, and you have a practice that helps to attune you with those ideals, then you have a religion.
> 
> And from what I can tell from your other posts, you feel that your religion is quite superior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you're a ding-dong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can read all of the above for inspiration, and a lesson in ethics and morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't learn anything from those books because toys don't become conscious and begin to talk, and elephants can't actually be concerned with microscopic kingdoms. Show me evidence that these things are real! I'm being facetious, of course.
> 
> "_When Horton Hears a Who, is there a sermon to be heard?
> 
> What about The Cat in the Hat and The Lorax ? Are those characters metaphors for Christ? And Oh, the Places You'll Go!— if you'll only follow the Great Commission.
> No one has ever doubted the layers of meaning in the stories of Dr. Seuss....
> So when Horton's world of Who-ville was "saved by the Smallest of All," Robert Short saw the savior of the Whos as a symbol for the Savior of all people. From Green Eggs and Ham to How the Grinch Stole Christmas , Short has reinterpreted many of Theodor Seuss Geisel's stories as subtle messages of Christian doctrine in the new book, The Parables of Dr. Seuss.
> "I was amazed at what I found when I started looking at it — all this Christian imagery was very carefully factored into his stories," Short said._..""
> Christian doctrine disguised in Dr. Seuss stories - USATODAY.com
> 
> Suess was the product of a Christian upbringing. Biblical imagery was the source material of his spiritual education. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, his books have many similarities with the form of the Christian parable. You'll completely reject the idea as unpalatable, but the 3 books you listed echo the religious values of our religious heritage.
> 
> In fact, The Little Engine That Could is a common teaching tool in Christian Sunday schools and in sermons.
Click to expand...



Sigh.  Religious wackos also tried to tie Dr. Seuss's book to the anti-abortion cause.

wikipedia

The line "A person's a person, no matter _how_ small!!" from _Horton Hears a Who!_ has been used widely as a slogan by the pro-life movement in the U.S., despite the objections of Geisel's widow. In 1986, when the line was first used in such a way, he demanded a retraction and received one

and..

In Horton Movie Abortion Foes Hear an Ally NPR


----------



## Treeshepherd

Carla_Danger said:


> Sigh. Religious wackos also tried to tie Dr. Seuss's book to the anti-abortion cause.



That's interesting. A person is a person no matter how small. I'm not interested in debating abortion online, but that's something to think about.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Treeshepherd said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh. Religious wackos also tried to tie Dr. Seuss's book to the anti-abortion cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting. A person is a person no matter how small. I'm not interested in debating abortion online, but that's something to think about.
Click to expand...



And Religious wackos are still trying to misrepresent his work.


----------



## Treeshepherd

Think about the concept of decaffeinated coffee. The substance is removed that made the drink popular in the first place.

That’s analogous to the 5,000 year evolution of western thought as it relates to humanism. Scripture and debate over scripture has been the primary driver which has brought us to contemporary thought. The atheist removes the original driving force and retains the leftover values and ideals.

What is the fallout of modern atheism, or secular humanism? You only live once, so the importance of this life is paramount. Humanism tends to feed the ego, while traditional religious practices foster an extra-personal identity. It would be a natural progression for the secular humanist to move toward transhumanism. Transhumanism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Without a concept of having faith/trust in a cosmic plan, or a sense of Providence, our future is entirely based on blind random chance. Therefore, it’s entirely up to us to shape the future. Salvation through technology could include dicking with human DNA, geo-engineering, medical fountains of youth, pharmaceutical solutions, bio-machinery, etc..

Transhumanism is the child of secular humanism. That’s one of many consequences of the common themes we find in atheist religions.


----------



## Hollie

Treeshepherd said:


> Think about the concept of decaffeinated coffee. The substance is removed that made the drink popular in the first place.
> 
> That’s analogous to the 5,000 year evolution of western thought as it relates to humanism. Scripture and debate over scripture has been the primary driver which has brought us to contemporary thought. The atheist removes the original driving force and retains the leftover values and ideals.
> 
> What is the fallout of modern atheism, or secular humanism? You only live once, so the importance of this life is paramount. Humanism tends to feed the ego, while traditional religious practices foster an extra-personal identity. It would be a natural progression for the secular humanist to move toward transhumanism. Transhumanism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Without a concept of having faith/trust in a cosmic plan, or a sense of Providence, our future is entirely based on blind random chance. Therefore, it’s entirely up to us to shape the future. Salvation through technology could include dicking with human DNA, geo-engineering, medical fountains of youth, pharmaceutical solutions, bio-machinery, etc..
> 
> Transhumanism is the child of secular humanism. That’s one of many consequences of the common themes we find in atheist religions.


The above may find an audience at your local chapter of the Jerry Falwell madrassah, but why would you think anyone else would take it seriously?


----------



## Hollie

Treeshepherd said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> some of the most moral people i've ever met are atheists. their moral code exists for doing what they believe is right, not for acting out of fear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of my friends and family are atheists. I'm not questioning their level of morality or character. I ask questions about the source of their values. I've never claimed to be a person of high moral character myself.
> 
> Some atheist posters here write as if morality just evolved within our DNA information coding. I do recognize that we all have a conscience. But, what I'm saying is that there's a cultural layer to morality. If you don't want to call that 'religion' because you think you're set apart in some way from dumb religious people, so be it. But, the source of your ethics is not logic.
Click to expand...

In my personal experience, fundamentalist Christians are among the last people on the plane who should be lecturing anyone regarding ethics or morality.

Additionally, I find your attitudes about morality and it's derivation to be stereotypical in that you seem to believe your religion is somehow an arbiter of morality and ethics when in a historical sense, Christianity has been a wellspring of hate, derision and the source of divisions.

You can be a good person without giving two hoots about the jeebus, as billions of non-Christians prove every day. Christians think this world was nothing but barbarians before Jeebus-- when in actuality true barbarism sprung up rampantly _after_ Jeebus and his devoted fanatics started hacking at anyone who slightly disagreed with them (even the atrocities of the old testament pale in comparison to the holocausts, pogroms, wars and genocides that the teachings of Jeebus has inspired). You think the Greeks burned old women because they were witches? The greatest library of all time-- the Library at Alexandria --was created by the Greek Ionians-- men who believed in Zeus. It took a Christian to destroy their works and literally set us back 2,000 years. For god. Who, according to the bible, hates knowledge so much he made it the one thing forbidden in Eden-- "ye shall eat of all things but not of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge -- for on that day, ye shall die" (they didn't die, as the serpent pointed out, they lived; God lied, Satan told the truth-- how ironic)

 The most basic rule of human sociality is non-zero-sum: no free lunch, scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, reciprocity. This is because a society made up of cheaters will (obviously) become fraught with suspicion, distrust, and peril, and will eventually fall apart. So we come to a consensus, a social contract that we all agree to live by under threat of punishment (also agreed upon by the group), and _voilà_—law, order, and stability. This is the template upon which all patterns of human society are formed. Here in the West, we've progressed through theocratic totalitarianism to liberal democracy. Thank goodness.

This template for writing this social contract is found throughout the world and can be highly effective in stabilizing the sometimes unpredictable dynamics of man and is often furthering to each respective society. It wasn't until the agricultural revolution, between eight and ten thousand years ago, that we began to group together in numbers beyond 100-200, and before then we were always on the move looking for food, resources, and clement weather. In other words, there wasn't much potential for large-scale clashes of cultures and societies. Of course, all that has changed now.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about the concept of decaffeinated coffee. The substance is removed that made the drink popular in the first place.
> 
> That’s analogous to the 5,000 year evolution of western thought as it relates to humanism. Scripture and debate over scripture has been the primary driver which has brought us to contemporary thought. The atheist removes the original driving force and retains the leftover values and ideals.
> 
> What is the fallout of modern atheism, or secular humanism? You only live once, so the importance of this life is paramount. Humanism tends to feed the ego, while traditional religious practices foster an extra-personal identity. It would be a natural progression for the secular humanist to move toward transhumanism. Transhumanism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Without a concept of having faith/trust in a cosmic plan, or a sense of Providence, our future is entirely based on blind random chance. Therefore, it’s entirely up to us to shape the future. Salvation through technology could include dicking with human DNA, geo-engineering, medical fountains of youth, pharmaceutical solutions, bio-machinery, etc..
> 
> Transhumanism is the child of secular humanism. That’s one of many consequences of the common themes we find in atheist religions.
> 
> 
> 
> The above may find an audience at your local chapter of the Jerry Falwell madrassah, but why would you think anyone else would take it seriously?
Click to expand...


Have you ever read Nietzsche? I doubt you have but what Nietzsche told us is that if God is indeed dead then that has some very serious consequences on society that could ultimately lead us into nihilism.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> The greatest library of all time-- the Library at Alexandria --was created by the Greek Ionians-- men who believed in Zeus. It took a Christian to destroy their works and literally set us back 2,000 years.


It was Caesar who burnt down the Library of Alexandria and I don't think he was a Christian because Jesus wasn't even born yet. Anymore historical revisionism you want to gift us with. Oh yes the Greek and the Romans would at times persecute people they felt were practicing sorcery. The Romans were particularly nasty when it came to persecuting the Druids for practicing sorcery.


----------



## asaratis

This thread proves beyond all doubt that Atheists depend on mockery, ridicule and adolescent quips more often than not to rebut the opposition.  How silly can one get?


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about the concept of decaffeinated coffee. The substance is removed that made the drink popular in the first place.
> 
> That’s analogous to the 5,000 year evolution of western thought as it relates to humanism. Scripture and debate over scripture has been the primary driver which has brought us to contemporary thought. The atheist removes the original driving force and retains the leftover values and ideals.
> 
> What is the fallout of modern atheism, or secular humanism? You only live once, so the importance of this life is paramount. Humanism tends to feed the ego, while traditional religious practices foster an extra-personal identity. It would be a natural progression for the secular humanist to move toward transhumanism. Transhumanism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Without a concept of having faith/trust in a cosmic plan, or a sense of Providence, our future is entirely based on blind random chance. Therefore, it’s entirely up to us to shape the future. Salvation through technology could include dicking with human DNA, geo-engineering, medical fountains of youth, pharmaceutical solutions, bio-machinery, etc..
> 
> Transhumanism is the child of secular humanism. That’s one of many consequences of the common themes we find in atheist religions.
> 
> 
> 
> The above may find an audience at your local chapter of the Jerry Falwell madrassah, but why would you think anyone else would take it seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever read Nietzsche? I doubt you have but what Nietzsche told us is that if God is indeed dead then that has some very serious consequences on society that could ultimately lead us into nihilism.
Click to expand...

Have you considered that Nietzsche is not a gawd? I doubt you have but consider that most of humanity has somehow managed to survive without any assistance from your gawds.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> This thread proves beyond all doubt that Atheists depend on mockery, ridicule and adolescent quips more often than not to rebut the opposition.  How silly can one get?


Actually, this thread proves that fundie zealots must rely on deflection, mis-representation and obfuscation regarding questions to their dogma that are irresolvable.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The greatest library of all time-- the Library at Alexandria --was created by the Greek Ionians-- men who believed in Zeus. It took a Christian to destroy their works and literally set us back 2,000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> It was Caesar who burnt down the Library of Alexandria and I don't think he was a Christian because Jesus wasn't even born yet. Anymore historical revisionism you want to gift us with. Oh yes the Greek and the Romans would at times persecute people they felt were practicing sorcery. The Romans were particularly nasty when it came to persecuting the Druids for practicing sorcery.
Click to expand...

You fundie Christians took a cue from the Romans in terms of persecuting people. Given the history of Christianity, why would you think that anyone would take you seriously as you try to lecture anyone regarding morality of ethics?

You may wish to investigate the actions of Pope Theophilus of Alexandria as the wonderful christian who instigated a christian mob burning down the library at Alexandria. Revisionist history on your part is not uncommon for fundies.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves beyond all doubt that Atheists depend on mockery, ridicule and adolescent quips more often than not to rebut the opposition.  How silly can one get?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, this thread proves that fundie zealots must rely on deflection, mis-representation and obfuscation regarding questions to their dogma that are irresolvable.
Click to expand...

Atheists seem to draw no distinction between natural and supernatural things.  They do not accept that supernatural things exist because they cannot understand them...therefore they do not exist.  To say that they do is 'laughable' and subject to ridicule.


----------



## CynthiaZ

asaratis said:


> This thread proves beyond all doubt that Atheists depend on mockery, ridicule and adolescent quips more often than not to rebut the opposition.  How silly can one get?


Just further evidence of their bigotry and intolerance and hypocrisy. They love to call out theist for being intolerant and bigoted but time and time again they just keep proven that they themselves are just as bigoted and intolerant as anyone else.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about the concept of decaffeinated coffee. The substance is removed that made the drink popular in the first place.
> 
> That’s analogous to the 5,000 year evolution of western thought as it relates to humanism. Scripture and debate over scripture has been the primary driver which has brought us to contemporary thought. The atheist removes the original driving force and retains the leftover values and ideals.
> 
> What is the fallout of modern atheism, or secular humanism? You only live once, so the importance of this life is paramount. Humanism tends to feed the ego, while traditional religious practices foster an extra-personal identity. It would be a natural progression for the secular humanist to move toward transhumanism. Transhumanism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Without a concept of having faith/trust in a cosmic plan, or a sense of Providence, our future is entirely based on blind random chance. Therefore, it’s entirely up to us to shape the future. Salvation through technology could include dicking with human DNA, geo-engineering, medical fountains of youth, pharmaceutical solutions, bio-machinery, etc..
> 
> Transhumanism is the child of secular humanism. That’s one of many consequences of the common themes we find in atheist religions.
> 
> 
> 
> The above may find an audience at your local chapter of the Jerry Falwell madrassah, but why would you think anyone else would take it seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever read Nietzsche? I doubt you have but what Nietzsche told us is that if God is indeed dead then that has some very serious consequences on society that could ultimately lead us into nihilism.
Click to expand...

You may have 'read' Nietzsche but clearly you didn't understand what you read.

All manifestations of morality, values, and ethical conduct were created by man – whether in the context of religious dogma or not is irrelevant, where those free from faith are perfectly capable of morality, values, and ethical conduct absent any religion at all.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The greatest library of all time-- the Library at Alexandria --was created by the Greek Ionians-- men who believed in Zeus. It took a Christian to destroy their works and literally set us back 2,000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> It was Caesar who burnt down the Library of Alexandria and I don't think he was a Christian because Jesus wasn't even born yet. Anymore historical revisionism you want to gift us with. Oh yes the Greek and the Romans would at times persecute people they felt were practicing sorcery. The Romans were particularly nasty when it came to persecuting the Druids for practicing sorcery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fundie Christians took a cue from the Romans in terms of persecuting people. Given the history of Christianity, why would you think that anyone would take you seriously as you try to lecture anyone regarding morality of ethics?
> 
> You may wish to investigate the actions of Pope Theophilus of Alexandria as the wonderful christian who instigated a christian mob burning down the library at Alexandria. Revisionist history on your part is not uncommon for fundies.
Click to expand...

I am not a fundie and neither am I a Christian. Do you make assumptions about thing you have no information on? Because it really seems to be a trend with you.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves beyond all doubt that Atheists depend on mockery, ridicule and adolescent quips more often than not to rebut the opposition.  How silly can one get?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, this thread proves that fundie zealots must rely on deflection, mis-representation and obfuscation regarding questions to their dogma that are irresolvable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheists seem to draw no distinction between natural and supernatural things.  They do not accept that supernatural things exist because they cannot understand them...therefore they do not exist.  To say that they do is 'laughable' and subject to ridicule.
Click to expand...

Please provide testable evidence that any “supernatural” occurrence has ever, in fact happened. What you may not realize is that the assertion of “supernatural” suggests a different realm, that cannot be tested, cannot be accessed and cannot be quantified or qualified and is therefore no different from describing irrationality.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The greatest library of all time-- the Library at Alexandria --was created by the Greek Ionians-- men who believed in Zeus. It took a Christian to destroy their works and literally set us back 2,000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> It was Caesar who burnt down the Library of Alexandria and I don't think he was a Christian because Jesus wasn't even born yet. Anymore historical revisionism you want to gift us with. Oh yes the Greek and the Romans would at times persecute people they felt were practicing sorcery. The Romans were particularly nasty when it came to persecuting the Druids for practicing sorcery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fundie Christians took a cue from the Romans in terms of persecuting people. Given the history of Christianity, why would you think that anyone would take you seriously as you try to lecture anyone regarding morality of ethics?
> 
> You may wish to investigate the actions of Pope Theophilus of Alexandria as the wonderful christian who instigated a christian mob burning down the library at Alexandria. Revisionist history on your part is not uncommon for fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a fundie and neither am I a Christian. Do you make assumptions about thing you have no information on? Because it really seems to be a trend with you.
Click to expand...

You embrace all those wonderful attributes of the christian fundie. You would be a credit to Jimmy Swaggert Madrassahs everywhere.


----------



## CynthiaZ

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about the concept of decaffeinated coffee. The substance is removed that made the drink popular in the first place.
> 
> That’s analogous to the 5,000 year evolution of western thought as it relates to humanism. Scripture and debate over scripture has been the primary driver which has brought us to contemporary thought. The atheist removes the original driving force and retains the leftover values and ideals.
> 
> What is the fallout of modern atheism, or secular humanism? You only live once, so the importance of this life is paramount. Humanism tends to feed the ego, while traditional religious practices foster an extra-personal identity. It would be a natural progression for the secular humanist to move toward transhumanism. Transhumanism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Without a concept of having faith/trust in a cosmic plan, or a sense of Providence, our future is entirely based on blind random chance. Therefore, it’s entirely up to us to shape the future. Salvation through technology could include dicking with human DNA, geo-engineering, medical fountains of youth, pharmaceutical solutions, bio-machinery, etc..
> 
> Transhumanism is the child of secular humanism. That’s one of many consequences of the common themes we find in atheist religions.
> 
> 
> 
> The above may find an audience at your local chapter of the Jerry Falwell madrassah, but why would you think anyone else would take it seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever read Nietzsche? I doubt you have but what Nietzsche told us is that if God is indeed dead then that has some very serious consequences on society that could ultimately lead us into nihilism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may have 'read' Nietzsche but clearly you didn't understand what you read.
> 
> All manifestations of morality, values, and ethical conduct were created by man – whether in the context of religious dogma or not is irrelevant, where those free from faith are perfectly capable of morality, values, and ethical conduct absent any religion at all.
Click to expand...


And what does that have to do with my post. I notice you like to give out random pieces of information that barely have anything to do with the discussion in an attempt to make yourself look smart. I was talking about nihilism what the hell does your little diatribe have to do with nihilism? Absolutely nothing. Do have any concept of what a discussion is and how a discussion  is framed or do you just go off and say whatever random thing loosely connected to the subject that pops in your head?


----------



## Inevitable

Carla_Danger said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not believing in religion is not a religion. How dumb are you folks?
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is without theism. It really isn't without religion, that would be areligious. I am an areligious theist.
> 
> And there are two religions that don't believe in God. One was Anton LeVay's church which you stupidly claimed worships Satan. Proving how dumb you are. A quick Google search will reveal the truth. And scientology which has no deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is completely without religion. I know this because as soon as I became an atheist, I lost my religion. That's the great thing about being an atheist....it requires so little of your time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not exactly true. There are two religions that I know of that are atheist. Anton LeVey's church of Satan, and KSW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists who don't believe in a god also aren't going to believe in this god's supernatural competitor, and I have no idea what KSW is.
> 
> So no, I think that claim is false.
Click to expand...

Anton LeVay's church of Satan doesn't believe in any God or supernatural competitor. My claim is accurate.

KSW is the church of scientology. They don't believe in a god or gods thus they are by definition atheist.

I'm not saying all atheists are scientologists or members of the church of Satan. I'm just saying that there are religions that are atheists.

I listed two.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about the concept of decaffeinated coffee. The substance is removed that made the drink popular in the first place.
> 
> That’s analogous to the 5,000 year evolution of western thought as it relates to humanism. Scripture and debate over scripture has been the primary driver which has brought us to contemporary thought. The atheist removes the original driving force and retains the leftover values and ideals.
> 
> What is the fallout of modern atheism, or secular humanism? You only live once, so the importance of this life is paramount. Humanism tends to feed the ego, while traditional religious practices foster an extra-personal identity. It would be a natural progression for the secular humanist to move toward transhumanism. Transhumanism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Without a concept of having faith/trust in a cosmic plan, or a sense of Providence, our future is entirely based on blind random chance. Therefore, it’s entirely up to us to shape the future. Salvation through technology could include dicking with human DNA, geo-engineering, medical fountains of youth, pharmaceutical solutions, bio-machinery, etc..
> 
> Transhumanism is the child of secular humanism. That’s one of many consequences of the common themes we find in atheist religions.
> 
> 
> 
> The above may find an audience at your local chapter of the Jerry Falwell madrassah, but why would you think anyone else would take it seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever read Nietzsche? I doubt you have but what Nietzsche told us is that if God is indeed dead then that has some very serious consequences on society that could ultimately lead us into nihilism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may have 'read' Nietzsche but clearly you didn't understand what you read.
> 
> All manifestations of morality, values, and ethical conduct were created by man – whether in the context of religious dogma or not is irrelevant, where those free from faith are perfectly capable of morality, values, and ethical conduct absent any religion at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with my post. I notice you like to give out random pieces of information that barely have anything to do with the discussion in an attempt to make yourself look smart. I was talking about nihilism what the hell does your little diatribe have to do with nihilism? Absolutely nothing. Do have any concept of what a discussion is and how a discussion  is framed or do you just go off and say whatever random thing loosely connected to the subject that pops in your head?
Click to expand...

Your post was a confused, ignorant rant wherein you hoped to Invoke Nietzsche as supportive of some point you hoped to make. It's clear you don't understand the writings of Nietzsche and never made the effort to actually read his works.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The greatest library of all time-- the Library at Alexandria --was created by the Greek Ionians-- men who believed in Zeus. It took a Christian to destroy their works and literally set us back 2,000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> It was Caesar who burnt down the Library of Alexandria and I don't think he was a Christian because Jesus wasn't even born yet. Anymore historical revisionism you want to gift us with. Oh yes the Greek and the Romans would at times persecute people they felt were practicing sorcery. The Romans were particularly nasty when it came to persecuting the Druids for practicing sorcery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fundie Christians took a cue from the Romans in terms of persecuting people. Given the history of Christianity, why would you think that anyone would take you seriously as you try to lecture anyone regarding morality of ethics?
> 
> You may wish to investigate the actions of Pope Theophilus of Alexandria as the wonderful christian who instigated a christian mob burning down the library at Alexandria. Revisionist history on your part is not uncommon for fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a fundie and neither am I a Christian. Do you make assumptions about thing you have no information on? Because it really seems to be a trend with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You embrace all those wonderful attributes of the christian fundie. You would be a credit to Jimmy Swaggert Madrassahs everywhere.
Click to expand...

And what attributes would those be? And by the way Theophilus did not burn down the library, Julius Caesar did that. Theophilus closed down the temples in Alexandria and it just so happened that both Christians and Non-Christians together got it in their minds to loot those temples. If you are going to talk about history at least have some understanding of the subject.


----------



## Inevitable

Montrovant said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not believing in religion is not a religion. How dumb are you folks?
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is without theism. It really isn't without religion, that would be areligious. I am an areligious theist.
> 
> And there are two religions that don't believe in God. One was Anton LeVay's church which you stupidly claimed worships Satan. Proving how dumb you are. A quick Google search will reveal the truth. And scientology which has no deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is completely without religion. I know this because as soon as I became an atheist, I lost my religion. That's the great thing about being an atheist....it requires so little of your time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not exactly true. There are two religions that I know of that are atheist. Anton LeVey's church of Satan, and KSW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists who don't believe in a god also aren't going to believe in this god's supernatural competitor, and I have no idea what KSW is.
> 
> So no, I think that claim is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends on what you consider a religion.  Satanism LeVey style is really more philosophy than religion to me, but it does also have trappings of magic involved which might make it fit into a definition of religion.  From what I remember the use of anti-Christian, demonic style names is symbolic rather than from a belief those beings are real.
Click to expand...

I would consider religion a practice ritual. It doesn't matter if people are doing it "ironically" or not. 

Religion often has nothing to do with theism, it has more to do with socializing.

As I pointed out before, I'm a theist but I'm areligious.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The greatest library of all time-- the Library at Alexandria --was created by the Greek Ionians-- men who believed in Zeus. It took a Christian to destroy their works and literally set us back 2,000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> It was Caesar who burnt down the Library of Alexandria and I don't think he was a Christian because Jesus wasn't even born yet. Anymore historical revisionism you want to gift us with. Oh yes the Greek and the Romans would at times persecute people they felt were practicing sorcery. The Romans were particularly nasty when it came to persecuting the Druids for practicing sorcery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fundie Christians took a cue from the Romans in terms of persecuting people. Given the history of Christianity, why would you think that anyone would take you seriously as you try to lecture anyone regarding morality of ethics?
> 
> You may wish to investigate the actions of Pope Theophilus of Alexandria as the wonderful christian who instigated a christian mob burning down the library at Alexandria. Revisionist history on your part is not uncommon for fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not a fundie and neither am I a Christian. Do you make assumptions about thing you have no information on? Because it really seems to be a trend with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You embrace all those wonderful attributes of the christian fundie. You would be a credit to Jimmy Swaggert Madrassahs everywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what attributes would those be? And by the way Theophilus did not burn down the library, Julius Caesar did that. Theophilus closed down the temples in Alexandria and it just so happened that both Christians and Non-Christians together got it in their minds to loot those temples. If you are going to talk about history at least have some understanding of the subject.
Click to expand...

I would suggest you actually research the material you're stumbling over. You seem too quick to stutter and mumble some irrelevant and confused piece of history you have less than a middling understanding of and then backtrack as your claims are dismantled.


----------



## Hollie

Inevitable said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is without theism. It really isn't without religion, that would be areligious. I am an areligious theist.
> 
> And there are two religions that don't believe in God. One was Anton LeVay's church which you stupidly claimed worships Satan. Proving how dumb you are. A quick Google search will reveal the truth. And scientology which has no deity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is completely without religion. I know this because as soon as I became an atheist, I lost my religion. That's the great thing about being an atheist....it requires so little of your time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not exactly true. There are two religions that I know of that are atheist. Anton LeVey's church of Satan, and KSW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists who don't believe in a god also aren't going to believe in this god's supernatural competitor, and I have no idea what KSW is.
> 
> So no, I think that claim is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends on what you consider a religion.  Satanism LeVey style is really more philosophy than religion to me, but it does also have trappings of magic involved which might make it fit into a definition of religion.  From what I remember the use of anti-Christian, demonic style names is symbolic rather than from a belief those beings are real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would consider religion a practice ritual. It doesn't matter if people are doing it "ironically" or not.
> 
> Religion often has nothing to do with theism, it has more to do with socializing.
> 
> As I pointed out before, I'm a theist but I'm areligious.
Click to expand...

I'd agree that rituals are a defining attribute of religions to include belief in one or more supernatural beings/entities, practices common to the religions' doctrines, a hierarchy of leadership, etc.

It seems to me that tagging the cult's of LeVay and Scientology is stretching the definition of religion. Remember, for example that Hubbard started Scientology on a bet and had few takers until he found a way to appeal those who had personalities / psychologies that were a "fit" for Dianetics.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves beyond all doubt that Atheists depend on mockery, ridicule and adolescent quips more often than not to rebut the opposition.  How silly can one get?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, this thread proves that fundie zealots must rely on deflection, mis-representation and obfuscation regarding questions to their dogma that are irresolvable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheists seem to draw no distinction between natural and supernatural things.  They do not accept that supernatural things exist because they cannot understand them...therefore they do not exist.  To say that they do is 'laughable' and subject to ridicule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please provide testable evidence that any “supernatural” occurrence has ever, in fact happened. What you may not realize is that the assertion of “supernatural” suggests a different realm, that cannot be tested, cannot be accessed and cannot be quantified or qualified and is therefore no different from describing irrationality.
Click to expand...

You know full well that tangible evidence of the supernatural does not exist.  The fact that something is supernatural puts it out of the realm of human reason.


----------



## Treeshepherd

CynthiaZ said:


> Have you ever read Nietzsche? I doubt you have but what Nietzsche told us is that if God is indeed dead then that has some very serious consequences on society that could ultimately lead us into nihilism.


I have read many excerpts of Nietszche, though not a whole book at once. Leading up through 50 years of peace until the world wars of the 20th century, the optimism of Hegel was in vogue (the inevitable positive progress of science). After the wars, people re-discovered Nietszche and Kierkegaard, men who uttered the uncomfortable truths that nobody else dared to. Nazi Germany, after all, was the most scientifically advanced and educated country of its time. 
Today in America, that Hegelian optimism has crept back. Atheists and non-atheists alike tend to have a favorable view of the inevitability of progress. And in addition, the use of digital technology is completely changing the way our brains function. So, what I find most interesting about your Nietszche quote is not the_ God is Dead _part. It's the next part of that sentence which says, _"and we have killed him"_.




CynthiaZ said:


> I am not a fundie and neither am I a Christian. Do you make assumptions about thing you have no information on? Because it really seems to be a trend with you.



I'm not a Christian either. I'm a pagan. But, I do like to study the Bible and the Bhagavad Gita.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about the concept of decaffeinated coffee. The substance is removed that made the drink popular in the first place.
> 
> That’s analogous to the 5,000 year evolution of western thought as it relates to humanism. Scripture and debate over scripture has been the primary driver which has brought us to contemporary thought. The atheist removes the original driving force and retains the leftover values and ideals.
> 
> What is the fallout of modern atheism, or secular humanism? You only live once, so the importance of this life is paramount. Humanism tends to feed the ego, while traditional religious practices foster an extra-personal identity. It would be a natural progression for the secular humanist to move toward transhumanism. Transhumanism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Without a concept of having faith/trust in a cosmic plan, or a sense of Providence, our future is entirely based on blind random chance. Therefore, it’s entirely up to us to shape the future. Salvation through technology could include dicking with human DNA, geo-engineering, medical fountains of youth, pharmaceutical solutions, bio-machinery, etc..
> 
> Transhumanism is the child of secular humanism. That’s one of many consequences of the common themes we find in atheist religions.
> 
> 
> 
> The above may find an audience at your local chapter of the Jerry Falwell madrassah, but why would you think anyone else would take it seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever read Nietzsche? I doubt you have but what Nietzsche told us is that if God is indeed dead then that has some very serious consequences on society that could ultimately lead us into nihilism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may have 'read' Nietzsche but clearly you didn't understand what you read.
> 
> All manifestations of morality, values, and ethical conduct were created by man – whether in the context of religious dogma or not is irrelevant, where those free from faith are perfectly capable of morality, values, and ethical conduct absent any religion at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with my post. I notice you like to give out random pieces of information that barely have anything to do with the discussion in an attempt to make yourself look smart. I was talking about nihilism what the hell does your little diatribe have to do with nihilism? Absolutely nothing. Do have any concept of what a discussion is and how a discussion  is framed or do you just go off and say whatever random thing loosely connected to the subject that pops in your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post was a confused, ignorant rant wherein you hoped to Invoke Nietzsche as supportive of some point you hoped to make. It's clear you don't understand the writings of Nietzsche and never made the effort to actually read his works.
Click to expand...

What the heck are you talking about? Nietzsche wrote volumes about how the waning influence and dissolution of Christianity would be problematic for European civilization. Christianity gave Europe meaning and purpose and with it's diminished influence Nietzsche believe that European civilization could be endangered by embracing meaninglessness and purposelessness i.e nihilism. It very obvious that it is you who never read Nietzsche because if you did you would know that he spoke of  Christianity and what its dissolution would mean extensively in his works even though he was an atheist.


----------



## Treeshepherd

Hollie said:


> In my personal experience, fundamentalist Christians are among the last people on the plane who should be lecturing anyone regarding ethics or morality.
> 
> Additionally, I find your attitudes about morality and it's derivation to be stereotypical in that you seem to believe your religion is somehow an arbiter of morality and ethics when in a historical sense, Christianity has been a wellspring of hate, derision and the source of divisions.
> 
> .



When have I ever said anything that could be considered fundamentalist? 

I call it like I see it. You're free to disagree. But my post about atheism and the reasons why an increasingly atheist world would embrace transhumanism are my own thoughts and words. Nothing was copied and pasted. Nothing about it was stereotypical.

You, on the other hand, don't seem to have any original religion-bashing points. You randomly threw in something about Christians burning the library of Alexandria straight out of the atheist bag of memes. That's not creative.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves beyond all doubt that Atheists depend on mockery, ridicule and adolescent quips more often than not to rebut the opposition.  How silly can one get?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, this thread proves that fundie zealots must rely on deflection, mis-representation and obfuscation regarding questions to their dogma that are irresolvable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheists seem to draw no distinction between natural and supernatural things.  They do not accept that supernatural things exist because they cannot understand them...therefore they do not exist.  To say that they do is 'laughable' and subject to ridicule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please provide testable evidence that any “supernatural” occurrence has ever, in fact happened. What you may not realize is that the assertion of “supernatural” suggests a different realm, that cannot be tested, cannot be accessed and cannot be quantified or qualified and is therefore no different from describing irrationality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know full well that tangible evidence of the supernatural does not exist.  The fact that something is supernatural puts it out of the realm of human reason.
Click to expand...

Why should I accept your claims to the supernatural when you admit your claims are untestable, unverifiable and that I must therefore accept them by way of your "because I say so", admonition. 

Every discovery in the history of humanity has had a natural cause. Not a single, verifiable event in human history can be described by conceding "well, this event has no explanation by natural processes therefore, we can say with certainty, the gawds did it" 

Feel free to share with us what “supernatural events” we should accept as indicative of a gawdly intervention. That’s actually a rhetorical comment because in my experience religionists are never able provide a meaningful context wherein their particular gawds can be described as the cause of some alleged supernatural event. It can be time consuming to address the confusions and errors inherent in religionist rhetoric and their actual content simply doesn't include anything at all of genuine interest.

So thrill us.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Treeshepherd said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever read Nietzsche? I doubt you have but what Nietzsche told us is that if God is indeed dead then that has some very serious consequences on society that could ultimately lead us into nihilism.
> 
> 
> 
> I have read many excerpts of Nietszche, though not a whole book at once. Leading up through 50 years of peace until the world wars of the 20th century, the optimism of Hegel was in vogue (the inevitable positive progress of science). After the wars, people re-discovered Nietszche and Kierkegaard, men who uttered the uncomfortable truths that nobody else dared to. Nazi Germany, after all, was the most scientifically advanced and educated country of its time.
> Today in America, that Hegelian optimism has crept back. Atheists and non-atheists alike tend to have a favorable view of the inevitability of progress. And in addition, the use of digital technology is completely changing the way our brains function. So, what I find most interesting about your Nietszche quote is not the_ God is Dead _part. It's the next part of that sentence which says, _"and we have killed him"_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a fundie and neither am I a Christian. Do you make assumptions about thing you have no information on? Because it really seems to be a trend with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian either. I'm a pagan. But, I do like to study the Bible and the Bhagavad Gita.
Click to expand...


It amazes me how some people actually think that scientific and technological gadgets are going to resolve all the problems that humanity faces. There are some who actually believe that if you throw enough technology at a problem it will magically disappear. I am also amazed how these supposedly rational and logical "freethinkers" actually believe that they can create some sort of utopia based on science and reason. It is utterly laughable how naive these people actually are. Their comedy never stops.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The above may find an audience at your local chapter of the Jerry Falwell madrassah, but why would you think anyone else would take it seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever read Nietzsche? I doubt you have but what Nietzsche told us is that if God is indeed dead then that has some very serious consequences on society that could ultimately lead us into nihilism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may have 'read' Nietzsche but clearly you didn't understand what you read.
> 
> All manifestations of morality, values, and ethical conduct were created by man – whether in the context of religious dogma or not is irrelevant, where those free from faith are perfectly capable of morality, values, and ethical conduct absent any religion at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with my post. I notice you like to give out random pieces of information that barely have anything to do with the discussion in an attempt to make yourself look smart. I was talking about nihilism what the hell does your little diatribe have to do with nihilism? Absolutely nothing. Do have any concept of what a discussion is and how a discussion  is framed or do you just go off and say whatever random thing loosely connected to the subject that pops in your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post was a confused, ignorant rant wherein you hoped to Invoke Nietzsche as supportive of some point you hoped to make. It's clear you don't understand the writings of Nietzsche and never made the effort to actually read his works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the heck are you talking about? Nietzsche wrote volumes about how the waning influence and dissolution of Christianity would be problematic for European civilization. Christianity gave Europe meaning and purpose and with it's diminished influence Nietzsche believe that European civilization could be endangered by embracing meaninglessness and purposelessness i.e nihilism. It very obvious that it is you who never read Nietzsche because if you did you would know that he spoke of  Christianity and what its dissolution would mean extensively in his works even though he was an atheist.
Click to expand...

You may wish to do your homework about what christianity gave to Europe. Christianity spent 800 years maintaining an institution of fear and superstition that literally held back humanity from escaping the Dark Ages that christianity helped to maintain.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever read Nietzsche? I doubt you have but what Nietzsche told us is that if God is indeed dead then that has some very serious consequences on society that could ultimately lead us into nihilism.
> 
> 
> 
> I have read many excerpts of Nietszche, though not a whole book at once. Leading up through 50 years of peace until the world wars of the 20th century, the optimism of Hegel was in vogue (the inevitable positive progress of science). After the wars, people re-discovered Nietszche and Kierkegaard, men who uttered the uncomfortable truths that nobody else dared to. Nazi Germany, after all, was the most scientifically advanced and educated country of its time.
> Today in America, that Hegelian optimism has crept back. Atheists and non-atheists alike tend to have a favorable view of the inevitability of progress. And in addition, the use of digital technology is completely changing the way our brains function. So, what I find most interesting about your Nietszche quote is not the_ God is Dead _part. It's the next part of that sentence which says, _"and we have killed him"_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a fundie and neither am I a Christian. Do you make assumptions about thing you have no information on? Because it really seems to be a trend with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Christian either. I'm a pagan. But, I do like to study the Bible and the Bhagavad Gita.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amazes me how some people actually think that scientific and technological gadgets are going to resolve all the problems that humanity faces. There are some who actually believe that if you throw enough technology at a problem it will magically disappear. I am also amazed how these supposedly rational and logical "freethinkers" actually believe that they can create some sort of utopia based on science and reason. It is utterly laughable how naive these people actually are. Their comedy never stops.
Click to expand...

I have yet to see a coherent argument delineating how you Jerry Falwell madrassah graduates are going to resolve anything with prayer.

Let us know how prayers to the jeebus will resolve over-fishing of the world's oceans.


----------



## Inevitable

Hollie said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is completely without religion. I know this because as soon as I became an atheist, I lost my religion. That's the great thing about being an atheist....it requires so little of your time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not exactly true. There are two religions that I know of that are atheist. Anton LeVey's church of Satan, and KSW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists who don't believe in a god also aren't going to believe in this god's supernatural competitor, and I have no idea what KSW is.
> 
> So no, I think that claim is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends on what you consider a religion.  Satanism LeVey style is really more philosophy than religion to me, but it does also have trappings of magic involved which might make it fit into a definition of religion.  From what I remember the use of anti-Christian, demonic style names is symbolic rather than from a belief those beings are real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would consider religion a practice ritual. It doesn't matter if people are doing it "ironically" or not.
> 
> Religion often has nothing to do with theism, it has more to do with socializing.
> 
> As I pointed out before, I'm a theist but I'm areligious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd agree that rituals are a defining attribute of religions to include belief in one or more supernatural beings/entities, practices common to the religions' doctrines, a hierarchy of leadership, etc.
> 
> It seems to me that tagging the cult's of LeVay and Scientology is stretching the definition of religion. Remember, for example that Hubbard started Scientology on a bet and had few takers until he found a way to appeal those who had personalities / psychologies that were a "fit" for Dianetics.
Click to expand...

I don't think belief in supernatural beings is the slightest bit relevant.

I say scientology is atheist because they fit the only criteria, which is no belief in God.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves beyond all doubt that Atheists depend on mockery, ridicule and adolescent quips more often than not to rebut the opposition.  How silly can one get?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, this thread proves that fundie zealots must rely on deflection, mis-representation and obfuscation regarding questions to their dogma that are irresolvable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheists seem to draw no distinction between natural and supernatural things.  They do not accept that supernatural things exist because they cannot understand them...therefore they do not exist.  To say that they do is 'laughable' and subject to ridicule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please provide testable evidence that any “supernatural” occurrence has ever, in fact happened. What you may not realize is that the assertion of “supernatural” suggests a different realm, that cannot be tested, cannot be accessed and cannot be quantified or qualified and is therefore no different from describing irrationality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know full well that tangible evidence of the supernatural does not exist.  The fact that something is supernatural puts it out of the realm of human reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should I accept your claims to the supernatural when you admit your claims are untestable, unverifiable and that I must therefore accept them by way of your "because I say so", admonition.
> 
> Every discovery in the history of humanity has had a natural cause. Not a single, verifiable event in human history can be described by conceding "well, this event has no explanation by natural processes therefore, we can say with certainty, the gawds did it"
> 
> Feel free to share with us what “supernatural events” we should accept as indicative of a gawdly intervention. That’s actually a rhetorical comment because in my experience religionists are never able provide a meaningful context wherein their particular gawds can be described as the cause of some alleged supernatural event. It can be time consuming to address the confusions and errors inherent in religionist rhetoric and their actual content simply doesn't include anything at all of genuine interest.
> 
> So thrill us.
Click to expand...

I've already dealt with the "because I said so" poppycock.  I do not care what you believe or do not believe.  Atheism is a religion.  I don't expect you to believe that either...even though it has been clearly evidenced in this thread.

You too can be an Atheist Minister.

...and, by the way...I have never claimed that all unexplainable happenings are caused by God.


----------



## Hollie

Treeshepherd said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my personal experience, fundamentalist Christians are among the last people on the plane who should be lecturing anyone regarding ethics or morality.
> 
> Additionally, I find your attitudes about morality and it's derivation to be stereotypical in that you seem to believe your religion is somehow an arbiter of morality and ethics when in a historical sense, Christianity has been a wellspring of hate, derision and the source of divisions.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When have I ever said anything that could be considered fundamentalist?
> 
> I call it like I see it. You're free to disagree. But my post about atheism and the reasons why an increasingly atheist world would embrace transhumanism are my own thoughts and words. Nothing was copied and pasted. Nothing about it was stereotypical.
> 
> You, on the other hand, don't seem to have any original religion-bashing points. You randomly threw in something about Christians burning the library of Alexandria straight out of the atheist bag of memes. That's not creative.
Click to expand...

Your comments really are stereotypical. Like every other religionist, you're certain that your religion is some panacea that will resolve the very problems created by your religions. I don't happen to accept that the division's created by religions will solve anything. And if you look around the world today, it's you religionists who are involved in the wars and antagonisms that are causing such death and misery.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Inevitable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not exactly true. There are two religions that I know of that are atheist. Anton LeVey's church of Satan, and KSW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists who don't believe in a god also aren't going to believe in this god's supernatural competitor, and I have no idea what KSW is.
> 
> So no, I think that claim is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends on what you consider a religion.  Satanism LeVey style is really more philosophy than religion to me, but it does also have trappings of magic involved which might make it fit into a definition of religion.  From what I remember the use of anti-Christian, demonic style names is symbolic rather than from a belief those beings are real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would consider religion a practice ritual. It doesn't matter if people are doing it "ironically" or not.
> 
> Religion often has nothing to do with theism, it has more to do with socializing.
> 
> As I pointed out before, I'm a theist but I'm areligious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd agree that rituals are a defining attribute of religions to include belief in one or more supernatural beings/entities, practices common to the religions' doctrines, a hierarchy of leadership, etc.
> 
> It seems to me that tagging the cult's of LeVay and Scientology is stretching the definition of religion. Remember, for example that Hubbard started Scientology on a bet and had few takers until he found a way to appeal those who had personalities / psychologies that were a "fit" for Dianetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think belief in supernatural beings is the slightest bit relevant.
> 
> I say scientology is atheist because they fit the only criteria, which is no belief in God.
Click to expand...



*Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy*

Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn't explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.

Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar


----------



## Treeshepherd

Hollie said:


> Your comments really are stereotypical. Like every other religionist, you're certain that your religion is some panacea that will resolve the very problems created by your religions. I don't happen to accept that the division's created by religions will solve anything. And if you look around the world today, it's you religionists who are involved in the wars and antagonisms that are causing such death and misery.



War is sold to us today by appealing to humanism.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, this thread proves that fundie zealots must rely on deflection, mis-representation and obfuscation regarding questions to their dogma that are irresolvable.
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists seem to draw no distinction between natural and supernatural things.  They do not accept that supernatural things exist because they cannot understand them...therefore they do not exist.  To say that they do is 'laughable' and subject to ridicule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please provide testable evidence that any “supernatural” occurrence has ever, in fact happened. What you may not realize is that the assertion of “supernatural” suggests a different realm, that cannot be tested, cannot be accessed and cannot be quantified or qualified and is therefore no different from describing irrationality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know full well that tangible evidence of the supernatural does not exist.  The fact that something is supernatural puts it out of the realm of human reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should I accept your claims to the supernatural when you admit your claims are untestable, unverifiable and that I must therefore accept them by way of your "because I say so", admonition.
> 
> Every discovery in the history of humanity has had a natural cause. Not a single, verifiable event in human history can be described by conceding "well, this event has no explanation by natural processes therefore, we can say with certainty, the gawds did it"
> 
> Feel free to share with us what “supernatural events” we should accept as indicative of a gawdly intervention. That’s actually a rhetorical comment because in my experience religionists are never able provide a meaningful context wherein their particular gawds can be described as the cause of some alleged supernatural event. It can be time consuming to address the confusions and errors inherent in religionist rhetoric and their actual content simply doesn't include anything at all of genuine interest.
> 
> So thrill us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've already dealt with the "because I said so" poppycock.  I do not care what you believe or do not believe.  Atheism is a religion.  I don't expect you to believe that either...even though it has been clearly evidenced in this thread.
> 
> You too can be an Atheist Minister.
> 
> ...and, by the way...I have never claimed that all unexplainable happenings are caused by God.
Click to expand...

I found it comically tragic that you have declared your dealing with the "because I say so" poppycock and then proceed to announce "Atheism is a religion." 

How do we know atheism is a religion?

".......because I say so"


----------



## Hollie

Treeshepherd said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your comments really are stereotypical. Like every other religionist, you're certain that your religion is some panacea that will resolve the very problems created by your religions. I don't happen to accept that the division's created by religions will solve anything. And if you look around the world today, it's you religionists who are involved in the wars and antagonisms that are causing such death and misery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> War is sold to us today by appealing to humanism.
Click to expand...


Did that come from today's sermon at the Jerry Falwell madrassah?


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever read Nietzsche? I doubt you have but what Nietzsche told us is that if God is indeed dead then that has some very serious consequences on society that could ultimately lead us into nihilism.
> 
> 
> 
> You may have 'read' Nietzsche but clearly you didn't understand what you read.
> 
> All manifestations of morality, values, and ethical conduct were created by man – whether in the context of religious dogma or not is irrelevant, where those free from faith are perfectly capable of morality, values, and ethical conduct absent any religion at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with my post. I notice you like to give out random pieces of information that barely have anything to do with the discussion in an attempt to make yourself look smart. I was talking about nihilism what the hell does your little diatribe have to do with nihilism? Absolutely nothing. Do have any concept of what a discussion is and how a discussion  is framed or do you just go off and say whatever random thing loosely connected to the subject that pops in your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post was a confused, ignorant rant wherein you hoped to Invoke Nietzsche as supportive of some point you hoped to make. It's clear you don't understand the writings of Nietzsche and never made the effort to actually read his works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the heck are you talking about? Nietzsche wrote volumes about how the waning influence and dissolution of Christianity would be problematic for European civilization. Christianity gave Europe meaning and purpose and with it's diminished influence Nietzsche believe that European civilization could be endangered by embracing meaninglessness and purposelessness i.e nihilism. It very obvious that it is you who never read Nietzsche because if you did you would know that he spoke of  Christianity and what its dissolution would mean extensively in his works even though he was an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may wish to do your homework about what christianity gave to Europe. Christianity spent 800 years maintaining an institution of fear and superstition that literally held back humanity from escaping the Dark Ages that christianity helped to maintain.
Click to expand...

Oh my. I take it history was not exactly your subject. The so-called Dark Ages were an age when universities were being founded, when the church was maintaining massive libraries, there was a whole host of cross cultural exchanges that were going on with the Muslim world, Aristotle and Plato were being read and studied again. If anything it was those cultural exchanges between Christians and Muslims that helped European civilization advance. it was the time of Scholasticism and the Islamic Golden Age.


----------



## Treeshepherd

Carla_Danger said:


> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake.


 I disagree. 

If faith in salvation through technology is one common tenet of atheist religion, what are the others? 

Another would be an increasing belief in determinism over free will. 

Another would be the embrace of Hobbes Leviathan. ie. without the moral framework of traditional religion, it is totally incumbent on the State to maintain social order. Also, a greater importance is placed on moral indoctrination through the public school system.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> Let us know how prayers to the jeebus will resolve over-fishing of the world's oceans.


And you let me know how the Iphone is going is going to solve world hunger


----------



## Treeshepherd

Hollie said:


> Did that come from today's sermon at the Jerry Falwell madrassah?



Bush said he wanted to bring modernity and freedom to the ME.

If I were to watch John Kerry make an argument as to why we need to be involved in the ME battling ISIS, would he be appealing to my concept of God or gods? 

You like to say Jerry Falwell madrassah quite a bit. I'm not picking up on the relevance.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Treeshepherd said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your comments really are stereotypical. Like every other religionist, you're certain that your religion is some panacea that will resolve the very problems created by your religions. I don't happen to accept that the division's created by religions will solve anything. And if you look around the world today, it's you religionists who are involved in the wars and antagonisms that are causing such death and misery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> War is sold to us today by appealing to humanism.
Click to expand...



Are you playing in poop?  It seems like you're just hoping some of it will stick to the wall.


----------



## Carla_Danger

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us know how prayers to the jeebus will resolve over-fishing of the world's oceans.
> 
> 
> 
> And you let me know how the Iphone is going is going to solve world hunger
Click to expand...



Huh, whaaa?  Did someone ever say it would?


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may have 'read' Nietzsche but clearly you didn't understand what you read.
> 
> All manifestations of morality, values, and ethical conduct were created by man – whether in the context of religious dogma or not is irrelevant, where those free from faith are perfectly capable of morality, values, and ethical conduct absent any religion at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with my post. I notice you like to give out random pieces of information that barely have anything to do with the discussion in an attempt to make yourself look smart. I was talking about nihilism what the hell does your little diatribe have to do with nihilism? Absolutely nothing. Do have any concept of what a discussion is and how a discussion  is framed or do you just go off and say whatever random thing loosely connected to the subject that pops in your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post was a confused, ignorant rant wherein you hoped to Invoke Nietzsche as supportive of some point you hoped to make. It's clear you don't understand the writings of Nietzsche and never made the effort to actually read his works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the heck are you talking about? Nietzsche wrote volumes about how the waning influence and dissolution of Christianity would be problematic for European civilization. Christianity gave Europe meaning and purpose and with it's diminished influence Nietzsche believe that European civilization could be endangered by embracing meaninglessness and purposelessness i.e nihilism. It very obvious that it is you who never read Nietzsche because if you did you would know that he spoke of  Christianity and what its dissolution would mean extensively in his works even though he was an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may wish to do your homework about what christianity gave to Europe. Christianity spent 800 years maintaining an institution of fear and superstition that literally held back humanity from escaping the Dark Ages that christianity helped to maintain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my. I take it history was not exactly your subject. The so-called Dark Ages were an age when universities were being founded, when the church was maintaining massive libraries, there was a whole host of cross cultural exchanges that were going on with the Muslim world, Aristotle and Plato were being read and studied again. If anything it was those cultural exchanges between Christians and Muslims that helped European civilization advance. it was the time of Scholasticism and the Islamic Golden Age.
Click to expand...

Oh my. Your take on religion has been a bit skewed by your indoctrination. You might want to actually research the subject. The church was a yolk around the necks of European scientists for more than 800 years. Your christian ideology was used by the church to suppress exploration and discovery as a threat to their power and influence.


----------



## Hollie

Treeshepherd said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> If faith in salvation through technology is one common tenet of atheist religion, what are the others?
> 
> Another would be an increasing belief in determinism over free will.
> 
> Another would be the embrace of Hobbes Leviathan. ie. without the moral framework of traditional religion, it is totally incumbent on the State to maintain social order. Also, a greater importance is placed on moral indoctrination through the public school system.
Click to expand...

Narly, dude. Conspiracy theories make everything so simple.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever read Nietzsche? I doubt you have but what Nietzsche told us is that if God is indeed dead then that has some very serious consequences on society that could ultimately lead us into nihilism.
> 
> 
> 
> You may have 'read' Nietzsche but clearly you didn't understand what you read.
> 
> All manifestations of morality, values, and ethical conduct were created by man – whether in the context of religious dogma or not is irrelevant, where those free from faith are perfectly capable of morality, values, and ethical conduct absent any religion at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with my post. I notice you like to give out random pieces of information that barely have anything to do with the discussion in an attempt to make yourself look smart. I was talking about nihilism what the hell does your little diatribe have to do with nihilism? Absolutely nothing. Do have any concept of what a discussion is and how a discussion  is framed or do you just go off and say whatever random thing loosely connected to the subject that pops in your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post was a confused, ignorant rant wherein you hoped to Invoke Nietzsche as supportive of some point you hoped to make. It's clear you don't understand the writings of Nietzsche and never made the effort to actually read his works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the heck are you talking about? Nietzsche wrote volumes about how the waning influence and dissolution of Christianity would be problematic for European civilization. Christianity gave Europe meaning and purpose and with it's diminished influence Nietzsche believe that European civilization could be endangered by embracing meaninglessness and purposelessness i.e nihilism. It very obvious that it is you who never read Nietzsche because if you did you would know that he spoke of  Christianity and what its dissolution would mean extensively in his works even though he was an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may wish to do your homework about what christianity gave to Europe. Christianity spent 800 years maintaining an institution of fear and superstition that literally held back humanity from escaping the Dark Ages that christianity helped to maintain.
Click to expand...

Roman Catholicism kept much of Europe from escaping the "Dark Ages." That organization did more to squelch the public reading of the Bible and its translation into the language of the general public than did any atheistic or pagan group. It was Protestantism that had the greatest influence on the wings of the Guttenberg press and the general public reading of Scripture, that freed more and more of Europe from Papist tyranny and non-biblical superstitious traditions.

Protestantism promoted salvation by Grace through Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin. Roman Catholicism promoted salvation through works, clergy manipulated absolution along with Papal succession. This is not to suggest all Catholics were/are unsaved and evil or that all Protestants were/are unsaved and righteous. It's simply that faith was placed squarely on the shoulders of the individual, requiring a personal relationship between a Christian and the Lord Jesus Christ through the leading of the Holy Spirit ------------------- and not the PAGAN influenced ideology that ritualism and one's organizational affiliation leads to righteous sanctification. This lead to FREEDOM of the Christian to seek the face of God and not servitude to any "church."


----------



## CynthiaZ

Carla_Danger said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists who don't believe in a god also aren't going to believe in this god's supernatural competitor, and I have no idea what KSW is.
> 
> So no, I think that claim is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on what you consider a religion.  Satanism LeVey style is really more philosophy than religion to me, but it does also have trappings of magic involved which might make it fit into a definition of religion.  From what I remember the use of anti-Christian, demonic style names is symbolic rather than from a belief those beings are real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would consider religion a practice ritual. It doesn't matter if people are doing it "ironically" or not.
> 
> Religion often has nothing to do with theism, it has more to do with socializing.
> 
> As I pointed out before, I'm a theist but I'm areligious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd agree that rituals are a defining attribute of religions to include belief in one or more supernatural beings/entities, practices common to the religions' doctrines, a hierarchy of leadership, etc.
> 
> It seems to me that tagging the cult's of LeVay and Scientology is stretching the definition of religion. Remember, for example that Hubbard started Scientology on a bet and had few takers until he found a way to appeal those who had personalities / psychologies that were a "fit" for Dianetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think belief in supernatural beings is the slightest bit relevant.
> 
> I say scientology is atheist because they fit the only criteria, which is no belief in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy*
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn't explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.
> 
> Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar
Click to expand...


The author of that article is so wishy-washy in his conviction that he actually tries to argue as to whether atheism is actually an "ism" or not. No longer is atheism a intellectual position that people take but rather it has become some sort of vague feeling one has like boredom. They actually want to redefine atheism as simply the lack of belief in gods just one could redefine a sociopath as one who simply lacks a belief in being nice to people. Play all the little dishonest semantic games you want but at least have the guts enough to take a stand for what you believe. This kind of bullshit semantics makes you look like a bunch of cowards.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Carla_Danger said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us know how prayers to the jeebus will resolve over-fishing of the world's oceans.
> 
> 
> 
> And you let me know how the Iphone is going is going to solve world hunger
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Huh, whaaa?  Did someone ever say it would?
Click to expand...

Did I ever say praying to Jesus would solve over-fishing?


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may have 'read' Nietzsche but clearly you didn't understand what you read.
> 
> All manifestations of morality, values, and ethical conduct were created by man – whether in the context of religious dogma or not is irrelevant, where those free from faith are perfectly capable of morality, values, and ethical conduct absent any religion at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what does that have to do with my post. I notice you like to give out random pieces of information that barely have anything to do with the discussion in an attempt to make yourself look smart. I was talking about nihilism what the hell does your little diatribe have to do with nihilism? Absolutely nothing. Do have any concept of what a discussion is and how a discussion  is framed or do you just go off and say whatever random thing loosely connected to the subject that pops in your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post was a confused, ignorant rant wherein you hoped to Invoke Nietzsche as supportive of some point you hoped to make. It's clear you don't understand the writings of Nietzsche and never made the effort to actually read his works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the heck are you talking about? Nietzsche wrote volumes about how the waning influence and dissolution of Christianity would be problematic for European civilization. Christianity gave Europe meaning and purpose and with it's diminished influence Nietzsche believe that European civilization could be endangered by embracing meaninglessness and purposelessness i.e nihilism. It very obvious that it is you who never read Nietzsche because if you did you would know that he spoke of  Christianity and what its dissolution would mean extensively in his works even though he was an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may wish to do your homework about what christianity gave to Europe. Christianity spent 800 years maintaining an institution of fear and superstition that literally held back humanity from escaping the Dark Ages that christianity helped to maintain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Roman Catholicism kept much of Europe from escaping the "Dark Ages." That organization did more to squelch the public reading of the Bible and its translation into the language of the general public than did any atheistic or pagan group. It was Protestantism that had the greatest influence on the wings of the Guttenberg press and the general public reading of Scripture, that freed more and more of Europe from Papist tyranny and non-biblical superstitious traditions.
> 
> Protestantism promoted salvation by Grace through Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin. Roman Catholicism promoted salvation through works, clergy manipulated absolution along with Papal succession. This is not to suggest all Catholics were/are unsaved and evil or that all Protestants were/are unsaved and righteous. It's simply that faith was placed squarely on the shoulders of the individual, requiring a personal relationship between a Christian and the Lord Jesus Christ through the leading of the Holy Spirit ------------------- and not the PAGAN influenced ideology that ritualism and one's organizational affiliation leads to righteous sanctification. This lead to FREEDOM of the Christian to seek the face of God and not servitude to any "church."
Click to expand...

Someone call security, please?


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on what you consider a religion.  Satanism LeVey style is really more philosophy than religion to me, but it does also have trappings of magic involved which might make it fit into a definition of religion.  From what I remember the use of anti-Christian, demonic style names is symbolic rather than from a belief those beings are real.
> 
> 
> 
> I would consider religion a practice ritual. It doesn't matter if people are doing it "ironically" or not.
> 
> Religion often has nothing to do with theism, it has more to do with socializing.
> 
> As I pointed out before, I'm a theist but I'm areligious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd agree that rituals are a defining attribute of religions to include belief in one or more supernatural beings/entities, practices common to the religions' doctrines, a hierarchy of leadership, etc.
> 
> It seems to me that tagging the cult's of LeVay and Scientology is stretching the definition of religion. Remember, for example that Hubbard started Scientology on a bet and had few takers until he found a way to appeal those who had personalities / psychologies that were a "fit" for Dianetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think belief in supernatural beings is the slightest bit relevant.
> 
> I say scientology is atheist because they fit the only criteria, which is no belief in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy*
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn't explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.
> 
> Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The author of that article is so wishy-washy in his conviction that he actually tries to argue as to whether atheism is actually an "ism" or not. No longer is atheism a intellectual position that people take but rather it has become some sort of vague feeling one has like boredom. They actually want to redefine atheism as simply the lack of belief in gods just one could redefine a sociopath as one who simply lacks a belief in being nice to people. Play all the little dishonest semantic games you want but at least have the guts enough to take a stand for what you believe. This kind of bullshit semantics makes you look like a bunch of cowards.
Click to expand...

You fundie zealots have a difficult time understanding some pretty basic concepts. Concluding your gawds don't exist is a rational, reasonable conclusion. 

The "bullshit semantics" is nothing more than your stunted ability to resolve clearly defined terms and conditions.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us know how prayers to the jeebus will resolve over-fishing of the world's oceans.
> 
> 
> 
> And you let me know how the Iphone is going is going to solve world hunger
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Huh, whaaa?  Did someone ever say it would?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I ever say praying to Jesus would solve over-fishing?
Click to expand...

You're having trouble stringing words together into coherent sentences.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would consider religion a practice ritual. It doesn't matter if people are doing it "ironically" or not.
> 
> Religion often has nothing to do with theism, it has more to do with socializing.
> 
> As I pointed out before, I'm a theist but I'm areligious.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd agree that rituals are a defining attribute of religions to include belief in one or more supernatural beings/entities, practices common to the religions' doctrines, a hierarchy of leadership, etc.
> 
> It seems to me that tagging the cult's of LeVay and Scientology is stretching the definition of religion. Remember, for example that Hubbard started Scientology on a bet and had few takers until he found a way to appeal those who had personalities / psychologies that were a "fit" for Dianetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think belief in supernatural beings is the slightest bit relevant.
> 
> I say scientology is atheist because they fit the only criteria, which is no belief in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy*
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn't explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.
> 
> Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The author of that article is so wishy-washy in his conviction that he actually tries to argue as to whether atheism is actually an "ism" or not. No longer is atheism a intellectual position that people take but rather it has become some sort of vague feeling one has like boredom. They actually want to redefine atheism as simply the lack of belief in gods just one could redefine a sociopath as one who simply lacks a belief in being nice to people. Play all the little dishonest semantic games you want but at least have the guts enough to take a stand for what you believe. This kind of bullshit semantics makes you look like a bunch of cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fundie zealots have a difficult time understanding some pretty basic concepts. Concluding your gawds don't exist is a rational, reasonable conclusion.
> 
> The "bullshit semantics" is nothing more than your stunted ability to resolve clearly defined terms and conditions.
Click to expand...

Yes it is bullshit to say that atheism is simply a lack in belief, that is a redefinition of the term which as traditionally been defined as an intellectual stand in which theism is negated. Atheism is not simply a lack of belief, it is affirmative stance that denies the existence of God. Characterizing atheism as "simply a lack of belief" means that atheism is not an intellectual stance based on reason or logic but more or less a feeling one has.


----------



## asaratis

Inevitable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not exactly true. There are two religions that I know of that are atheist. Anton LeVey's church of Satan, and KSW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists who don't believe in a god also aren't going to believe in this god's supernatural competitor, and I have no idea what KSW is.
> 
> So no, I think that claim is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends on what you consider a religion.  Satanism LeVey style is really more philosophy than religion to me, but it does also have trappings of magic involved which might make it fit into a definition of religion.  From what I remember the use of anti-Christian, demonic style names is symbolic rather than from a belief those beings are real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would consider religion a practice ritual. It doesn't matter if people are doing it "ironically" or not.
> 
> Religion often has nothing to do with theism, it has more to do with socializing.
> 
> As I pointed out before, I'm a theist but I'm areligious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd agree that rituals are a defining attribute of religions to include belief in one or more supernatural beings/entities, practices common to the religions' doctrines, a hierarchy of leadership, etc.
> 
> It seems to me that tagging the cult's of LeVay and Scientology is stretching the definition of religion. Remember, for example that Hubbard started Scientology on a bet and had few takers until he found a way to appeal those who had personalities / psychologies that were a "fit" for Dianetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think belief in supernatural beings is the slightest bit relevant.
> 
> I say scientology is atheist because they fit the only criteria, which is no belief in God.
Click to expand...

I agree except in the supernatural nature of God.  Nature is all that is in the universe today that is not man-made that came to exist by whatever vehicle after the big bang.  What existed before the big bang?  God.  God is what set off the big bang.  God exploded a well structurally organized, astronomically dense arrangement of matter, releasing all existing energy and the laws of physics and chemistry prevailed thereafter and forever more.


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists seem to draw no distinction between natural and supernatural things.  They do not accept that supernatural things exist because they cannot understand them...therefore they do not exist.  To say that they do is 'laughable' and subject to ridicule.
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide testable evidence that any “supernatural” occurrence has ever, in fact happened. What you may not realize is that the assertion of “supernatural” suggests a different realm, that cannot be tested, cannot be accessed and cannot be quantified or qualified and is therefore no different from describing irrationality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know full well that tangible evidence of the supernatural does not exist.  The fact that something is supernatural puts it out of the realm of human reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should I accept your claims to the supernatural when you admit your claims are untestable, unverifiable and that I must therefore accept them by way of your "because I say so", admonition.
> 
> Every discovery in the history of humanity has had a natural cause. Not a single, verifiable event in human history can be described by conceding "well, this event has no explanation by natural processes therefore, we can say with certainty, the gawds did it"
> 
> Feel free to share with us what “supernatural events” we should accept as indicative of a gawdly intervention. That’s actually a rhetorical comment because in my experience religionists are never able provide a meaningful context wherein their particular gawds can be described as the cause of some alleged supernatural event. It can be time consuming to address the confusions and errors inherent in religionist rhetoric and their actual content simply doesn't include anything at all of genuine interest.
> 
> So thrill us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've already dealt with the "because I said so" poppycock.  I do not care what you believe or do not believe.  Atheism is a religion.  I don't expect you to believe that either...even though it has been clearly evidenced in this thread.
> 
> You too can be an Atheist Minister.
> 
> ...and, by the way...I have never claimed that all unexplainable happenings are caused by God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I found it comically tragic that you have declared your dealing with the "because I say so" poppycock and then proceed to announce "Atheism is a religion."
> 
> How do we know atheism is a religion?
> 
> ".......because I say so"
Click to expand...

No.  Because there are Atheist Churches you can join.  You can become an Atheist Minister.  We've already seen that.  The Scientology Movement is an atheistic movement.  I have long suspected Communism to be an atheistic movement also.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd agree that rituals are a defining attribute of religions to include belief in one or more supernatural beings/entities, practices common to the religions' doctrines, a hierarchy of leadership, etc.
> 
> It seems to me that tagging the cult's of LeVay and Scientology is stretching the definition of religion. Remember, for example that Hubbard started Scientology on a bet and had few takers until he found a way to appeal those who had personalities / psychologies that were a "fit" for Dianetics.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think belief in supernatural beings is the slightest bit relevant.
> 
> I say scientology is atheist because they fit the only criteria, which is no belief in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy*
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn't explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.
> 
> Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The author of that article is so wishy-washy in his conviction that he actually tries to argue as to whether atheism is actually an "ism" or not. No longer is atheism a intellectual position that people take but rather it has become some sort of vague feeling one has like boredom. They actually want to redefine atheism as simply the lack of belief in gods just one could redefine a sociopath as one who simply lacks a belief in being nice to people. Play all the little dishonest semantic games you want but at least have the guts enough to take a stand for what you believe. This kind of bullshit semantics makes you look like a bunch of cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fundie zealots have a difficult time understanding some pretty basic concepts. Concluding your gawds don't exist is a rational, reasonable conclusion.
> 
> The "bullshit semantics" is nothing more than your stunted ability to resolve clearly defined terms and conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is bullshit to say that atheism is simply a lack in belief, that is a redefinition of the term which as traditionally been defined as an intellectual stand in which theism is negated. Atheism is not simply a lack of belief, it is affirmative stance that denies the existence of God. Characterizing atheism as "simply a lack of belief" means that atheism is not an intellectual stance based on reason or logic but more or less a feeling one has.
Click to expand...

You're really rather desperate. Atheism is a conclusion regarding the non-existence of your gawds as well as the gawds of others.

There's no requirement for belief.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think belief in supernatural beings is the slightest bit relevant.
> 
> I say scientology is atheist because they fit the only criteria, which is no belief in God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy*
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn't explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.
> 
> Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The author of that article is so wishy-washy in his conviction that he actually tries to argue as to whether atheism is actually an "ism" or not. No longer is atheism a intellectual position that people take but rather it has become some sort of vague feeling one has like boredom. They actually want to redefine atheism as simply the lack of belief in gods just one could redefine a sociopath as one who simply lacks a belief in being nice to people. Play all the little dishonest semantic games you want but at least have the guts enough to take a stand for what you believe. This kind of bullshit semantics makes you look like a bunch of cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fundie zealots have a difficult time understanding some pretty basic concepts. Concluding your gawds don't exist is a rational, reasonable conclusion.
> 
> The "bullshit semantics" is nothing more than your stunted ability to resolve clearly defined terms and conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is bullshit to say that atheism is simply a lack in belief, that is a redefinition of the term which as traditionally been defined as an intellectual stand in which theism is negated. Atheism is not simply a lack of belief, it is affirmative stance that denies the existence of God. Characterizing atheism as "simply a lack of belief" means that atheism is not an intellectual stance based on reason or logic but more or less a feeling one has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're really rather desperate. Atheism is a conclusion regarding the non-existence of your gawds as well as the gawds of others.
> 
> There's no requirement for belief.
Click to expand...

You can't not have your cake and eat it too. If atheism is not a intellectual stance then it has nothing to with reason or logic. If atheism is defined as simply the lack of belief then it is just a vague notion that pops up in people's heads.


----------



## Inevitable

Carla_Danger said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists who don't believe in a god also aren't going to believe in this god's supernatural competitor, and I have no idea what KSW is.
> 
> So no, I think that claim is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on what you consider a religion.  Satanism LeVey style is really more philosophy than religion to me, but it does also have trappings of magic involved which might make it fit into a definition of religion.  From what I remember the use of anti-Christian, demonic style names is symbolic rather than from a belief those beings are real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would consider religion a practice ritual. It doesn't matter if people are doing it "ironically" or not.
> 
> Religion often has nothing to do with theism, it has more to do with socializing.
> 
> As I pointed out before, I'm a theist but I'm areligious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd agree that rituals are a defining attribute of religions to include belief in one or more supernatural beings/entities, practices common to the religions' doctrines, a hierarchy of leadership, etc.
> 
> It seems to me that tagging the cult's of LeVay and Scientology is stretching the definition of religion. Remember, for example that Hubbard started Scientology on a bet and had few takers until he found a way to appeal those who had personalities / psychologies that were a "fit" for Dianetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think belief in supernatural beings is the slightest bit relevant.
> 
> I say scientology is atheist because they fit the only criteria, which is no belief in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree, atheism and for that matter theism is not a religion. I only stated that there is two religions that are atheist. All atheist means is that you don't worship any deity. It says nothing particularly about religion.
> 
> 
> *Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy*
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn't explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.
> 
> Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar
Click to expand...


----------



## Inevitable

asaratis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists who don't believe in a god also aren't going to believe in this god's supernatural competitor, and I have no idea what KSW is.
> 
> So no, I think that claim is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on what you consider a religion.  Satanism LeVey style is really more philosophy than religion to me, but it does also have trappings of magic involved which might make it fit into a definition of religion.  From what I remember the use of anti-Christian, demonic style names is symbolic rather than from a belief those beings are real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would consider religion a practice ritual. It doesn't matter if people are doing it "ironically" or not.
> 
> Religion often has nothing to do with theism, it has more to do with socializing.
> 
> As I pointed out before, I'm a theist but I'm areligious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd agree that rituals are a defining attribute of religions to include belief in one or more supernatural beings/entities, practices common to the religions' doctrines, a hierarchy of leadership, etc.
> 
> It seems to me that tagging the cult's of LeVay and Scientology is stretching the definition of religion. Remember, for example that Hubbard started Scientology on a bet and had few takers until he found a way to appeal those who had personalities / psychologies that were a "fit" for Dianetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think belief in supernatural beings is the slightest bit relevant.
> 
> I say scientology is atheist because they fit the only criteria, which is no belief in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree except in the supernatural nature of God.  Nature is all that is in the universe today that is not man-made that came to exist by whatever vehicle after the big bang.  What existed before the big bang?  God.  God is what set off the big bang.  God exploded a well structurally organized, astronomically dense arrangement of matter, releasing all existing energy and the laws of physics and chemistry prevailed thereafter and forever more.
Click to expand...

I don't see God as supernatural. But that is simply my view.


----------



## Carla_Danger

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy*
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn't explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.
> 
> Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The author of that article is so wishy-washy in his conviction that he actually tries to argue as to whether atheism is actually an "ism" or not. No longer is atheism a intellectual position that people take but rather it has become some sort of vague feeling one has like boredom. They actually want to redefine atheism as simply the lack of belief in gods just one could redefine a sociopath as one who simply lacks a belief in being nice to people. Play all the little dishonest semantic games you want but at least have the guts enough to take a stand for what you believe. This kind of bullshit semantics makes you look like a bunch of cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fundie zealots have a difficult time understanding some pretty basic concepts. Concluding your gawds don't exist is a rational, reasonable conclusion.
> 
> The "bullshit semantics" is nothing more than your stunted ability to resolve clearly defined terms and conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is bullshit to say that atheism is simply a lack in belief, that is a redefinition of the term which as traditionally been defined as an intellectual stand in which theism is negated. Atheism is not simply a lack of belief, it is affirmative stance that denies the existence of God. Characterizing atheism as "simply a lack of belief" means that atheism is not an intellectual stance based on reason or logic but more or less a feeling one has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're really rather desperate. Atheism is a conclusion regarding the non-existence of your gawds as well as the gawds of others.
> 
> There's no requirement for belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't not have your cake and eat it too. If atheism is not a intellectual stance then it has nothing to with reason or logic. If atheism is defined as simply the lack of belief then it is just a vague notion that pops up in people's heads.
Click to expand...



An intellectual stance is not a religion.


----------



## asaratis

Inevitable said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on what you consider a religion.  Satanism LeVey style is really more philosophy than religion to me, but it does also have trappings of magic involved which might make it fit into a definition of religion.  From what I remember the use of anti-Christian, demonic style names is symbolic rather than from a belief those beings are real.
> 
> 
> 
> I would consider religion a practice ritual. It doesn't matter if people are doing it "ironically" or not.
> 
> Religion often has nothing to do with theism, it has more to do with socializing.
> 
> As I pointed out before, I'm a theist but I'm areligious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd agree that rituals are a defining attribute of religions to include belief in one or more supernatural beings/entities, practices common to the religions' doctrines, a hierarchy of leadership, etc.
> 
> It seems to me that tagging the cult's of LeVay and Scientology is stretching the definition of religion. Remember, for example that Hubbard started Scientology on a bet and had few takers until he found a way to appeal those who had personalities / psychologies that were a "fit" for Dianetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think belief in supernatural beings is the slightest bit relevant.
> 
> I say scientology is atheist because they fit the only criteria, which is no belief in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree except in the supernatural nature of God.  Nature is all that is in the universe today that is not man-made that came to exist by whatever vehicle after the big bang.  What existed before the big bang?  God.  God is what set off the big bang.  God exploded a well structurally organized, astronomically dense arrangement of matter, releasing all existing energy and the laws of physics and chemistry prevailed thereafter and forever more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see God as supernatural. But that is simply my view.
Click to expand...

I respect that view.  I'm going by my understanding of dictionary definitions of _natural_ and _supernatural_.

I think all things are either, natural, man-made or supernatural.  I think God is not man-made as the atheist will claim.  I think God existed before nature.  Therefore, I think God is supernatural.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The author of that article is so wishy-washy in his conviction that he actually tries to argue as to whether atheism is actually an "ism" or not. No longer is atheism a intellectual position that people take but rather it has become some sort of vague feeling one has like boredom. They actually want to redefine atheism as simply the lack of belief in gods just one could redefine a sociopath as one who simply lacks a belief in being nice to people. Play all the little dishonest semantic games you want but at least have the guts enough to take a stand for what you believe. This kind of bullshit semantics makes you look like a bunch of cowards.
> 
> 
> 
> You fundie zealots have a difficult time understanding some pretty basic concepts. Concluding your gawds don't exist is a rational, reasonable conclusion.
> 
> The "bullshit semantics" is nothing more than your stunted ability to resolve clearly defined terms and conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is bullshit to say that atheism is simply a lack in belief, that is a redefinition of the term which as traditionally been defined as an intellectual stand in which theism is negated. Atheism is not simply a lack of belief, it is affirmative stance that denies the existence of God. Characterizing atheism as "simply a lack of belief" means that atheism is not an intellectual stance based on reason or logic but more or less a feeling one has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're really rather desperate. Atheism is a conclusion regarding the non-existence of your gawds as well as the gawds of others.
> 
> There's no requirement for belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't not have your cake and eat it too. If atheism is not a intellectual stance then it has nothing to with reason or logic. If atheism is defined as simply the lack of belief then it is just a vague notion that pops up in people's heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> An intellectual stance is not a religion.
Click to expand...

It becomes one when you a) preach it  b) form groups of like believers c) establish churches d) ordain ministers.....all of which have been evidenced.


----------



## Carla_Danger

CynthiaZ said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us know how prayers to the jeebus will resolve over-fishing of the world's oceans.
> 
> 
> 
> And you let me know how the Iphone is going is going to solve world hunger
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Huh, whaaa?  Did someone ever say it would?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I ever say praying to Jesus would solve over-fishing?
Click to expand...



Jeebus, I'm talking about your iphone comment.


----------



## Carla_Danger

asaratis said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You fundie zealots have a difficult time understanding some pretty basic concepts. Concluding your gawds don't exist is a rational, reasonable conclusion.
> 
> The "bullshit semantics" is nothing more than your stunted ability to resolve clearly defined terms and conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is bullshit to say that atheism is simply a lack in belief, that is a redefinition of the term which as traditionally been defined as an intellectual stand in which theism is negated. Atheism is not simply a lack of belief, it is affirmative stance that denies the existence of God. Characterizing atheism as "simply a lack of belief" means that atheism is not an intellectual stance based on reason or logic but more or less a feeling one has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're really rather desperate. Atheism is a conclusion regarding the non-existence of your gawds as well as the gawds of others.
> 
> There's no requirement for belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't not have your cake and eat it too. If atheism is not a intellectual stance then it has nothing to with reason or logic. If atheism is defined as simply the lack of belief then it is just a vague notion that pops up in people's heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> An intellectual stance is not a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It becomes one when you a) preach it  b) form groups of like believers c) establish churches d) ordain ministers.....all of which have been evidenced.
Click to expand...



We've already been over this. Forming a group of people does not make it a religion. And I would imagine the purpose for ordained ministers, is for unconventional weddings. An atheist "church" is nothing more than a community center, where they play music and have pot-luck lunch.


----------



## asaratis

Carla_Danger said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is bullshit to say that atheism is simply a lack in belief, that is a redefinition of the term which as traditionally been defined as an intellectual stand in which theism is negated. Atheism is not simply a lack of belief, it is affirmative stance that denies the existence of God. Characterizing atheism as "simply a lack of belief" means that atheism is not an intellectual stance based on reason or logic but more or less a feeling one has.
> 
> 
> 
> You're really rather desperate. Atheism is a conclusion regarding the non-existence of your gawds as well as the gawds of others.
> 
> There's no requirement for belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't not have your cake and eat it too. If atheism is not a intellectual stance then it has nothing to with reason or logic. If atheism is defined as simply the lack of belief then it is just a vague notion that pops up in people's heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> An intellectual stance is not a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It becomes one when you a) preach it  b) form groups of like believers c) establish churches d) ordain ministers.....all of which have been evidenced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We've already been over this. Forming a group of people does not make it a religion. And I would imagine the purpose for ordained ministers, is for unconventional weddings. An atheist "church" is nothing more than a community center, where they play music and have pot-luck lunch.
Click to expand...

Go way back in this thread...you'll find links to the web pages.

See post #82


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Inevitable said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not believing in religion is not a religion. How dumb are you folks?
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is without theism. It really isn't without religion, that would be areligious. I am an areligious theist.
> 
> And there are two religions that don't believe in God. One was Anton LeVay's church which you stupidly claimed worships Satan. Proving how dumb you are. A quick Google search will reveal the truth. And scientology which has no deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is completely without religion. I know this because as soon as I became an atheist, I lost my religion. That's the great thing about being an atheist....it requires so little of your time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not exactly true. There are two religions that I know of that are atheist. Anton LeVey's church of Satan, and KSW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists who don't believe in a god also aren't going to believe in this god's supernatural competitor, and I have no idea what KSW is.
> 
> So no, I think that claim is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anton LeVay's church of Satan doesn't believe in any God or supernatural competitor. My claim is accurate.
> 
> KSW is the church of scientology. They don't believe in a god or gods thus they are by definition atheist.
> 
> I'm not saying all atheists are scientologists or members of the church of Satan. I'm just saying that there are religions that are atheists.
> 
> I listed two.
Click to expand...

Actually not.

You listed religions that have no 'gods,' which has nothing to do with being free from faith.

Being free from faith means just that: _being free from faith_, both acknowledging the fact there is no 'god' as perceived by theists, and not abiding by any type of religious doctrine or dogma.  

Being free from faith is consequently not 'religion.'


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think belief in supernatural beings is the slightest bit relevant.
> 
> I say scientology is atheist because they fit the only criteria, which is no belief in God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheism is Not a Religion, Ideology, Belief System, Philosophy*
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn't explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.
> 
> Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The author of that article is so wishy-washy in his conviction that he actually tries to argue as to whether atheism is actually an "ism" or not. No longer is atheism a intellectual position that people take but rather it has become some sort of vague feeling one has like boredom. They actually want to redefine atheism as simply the lack of belief in gods just one could redefine a sociopath as one who simply lacks a belief in being nice to people. Play all the little dishonest semantic games you want but at least have the guts enough to take a stand for what you believe. This kind of bullshit semantics makes you look like a bunch of cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fundie zealots have a difficult time understanding some pretty basic concepts. Concluding your gawds don't exist is a rational, reasonable conclusion.
> 
> The "bullshit semantics" is nothing more than your stunted ability to resolve clearly defined terms and conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is bullshit to say that atheism is simply a lack in belief, that is a redefinition of the term which as traditionally been defined as an intellectual stand in which theism is negated. Atheism is not simply a lack of belief, it is affirmative stance that denies the existence of God. Characterizing atheism as "simply a lack of belief" means that atheism is not an intellectual stance based on reason or logic but more or less a feeling one has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're really rather desperate. Atheism is a conclusion regarding the non-existence of your gawds as well as the gawds of others.
> 
> There's no requirement for belief.
Click to expand...

Correct.

Being free from faith is the acknowledgment of facts and the truth, having nothing to do with 'belief.'

Man invented religion to assuage his fear of death and as a consequence of being aware of his own mortality, having nothing to do with deities or anything 'supernatural.'

All that is religion is learned, taught or self-taught, indoctrination or self-indoctrination, or a combination thereof, all the creation man, all devoid of divinity, all equally false and imbued with man's fears, faults, and failings.


----------



## Inevitable

asaratis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would consider religion a practice ritual. It doesn't matter if people are doing it "ironically" or not.
> 
> Religion often has nothing to do with theism, it has more to do with socializing.
> 
> As I pointed out before, I'm a theist but I'm areligious.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd agree that rituals are a defining attribute of religions to include belief in one or more supernatural beings/entities, practices common to the religions' doctrines, a hierarchy of leadership, etc.
> 
> It seems to me that tagging the cult's of LeVay and Scientology is stretching the definition of religion. Remember, for example that Hubbard started Scientology on a bet and had few takers until he found a way to appeal those who had personalities / psychologies that were a "fit" for Dianetics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think belief in supernatural beings is the slightest bit relevant.
> 
> I say scientology is atheist because they fit the only criteria, which is no belief in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree except in the supernatural nature of God.  Nature is all that is in the universe today that is not man-made that came to exist by whatever vehicle after the big bang.  What existed before the big bang?  God.  God is what set off the big bang.  God exploded a well structurally organized, astronomically dense arrangement of matter, releasing all existing energy and the laws of physics and chemistry prevailed thereafter and forever more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see God as supernatural. But that is simply my view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I respect that view.  I'm going by my understanding of dictionary definitions of _natural_ and _supernatural_.
> 
> I think all things are either, natural, man-made or supernatural.  I think God is not man-made as the atheist will claim.  I think God existed before nature.  Therefore, I think God is supernatural.
Click to expand...

Well it's good to talk to somebody that can respect somebody else's view. And I respect yours as well. 

To me, nature is the way God works. They aren't separate.


----------



## Inevitable

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is without theism. It really isn't without religion, that would be areligious. I am an areligious theist.
> 
> And there are two religions that don't believe in God. One was Anton LeVay's church which you stupidly claimed worships Satan. Proving how dumb you are. A quick Google search will reveal the truth. And scientology which has no deity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is completely without religion. I know this because as soon as I became an atheist, I lost my religion. That's the great thing about being an atheist....it requires so little of your time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not exactly true. There are two religions that I know of that are atheist. Anton LeVey's church of Satan, and KSW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists who don't believe in a god also aren't going to believe in this god's supernatural competitor, and I have no idea what KSW is.
> 
> So no, I think that claim is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anton LeVay's church of Satan doesn't believe in any God or supernatural competitor. My claim is accurate.
> 
> KSW is the church of scientology. They don't believe in a god or gods thus they are by definition atheist.
> 
> I'm not saying all atheists are scientologists or members of the church of Satan. I'm just saying that there are religions that are atheists.
> 
> I listed two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually not.
> 
> You listed religions that have no 'gods,' which has nothing to do with being free from faith.
> 
> Being free from faith means just that: _being free from faith_, both acknowledging the fact there is no 'god' as perceived by theists, and not abiding by any type of religious doctrine or dogma.
> 
> Being free from faith is consequently not 'religion.'
Click to expand...

Being free from faith has nothing to do with atheism. 

Faith is another word for trust. Or belief. If atheists don't believe in anything they are actually nihilist

All atheism means is the absence theism, not the absence of faith. I have plenty of atheist friends that have faith in their children and in their Spouses, even in things that they can't know.

If they didn't believe in anything they would be nihilists


----------



## CynthiaZ

Carla_Danger said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The author of that article is so wishy-washy in his conviction that he actually tries to argue as to whether atheism is actually an "ism" or not. No longer is atheism a intellectual position that people take but rather it has become some sort of vague feeling one has like boredom. They actually want to redefine atheism as simply the lack of belief in gods just one could redefine a sociopath as one who simply lacks a belief in being nice to people. Play all the little dishonest semantic games you want but at least have the guts enough to take a stand for what you believe. This kind of bullshit semantics makes you look like a bunch of cowards.
> 
> 
> 
> You fundie zealots have a difficult time understanding some pretty basic concepts. Concluding your gawds don't exist is a rational, reasonable conclusion.
> 
> The "bullshit semantics" is nothing more than your stunted ability to resolve clearly defined terms and conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is bullshit to say that atheism is simply a lack in belief, that is a redefinition of the term which as traditionally been defined as an intellectual stand in which theism is negated. Atheism is not simply a lack of belief, it is affirmative stance that denies the existence of God. Characterizing atheism as "simply a lack of belief" means that atheism is not an intellectual stance based on reason or logic but more or less a feeling one has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're really rather desperate. Atheism is a conclusion regarding the non-existence of your gawds as well as the gawds of others.
> 
> There's no requirement for belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't not have your cake and eat it too. If atheism is not a intellectual stance then it has nothing to with reason or logic. If atheism is defined as simply the lack of belief then it is just a vague notion that pops up in people's heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> An intellectual stance is not a religion.
Click to expand...


Wait...that article you cited posited that atheism isn't a religion nor a belief nor a point of view, it even question if in fact whether atheism is really a "ism" or not which would indeed render atheism to not an intellectual stance at all. So if it isn't any of these things then what is it if anything but a vague notion that some people have because obviously from the information given in that article that you cited we surely cannot say it is an intellectual stance built on rationality


----------



## LittleNipper

Carla_Danger said:


> An intellectual stance is not a religion.


 I belligerent stance is.


----------



## Treeshepherd

I'm formulating some Common Tenets of Atheist Religion;

[Obviously there is diversity in every branch of religion. There are many exceptions to the rule.]

1. The universe is a great, uncaused random accident. 

2. Rejection of the Christian concept of free will, and free will as a suitable explanation for the existence of evil. 
A developing concept among atheists is that human behavior is ultimately controlled by genes, by brain neurochemistry, and by interactions with the environment. In its most extreme form, determinism completely denies the existence of human free will.

3. Salvation through technology, leading toward transhumanism

4. The belief that (with the exception of atheism) the primary cause of war is religion (more than a fight over resources, territory and political power). This causes the atheist zealot to severely distort the importance of doctrinal differences in historical wars, as if a world full of atheists would be entirely at peace. 

5. The belief that atheism is the only religion which is compatible with science. 

6. The atheist believes that love is merely an adapted chemical reaction in the brain. Any further meaning is something that an atheist may choose to humor himself with. 

7. For utilitarian reasons of quality of life, the atheist invents moral rules by which a community should be governed, subjectively justifying that set of morals as well as humanly possible, thereby creating a new religion.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Inevitable said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is completely without religion. I know this because as soon as I became an atheist, I lost my religion. That's the great thing about being an atheist....it requires so little of your time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not exactly true. There are two religions that I know of that are atheist. Anton LeVey's church of Satan, and KSW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists who don't believe in a god also aren't going to believe in this god's supernatural competitor, and I have no idea what KSW is.
> 
> So no, I think that claim is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anton LeVay's church of Satan doesn't believe in any God or supernatural competitor. My claim is accurate.
> 
> KSW is the church of scientology. They don't believe in a god or gods thus they are by definition atheist.
> 
> I'm not saying all atheists are scientologists or members of the church of Satan. I'm just saying that there are religions that are atheists.
> 
> I listed two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually not.
> 
> You listed religions that have no 'gods,' which has nothing to do with being free from faith.
> 
> Being free from faith means just that: _being free from faith_, both acknowledging the fact there is no 'god' as perceived by theists, and not abiding by any type of religious doctrine or dogma.
> 
> Being free from faith is consequently not 'religion.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being free from faith has nothing to do with atheism.
> 
> Faith is another word for trust. Or belief. If atheists don't believe in anything they are actually nihilist
> 
> All atheism means is the absence theism, not the absence of faith. I have plenty of atheist friends that have faith in their children and in their Spouses, even in things that they can't know.
> 
> If they didn't believe in anything they would be nihilists
Click to expand...


I agree with you. To me God is the All in all, in my ttradition God is that which all things live, move and have being.


Treeshepherd said:


> I'm formulating some Common Tenets of Atheist Religion;
> 
> [Obviously there is diversity in every branch of religion. There are many exceptions to the rule.]
> 
> 1. The universe is a great, uncaused random accident.
> 
> 2. Rejection of the Christian concept of free will, and free will as a suitable explanation for the existence of evil.
> A developing concept among atheists is that human behavior is ultimately controlled by genes, by brain neurochemistry, and by interactions with the environment. In its most extreme form, determinism completely denies the existence of human free will.
> 
> 3. Salvation through technology, leading toward transhumanism
> 
> 4. The belief that (with the exception of atheism) the primary cause of war is religion (more than a fight over resources, territory and political power). This causes the atheist zealot to severely distort the importance of doctrinal differences in historical wars, as if a world full of atheists would be entirely at peace.
> 
> 5. The belief that atheism is the only religion which is compatible with science.
> 
> 6. The atheist believes that love is merely an adapted chemical reaction in the brain. Any further meaning is something that an atheist may choose to humor himself with.
> 
> 7. For utilitarian reasons of quality of life, the atheist invents moral rules by which a community should be governed, subjectively justifying that set of morals as well as humanly possible, thereby creating a new religion.



You forgot that they also imply that consciousness is merely a result of neuro-chemical  reactions in the brain and therefore consciousness is an illusion or just our minds playings tricks on itself.


----------



## Treeshepherd

CynthiaZ said:


> You forgot that they also imply that consciousness is merely a result of neuro-chemical reactions in the brain and therefore consciousness is an illusion or just our minds playings tricks on itself.



There's a lot of things I haven't gotten to. Atheists have many many beliefs. I would say that an atheist typically believes that her own brain is the source of consciousness. They would tend to reject any Jungian ideas of the collective unconscious, or the 100th Monkey Effect, or the 'conscious universe'.


----------



## Hollie

Treeshepherd said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot that they also imply that consciousness is merely a result of neuro-chemical reactions in the brain and therefore consciousness is an illusion or just our minds playings tricks on itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a lot of things I haven't gotten to. Atheists have many many beliefs. I would say that an atheist typically believes that her own brain is the source of consciousness. They would tend to reject any Jungian ideas of the collective unconscious, or the 100th Monkey Effect, or the 'conscious universe'.
Click to expand...

 You've employed most of the slogans on the pages of the most notorious fundie christian ministries. What a shame those charlatans find an audience for their fears and superstitions.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not exactly true. There are two religions that I know of that are atheist. Anton LeVey's church of Satan, and KSW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists who don't believe in a god also aren't going to believe in this god's supernatural competitor, and I have no idea what KSW is.
> 
> So no, I think that claim is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anton LeVay's church of Satan doesn't believe in any God or supernatural competitor. My claim is accurate.
> 
> KSW is the church of scientology. They don't believe in a god or gods thus they are by definition atheist.
> 
> I'm not saying all atheists are scientologists or members of the church of Satan. I'm just saying that there are religions that are atheists.
> 
> I listed two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually not.
> 
> You listed religions that have no 'gods,' which has nothing to do with being free from faith.
> 
> Being free from faith means just that: _being free from faith_, both acknowledging the fact there is no 'god' as perceived by theists, and not abiding by any type of religious doctrine or dogma.
> 
> Being free from faith is consequently not 'religion.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being free from faith has nothing to do with atheism.
> 
> Faith is another word for trust. Or belief. If atheists don't believe in anything they are actually nihilist
> 
> All atheism means is the absence theism, not the absence of faith. I have plenty of atheist friends that have faith in their children and in their Spouses, even in things that they can't know.
> 
> If they didn't believe in anything they would be nihilists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you. To me God is the All in all, in my ttradition God is that which all things live, move and have being.
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm formulating some Common Tenets of Atheist Religion;
> 
> [Obviously there is diversity in every branch of religion. There are many exceptions to the rule.]
> 
> 1. The universe is a great, uncaused random accident.
> 
> 2. Rejection of the Christian concept of free will, and free will as a suitable explanation for the existence of evil.
> A developing concept among atheists is that human behavior is ultimately controlled by genes, by brain neurochemistry, and by interactions with the environment. In its most extreme form, determinism completely denies the existence of human free will.
> 
> 3. Salvation through technology, leading toward transhumanism
> 
> 4. The belief that (with the exception of atheism) the primary cause of war is religion (more than a fight over resources, territory and political power). This causes the atheist zealot to severely distort the importance of doctrinal differences in historical wars, as if a world full of atheists would be entirely at peace.
> 
> 5. The belief that atheism is the only religion which is compatible with science.
> 
> 6. The atheist believes that love is merely an adapted chemical reaction in the brain. Any further meaning is something that an atheist may choose to humor himself with.
> 
> 7. For utilitarian reasons of quality of life, the atheist invents moral rules by which a community should be governed, subjectively justifying that set of morals as well as humanly possible, thereby creating a new religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot that they also imply that consciousness is merely a result of neuro-chemical  reactions in the brain and therefore consciousness is an illusion or just our minds playings tricks on itself.
Click to expand...

Your religion of hate and self-loathing is not winning many converts, obviously.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You fundie zealots have a difficult time understanding some pretty basic concepts. Concluding your gawds don't exist is a rational, reasonable conclusion.
> 
> The "bullshit semantics" is nothing more than your stunted ability to resolve clearly defined terms and conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is bullshit to say that atheism is simply a lack in belief, that is a redefinition of the term which as traditionally been defined as an intellectual stand in which theism is negated. Atheism is not simply a lack of belief, it is affirmative stance that denies the existence of God. Characterizing atheism as "simply a lack of belief" means that atheism is not an intellectual stance based on reason or logic but more or less a feeling one has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're really rather desperate. Atheism is a conclusion regarding the non-existence of your gawds as well as the gawds of others.
> 
> There's no requirement for belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't not have your cake and eat it too. If atheism is not a intellectual stance then it has nothing to with reason or logic. If atheism is defined as simply the lack of belief then it is just a vague notion that pops up in people's heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> An intellectual stance is not a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait...that article you cited posited that atheism isn't a religion nor a belief nor a point of view, it even question if in fact whether atheism is really a "ism" or not which would indeed render atheism to not an intellectual stance at all. So if it isn't any of these things then what is it if anything but a vague notion that some people have because obviously from the information given in that article that you cited we surely cannot say it is an intellectual stance built on rationality
Click to expand...

We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position. Your succumbing to fears and superstitions is your own waking nightmare to deal with. Spending your life in trembling fear of angry deities is a prescription for a maladjusted personality as evidenced by the hyper-religious and their inability to resolve a reality based worldview.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> You're really rather desperate. Atheism is a conclusion regarding the non-existence of your gawds as well as the gawds of others.
> 
> There's no requirement for belief.


this is precisely why I consider atheists irrational......


----------



## PostmodernProph

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is without theism. It really isn't without religion, that would be areligious. I am an areligious theist.
> 
> And there are two religions that don't believe in God. One was Anton LeVay's church which you stupidly claimed worships Satan. Proving how dumb you are. A quick Google search will reveal the truth. And scientology which has no deity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is completely without religion. I know this because as soon as I became an atheist, I lost my religion. That's the great thing about being an atheist....it requires so little of your time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not exactly true. There are two religions that I know of that are atheist. Anton LeVey's church of Satan, and KSW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists who don't believe in a god also aren't going to believe in this god's supernatural competitor, and I have no idea what KSW is.
> 
> So no, I think that claim is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anton LeVay's church of Satan doesn't believe in any God or supernatural competitor. My claim is accurate.
> 
> KSW is the church of scientology. They don't believe in a god or gods thus they are by definition atheist.
> 
> I'm not saying all atheists are scientologists or members of the church of Satan. I'm just saying that there are religions that are atheists.
> 
> I listed two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually not.
> 
> You listed religions that have no 'gods,' which has nothing to do with being free from faith.
> 
> Being free from faith means just that: _being free from faith_, both acknowledging the fact there is no 'god' as perceived by theists, and not abiding by any type of religious doctrine or dogma.
> 
> Being free from faith is consequently not 'religion.'
Click to expand...

so what?.....the definition of 'atheist' is not "free from faith".......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Atheism is a religion because it makes as little sense as theistic versions.

Atheism is the belief in the non-existance of gods. Yet unless everyone's definition of 'god' is the same, you might not be talking about the same thing.

As Arthur C Clarke said, "any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic." So relative to an ant, we're gods. Do we then not believe in ourselves? What about an older alien species with technology to us? Wouldn't they be as gods to us?

And until you've been everywhere in the rather sizable universe, seen and descriebd everything you can't say with any certainty that no where in the whole universe is anything we'd call a god. If you had that kind of knowledge, you'd in effect BE the god you're claiming doesn't exist and would evaporate in a puff of logic.


----------



## Hollie

Treeshepherd said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot that they also imply that consciousness is merely a result of neuro-chemical reactions in the brain and therefore consciousness is an illusion or just our minds playings tricks on itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a lot of things I haven't gotten to. Atheists have many many beliefs. I would say that an atheist typically believes that her own brain is the source of consciousness. They would tend to reject any Jungian ideas of the collective unconscious, or the 100th Monkey Effect, or the 'conscious universe'.
Click to expand...




PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position.
Click to expand...


Your spam does nothing to maķe any case for your magical gawds.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot that they also imply that consciousness is merely a result of neuro-chemical reactions in the brain and therefore consciousness is an illusion or just our minds playings tricks on itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a lot of things I haven't gotten to. Atheists have many many beliefs. I would say that an atheist typically believes that her own brain is the source of consciousness. They would tend to reject any Jungian ideas of the collective unconscious, or the 100th Monkey Effect, or the 'conscious universe'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your spam does nothing to maķe any case for your magical gawds.
Click to expand...

and you have no logical argument that concludes the non existence of supernatural entities.....if you had one you could diagram it....all you can do is shout "you are a fundamentalist"........


----------



## Hollie

Delta4Embassy said:


> Atheism is a religion because it makes as little sense as theistic versions.
> 
> Atheism is the belief in the non-existance of gods. Yet unless everyone's definition of 'god' is the same, you might not be talking about the same thing.
> 
> As Arthur C Clarke said, "any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic." So relative to an ant, we're gods. Do we then not believe in ourselves? What about an older alien species with technology to us? Wouldn't they be as gods to us?
> 
> And until you've been everywhere in the rather sizable universe, seen and descriebd everything you can't say with any certainty that no where in the whole universe is anything we'd call a god. If you had that kind of knowledge, you'd in effect BE the god you're claiming doesn't exist and would evaporate in a puff of logic.


It's interesting that you're employing science fiction writers as a member of the _Religion of Atheism is a Religion._


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot that they also imply that consciousness is merely a result of neuro-chemical reactions in the brain and therefore consciousness is an illusion or just our minds playings tricks on itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a lot of things I haven't gotten to. Atheists have many many beliefs. I would say that an atheist typically believes that her own brain is the source of consciousness. They would tend to reject any Jungian ideas of the collective unconscious, or the 100th Monkey Effect, or the 'conscious universe'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your spam does nothing to maķe any case for your magical gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you have no logical argument that concludes the non existence of supernatural entities.....if you had one you could diagram it....all you can do is shout "you are a fundamentalist"........
Click to expand...

It's not up to me to disprove any of the gawds you offer no evidence for.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot that they also imply that consciousness is merely a result of neuro-chemical reactions in the brain and therefore consciousness is an illusion or just our minds playings tricks on itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a lot of things I haven't gotten to. Atheists have many many beliefs. I would say that an atheist typically believes that her own brain is the source of consciousness. They would tend to reject any Jungian ideas of the collective unconscious, or the 100th Monkey Effect, or the 'conscious universe'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your spam does nothing to maķe any case for your magical gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you have no logical argument that concludes the non existence of supernatural entities.....if you had one you could diagram it....all you can do is shout "you are a fundamentalist"........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not up to me to disprove any of the gawds you offer no evidence for.
Click to expand...


then you shouldn't pretend you can......


Hollie said:


> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position.


you can't actually say that, because you don't even know where to start....


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot that they also imply that consciousness is merely a result of neuro-chemical reactions in the brain and therefore consciousness is an illusion or just our minds playings tricks on itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a lot of things I haven't gotten to. Atheists have many many beliefs. I would say that an atheist typically believes that her own brain is the source of consciousness. They would tend to reject any Jungian ideas of the collective unconscious, or the 100th Monkey Effect, or the 'conscious universe'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your spam does nothing to maķe any case for your magical gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you have no logical argument that concludes the non existence of supernatural entities.....if you had one you could diagram it....all you can do is shout "you are a fundamentalist"........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not up to me to disprove any of the gawds you offer no evidence for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then you shouldn't pretend you can......
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you can't actually say that, because you don't even know where to start....
Click to expand...

You're typically befuddled. We start with you YEC'ists making claims to magical gawds ard the ones responsible for supporting your claims.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position. Your succumbing to fears and superstitions is your own waking nightmare to deal with. Spending your life in trembling fear of angry deities is a prescription for a maladjusted personality as evidenced by the hyper-religious and their inability to resolve a reality based worldview.


Please everyone watch the following:
Was Adolf Hitler a Christian - a report on How Hitler Viewed God - The 700 Club CBN.com


----------



## lutraphile

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position. Your succumbing to fears and superstitions is your own waking nightmare to deal with. Spending your life in trembling fear of angry deities is a prescription for a maladjusted personality as evidenced by the hyper-religious and their inability to resolve a reality based worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> Please everyone watch the following:
> Was Adolf Hitler a Christian - a report on How Hitler Viewed God - The 700 Club CBN.com
Click to expand...


Citing the 700 Club in a discussion of religion...not exactly unbiased
Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikiquote


----------



## LittleNipper

lutraphile said:


> Citing the 700 Club in a discussion of religion...not exactly unbiased
> Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikiquote



The actual recorded historic film footage is not bias. It is most revealing. Was Adolf Hitler a Christian - a report on How Hitler Viewed God - The 700 Club CBN.com

And oddly Wikiquote left some major points out.

The Bible does say that by their works one will know if they are Christian. Hitler's works were directed against all God's chosen people. He could not be anything but an Anti-Christ!


----------



## Hollie

lutraphile said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position. Your succumbing to fears and superstitions is your own waking nightmare to deal with. Spending your life in trembling fear of angry deities is a prescription for a maladjusted personality as evidenced by the hyper-religious and their inability to resolve a reality based worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> Please everyone watch the following:
> Was Adolf Hitler a Christian - a report on How Hitler Viewed God - The 700 Club CBN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Citing the 700 Club in a discussion of religion...not exactly unbiased
> Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikiquote
Click to expand...

Why is the 700 Club not the truest reflection of christianity?

Who decides?


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> lutraphile said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position. Your succumbing to fears and superstitions is your own waking nightmare to deal with. Spending your life in trembling fear of angry deities is a prescription for a maladjusted personality as evidenced by the hyper-religious and their inability to resolve a reality based worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> Please everyone watch the following:
> Was Adolf Hitler a Christian - a report on How Hitler Viewed God - The 700 Club CBN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Citing the 700 Club in a discussion of religion...not exactly unbiased
> Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikiquote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the 700 Club not the truest reflection of christianity?
> Was Adolf Hitler a Christian - a report on How Hitler Viewed God - The 700 Club CBN.com I do not see that Hitler as a saved individual.
> Who decides?
Click to expand...

 Christianity is a personal relationship and not an organizational privilege. Christians do associate with other Christians and form churches, but the CHURCH is the body of ALL believers saved and sealed through Christ Jesus.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lutraphile said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position. Your succumbing to fears and superstitions is your own waking nightmare to deal with. Spending your life in trembling fear of angry deities is a prescription for a maladjusted personality as evidenced by the hyper-religious and their inability to resolve a reality based worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> Please everyone watch the following:
> Was Adolf Hitler a Christian - a report on How Hitler Viewed God - The 700 Club CBN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Citing the 700 Club in a discussion of religion...not exactly unbiased
> Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikiquote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the 700 Club not the truest reflection of christianity?
> Was Adolf Hitler a Christian - a report on How Hitler Viewed God - The 700 Club CBN.com I do not see that Hitler as a saved individual.
> Who decides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christianity is a personal relationship and not an organizational privilege. Christians do associate with other Christians and form churches, but the CHURCH is the body of ALL believers saved and sealed through Christ Jesus.
Click to expand...

Umm, no. Christianity is a splintered collection of sects and subdivisions, frequently hostile to one another, most of which explicitly meet the definition of a cult.


----------



## hangover

If atheism wasn't a religion it wouldn't have churches....

FAQ First Church of Atheism

Home First Church of Atheism

Atheist Church


----------



## Treeshepherd

Hollie said:


> You've employed most of the slogans on the pages of the most notorious fundie christian ministries. What a shame those charlatans find an audience for their fears and superstitions.



You continue to link me with fundamentalist Christians, even though I'm not Christian and I've never ever written anything fundamentalist on USMB (ie, literal translation of the Bible, support of socially conservative laws, etc.). You make claims with zero backing. 

Neither have you actually explained your disagreement with any of my listed Tenets of the Atheist Religion. I think you would be content to just trade barbs and get distracted. The OP defines this thread as being concerned with atheism as a religion, or not. There is room for disagreement within any religion. Where do you disagree with my list?;



Treeshepherd said:


> 1. The universe is a great, uncaused random accident.
> 
> 2. Rejection of the Christian concept of free will, and free will as a suitable explanation for the existence of evil.
> A developing concept among atheists is that human behavior is ultimately controlled by genes, by brain neurochemistry, and by interactions with the environment. In its most extreme form, determinism completely denies the existence of human free will.
> 
> 3. Salvation through technology, leading toward transhumanism
> 
> 4. The belief that (with the exception of atheism) the primary cause of war is religion (more than a fight over resources, territory and political power). This causes the atheist zealot to severely distort the importance of doctrinal differences in historical wars, as if a world full of atheists would be entirely at peace.
> 
> 5. The belief that atheism is the only religion which is compatible with science.
> 
> 6. The atheist believes that love is merely an adapted chemical reaction in the brain. Any further meaning is something that an atheist may choose to humor himself with.
> 
> 7. For utilitarian reasons of quality of life, the atheist invents moral rules by which a community should be governed, subjectively justifying that set of morals as well as humanly possible, thereby creating a new religion.


----------



## Hollie

Treeshepherd said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've employed most of the slogans on the pages of the most notorious fundie christian ministries. What a shame those charlatans find an audience for their fears and superstitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to link me with fundamentalist Christians, even though I'm not Christian and I've never ever written anything fundamentalist on USMB (ie, literal translation of the Bible, support of socially conservative laws, etc.). You make claims with zero backing.
> 
> Neither have you actually explained your disagreement with any of my listed Tenets of the Atheist Religion. I think you would be content to just trade barbs and get distracted. The OP defines this thread as being concerned with atheism as a religion, or not. There is room for disagreement within any religion. Where do you disagree with my list?;
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The universe is a great, uncaused random accident.
> 
> 2. Rejection of the Christian concept of free will, and free will as a suitable explanation for the existence of evil.
> A developing concept among atheists is that human behavior is ultimately controlled by genes, by brain neurochemistry, and by interactions with the environment. In its most extreme form, determinism completely denies the existence of human free will.
> 
> 3. Salvation through technology, leading toward transhumanism
> 
> 4. The belief that (with the exception of atheism) the primary cause of war is religion (more than a fight over resources, territory and political power). This causes the atheist zealot to severely distort the importance of doctrinal differences in historical wars, as if a world full of atheists would be entirely at peace.
> 
> 5. The belief that atheism is the only religion which is compatible with science.
> 
> 6. The atheist believes that love is merely an adapted chemical reaction in the brain. Any further meaning is something that an atheist may choose to humor himself with.
> 
> 7. For utilitarian reasons of quality of life, the atheist invents moral rules by which a community should be governed, subjectively justifying that set of morals as well as humanly possible, thereby creating a new religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You continue to link your arguments with those of fundamentalist christians. Are you then surprised at responses that are directed to those arguments?

Secondly, your list of grievances reads like a list one would find at the ICR website. It's cliched' and a little dated.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Carla_Danger said:


> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]



As an agnostic I'm pleased since we can infer I_conoclastism_ isn't a religion.  It's a way of looking at the world without the need to appeal to authority.


----------



## asaratis

From the horse's mouth....

*What do we believe?*
The First Church of Atheism is formed around the belief that the mysteries of life can be explained through science and reason. We aim to provide a place for atheists to become ordained, for free, as well as a hub for atheists to find ministers to perform their ceremonies. This is our doctrine:

_“Nothing exists besides natural phenomena. Thought is merely a function of those natural phenomena. Death is complete, and irreversible. We have faith solely in humankind, nature, and the facts of science.”_

*Is this really free?*
Yes, becoming ordained with the First Church of Atheism is entirely free of charge.



*Why is this free?*
We believe that everyone should have the right to preach what they believe, to start a congregation, and to perform ceremonies. This is usually reserved for members of traditional religious sects. We have started a church of our own, based on our beliefs, and will provide our service of ordainment free to anyone who shares our beliefs.



*Will I be a minister in the eyes of the law?*
Yes, you will be a legally ordained minister. You will be able to perform every task that a clergy member can perform.



*How do I prove I am an ordained minister?*
Visit the store to purchase various items, such as an identification card, certificate, or letters for your local government office.



*What type of services can I perform as a minister?*
You will be able to perform the following services:
-Weddings
-Funerals
-Commitment ceremonies
-Many others



*Are there any privileges of being a minister?*
Ministers command a level of respect from the general public. Some parking lots have reserved parking for clergy. You will have clergy level access to prisons and hospitals.



*How long does my ordainment last?*
Your ordainment with the First Church of Atheism lasts for your lifetime. Once you are ordained, you never have to do anything again. You will be a minister for life.



*Can I revoke my ordainment?*
Yes, simply contact us and we will remove your ordainment, free of charge.



*Can atheism really have a church?*
A church is defined as an association of people who share a particular belief system. So yes, a church of atheism can really exist.


----------



## Treeshepherd

Hollie said:


> You continue to link your arguments with those of fundamentalist christians. Are you then surprised at responses that are directed to those arguments?



Let's begin with the first postulation of Atheist religion;

1. The universe is a great, uncaused random accident. 

agree or disagree?


----------



## Hollie

Treeshepherd said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to link your arguments with those of fundamentalist christians. Are you then surprised at responses that are directed to those arguments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's begin with the first postulation of Atheist religion;
> 
> 1. The universe is a great, uncaused random accident.
> 
> agree or disagree?
Click to expand...


Let's begin with your first error wherein you make the false assumptions, false analogies and offer false premises of your contrived slogan of an "Atheist religion". 

like so many angry, self-hating fundamentalists,  you know very little of the physical sciences. The "great, uncaused cause" is a slogan typically spewed by your fundamentalist ministries. 

The so-called Big Bang was a major disruption in time and space followed by expansion of the universe. 

You may wish to actually understand some appropriate terms and concepts outside of your madrassah to avoid making yourself the focus of even more ridicule. 

Your worldview of angry gods, supernatural realms and a never ending hierarchy of gods, designer gods, designers of designer gawds ----> an infinity of designers of your designer gods is actually pretty nihilistic and child-like. This means there are questions we can never hope to attain true knowledge about, and that means our place in the universe is hopelessly obscured. This is a sweepingly nihilistic and child-like point of view, and you extremists can never seem to connect the dots to this inescapable conclusion. The cul de sac remains forever in place-- "the gawds did it, and that's that."

How this suffices as an answer to anything is beyond any reasoning I can come up with. I understand the slogan that builds your entire fantasy world of angry gawds, "the gawds did it" is enough for you lot of christian extremists, but people of careful thought are not required to accept your limitations. That you accept such nonsense smacks more of a desire to keep a comforting myth as opposed to facing a sometimes cold-- but understandable-- reality.


----------



## asaratis

Wry Catcher said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As an agnostic I'm pleased since we can infer I_conoclastism_ isn't a religion.  *It's a way of looking at the world without the need to appeal to authority.*
Click to expand...

Is that:  *to be well armed and not wait for the authorities?*

...or  is it:  *being the authority?*


----------



## Treeshepherd

Hollie said:


> Let's begin with your first error wherein you make the false assumptions, false analogies and offer false premises of your contrived slogan of an "Atheist religion".
> 
> like so many angry, self-hating fundamentalists, you know very little of the physical sciences. The "great, uncaused cause" is a slogan typically spewed by your fundamentalist ministries.



While you would love to avoid the question and dismiss me as a fundamentalist all day long, the topic of this thread has to do with atheism as a religion. If you would like to discuss my druidic 'hate' theories, you can 'ridicule' me here: 
Treeshepherd s Model of Truth US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You won't agree with the statement that the universe is uncaused? Maybe you're just being stubborn. I thought this would be an easy one for us to come to an understanding about. 

"_There is sufficient evidence at present to justify the belief that the universe began to exist without being caused to do so. This evidence includes the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems that are based on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and the recently introduced Quantum Cosmological Models of the early universe. The singularity theorems lead to an explication of the beginning of the universe that involves the notion of a Big Bang singularity, and the Quantum Cosmological Models represent the beginning largely in terms of the notion of a vacuum fluctuation. Theories that represent the universe as infinitely old or as caused to begin are shown to be at odds with or at least unsupported by these and other current cosmological notions_."
The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe

Secular theories point toward an uncaused universe. Agree or disagree.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a lot of things I haven't gotten to. Atheists have many many beliefs. I would say that an atheist typically believes that her own brain is the source of consciousness. They would tend to reject any Jungian ideas of the collective unconscious, or the 100th Monkey Effect, or the 'conscious universe'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your spam does nothing to maķe any case for your magical gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you have no logical argument that concludes the non existence of supernatural entities.....if you had one you could diagram it....all you can do is shout "you are a fundamentalist"........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not up to me to disprove any of the gawds you offer no evidence for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then you shouldn't pretend you can......
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you can't actually say that, because you don't even know where to start....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're typically befuddled. We start with you YEC'ists making claims to magical gawds ard the ones responsible for supporting your claims.
Click to expand...

lol....you think that I am the one befuddled, yet you still think I'm a young earther.......anyone stupid enough to believe that is the one befuddled.......


----------



## PostmodernProph

lutraphile said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position. Your succumbing to fears and superstitions is your own waking nightmare to deal with. Spending your life in trembling fear of angry deities is a prescription for a maladjusted personality as evidenced by the hyper-religious and their inability to resolve a reality based worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> Please everyone watch the following:
> Was Adolf Hitler a Christian - a report on How Hitler Viewed God - The 700 Club CBN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Citing the 700 Club in a discussion of religion...not exactly unbiased
> Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikiquote
Click to expand...

so what.....its only atheists who claim he was a Christian....do you consider them unbiased?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> lutraphile said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position. Your succumbing to fears and superstitions is your own waking nightmare to deal with. Spending your life in trembling fear of angry deities is a prescription for a maladjusted personality as evidenced by the hyper-religious and their inability to resolve a reality based worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> Please everyone watch the following:
> Was Adolf Hitler a Christian - a report on How Hitler Viewed God - The 700 Club CBN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Citing the 700 Club in a discussion of religion...not exactly unbiased
> Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikiquote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the 700 Club not the truest reflection of christianity?
> 
> Who decides?
Click to expand...

why is Hollie not the truest reflection  of the ignorance of atheists?........


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to link your arguments with those of fundamentalist christians. Are you then surprised at responses that are directed to those arguments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's begin with the first postulation of Atheist religion;
> 
> 1. The universe is a great, uncaused random accident.
> 
> agree or disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's begin with your first error wherein you make the false assumptions, false analogies and offer false premises of your contrived slogan of an "Atheist religion".
> 
> like so many angry, self-hating fundamentalists,  you know very little of the physical sciences. The "great, uncaused cause" is a slogan typically spewed by your fundamentalist ministries.
> 
> The so-called Big Bang was a major disruption in time and space followed by expansion of the universe.
> 
> You may wish to actually understand some appropriate terms and concepts outside of your madrassah to avoid making yourself the focus of even more ridicule.
> 
> Your worldview of angry gods, supernatural realms and a never ending hierarchy of gods, designer gods, designers of designer gawds ----> an infinity of designers of your designer gods is actually pretty nihilistic and child-like. This means there are questions we can never hope to attain true knowledge about, and that means our place in the universe is hopelessly obscured. This is a sweepingly nihilistic and child-like point of view, and you extremists can never seem to connect the dots to this inescapable conclusion. The cul de sac remains forever in place-- "the gawds did it, and that's that."
> 
> How this suffices as an answer to anything is beyond any reasoning I can come up with. I understand the slogan that builds your entire fantasy world of angry gawds, "the gawds did it" is enough for you lot of christian extremists, but people of careful thought are not required to accept your limitations. That you accept such nonsense smacks more of a desire to keep a comforting myth as opposed to facing a sometimes cold-- but understandable-- reality.
Click to expand...

You should read the last days of Anthony Flew.  I doubt you will understand his reasoning. You are no where near his caliber.


----------



## sealybobo

LittleNipper said:


> lutraphile said:
> 
> 
> 
> Citing the 700 Club in a discussion of religion...not exactly unbiased
> Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikiquote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The actual recorded historic film footage is not bias. It is most revealing. Was Adolf Hitler a Christian - a report on How Hitler Viewed God - The 700 Club CBN.com
> 
> And oddly Wikiquote left some major points out.
> 
> The Bible does say that by their works one will know if they are Christian. Hitler's works were directed against all God's chosen people. He could not be anything but an Anti-Christ!
Click to expand...

You can believe in god and not like him or fear him. 

Oh do you mean your particular sect of religion's definition of god? Who's to say he believed in your particular version of god in your particular century and in your society. 

Maybe he believed in Mormon or juju the African god?


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lutraphile said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position. Your succumbing to fears and superstitions is your own waking nightmare to deal with. Spending your life in trembling fear of angry deities is a prescription for a maladjusted personality as evidenced by the hyper-religious and their inability to resolve a reality based worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> Please everyone watch the following:
> Was Adolf Hitler a Christian - a report on How Hitler Viewed God - The 700 Club CBN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Citing the 700 Club in a discussion of religion...not exactly unbiased
> Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikiquote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the 700 Club not the truest reflection of christianity?
> 
> Who decides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is Hollie not the truest reflection  of the ignorance of atheists?........
Click to expand...

Dont be mad cause she calls bullshit on your ridiculous religions.


----------



## Carla_Danger

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lutraphile said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position. Your succumbing to fears and superstitions is your own waking nightmare to deal with. Spending your life in trembling fear of angry deities is a prescription for a maladjusted personality as evidenced by the hyper-religious and their inability to resolve a reality based worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> Please everyone watch the following:
> Was Adolf Hitler a Christian - a report on How Hitler Viewed God - The 700 Club CBN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Citing the 700 Club in a discussion of religion...not exactly unbiased
> Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikiquote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the 700 Club not the truest reflection of christianity?
> Was Adolf Hitler a Christian - a report on How Hitler Viewed God - The 700 Club CBN.com I do not see that Hitler as a saved individual.
> Who decides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christianity is a personal relationship and not an organizational privilege. Christians do associate with other Christians and form churches, but the CHURCH is the body of ALL believers saved and sealed through Christ Jesus.
Click to expand...



How do you function in society?  Just curious.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your spam does nothing to maķe any case for your magical gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> and you have no logical argument that concludes the non existence of supernatural entities.....if you had one you could diagram it....all you can do is shout "you are a fundamentalist"........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not up to me to disprove any of the gawds you offer no evidence for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then you shouldn't pretend you can......
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you can't actually say that, because you don't even know where to start....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're typically befuddled. We start with you YEC'ists making claims to magical gawds ard the ones responsible for supporting your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol....you think that I am the one befuddled, yet you still think I'm a young earther.......anyone stupid enough to believe that is the one befuddled.......
Click to expand...

Your attempts at argument are identical to the YEC'ist cranks.


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to link your arguments with those of fundamentalist christians. Are you then surprised at responses that are directed to those arguments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's begin with the first postulation of Atheist religion;
> 
> 1. The universe is a great, uncaused random accident.
> 
> agree or disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's begin with your first error wherein you make the false assumptions, false analogies and offer false premises of your contrived slogan of an "Atheist religion".
> 
> like so many angry, self-hating fundamentalists,  you know very little of the physical sciences. The "great, uncaused cause" is a slogan typically spewed by your fundamentalist ministries.
> 
> The so-called Big Bang was a major disruption in time and space followed by expansion of the universe.
> 
> You may wish to actually understand some appropriate terms and concepts outside of your madrassah to avoid making yourself the focus of even more ridicule.
> 
> Your worldview of angry gods, supernatural realms and a never ending hierarchy of gods, designer gods, designers of designer gawds ----> an infinity of designers of your designer gods is actually pretty nihilistic and child-like. This means there are questions we can never hope to attain true knowledge about, and that means our place in the universe is hopelessly obscured. This is a sweepingly nihilistic and child-like point of view, and you extremists can never seem to connect the dots to this inescapable conclusion. The cul de sac remains forever in place-- "the gawds did it, and that's that."
> 
> How this suffices as an answer to anything is beyond any reasoning I can come up with. I understand the slogan that builds your entire fantasy world of angry gawds, "the gawds did it" is enough for you lot of christian extremists, but people of careful thought are not required to accept your limitations. That you accept such nonsense smacks more of a desire to keep a comforting myth as opposed to facing a sometimes cold-- but understandable-- reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should read the last days of Anthony Flew.  I doubt you will understand his reasoning. You are no where near his caliber.
Click to expand...

You should read one or more of the bibles if you hope to have a chance at defending your polytheism.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lutraphile said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position. Your succumbing to fears and superstitions is your own waking nightmare to deal with. Spending your life in trembling fear of angry deities is a prescription for a maladjusted personality as evidenced by the hyper-religious and their inability to resolve a reality based worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> Please everyone watch the following:
> Was Adolf Hitler a Christian - a report on How Hitler Viewed God - The 700 Club CBN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Citing the 700 Club in a discussion of religion...not exactly unbiased
> Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikiquote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the 700 Club not the truest reflection of christianity?
> 
> Who decides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is Hollie not the truest reflection  of the ignorance of atheists?........
Click to expand...

You're so befuddled you're left to your usual attempts at juvenile name-calling.


----------



## sealybobo

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lutraphile said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position. Your succumbing to fears and superstitions is your own waking nightmare to deal with. Spending your life in trembling fear of angry deities is a prescription for a maladjusted personality as evidenced by the hyper-religious and their inability to resolve a reality based worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> Please everyone watch the following:
> Was Adolf Hitler a Christian - a report on How Hitler Viewed God - The 700 Club CBN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Citing the 700 Club in a discussion of religion...not exactly unbiased
> Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikiquote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the 700 Club not the truest reflection of christianity?
> Was Adolf Hitler a Christian - a report on How Hitler Viewed God - The 700 Club CBN.com I do not see that Hitler as a saved individual.
> Who decides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christianity is a personal relationship and not an organizational privilege. Christians do associate with other Christians and form churches, but the CHURCH is the body of ALL believers saved and sealed through Christ Jesus.
Click to expand...

Same with Muslims and Jews if you take out the Jesus stuff.


----------



## sealybobo

Treeshepherd said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to link your arguments with those of fundamentalist christians. Are you then surprised at responses that are directed to those arguments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's begin with the first postulation of Atheist religion;
> 
> 1. The universe is a great, uncaused random accident.
> 
> agree or disagree?
Click to expand...

The honest answer is we dont know. You claim to know, which is why science is discovering the real answers not theists. Theists claim to already know.


----------



## Hollie

Treeshepherd said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's begin with your first error wherein you make the false assumptions, false analogies and offer false premises of your contrived slogan of an "Atheist religion".
> 
> like so many angry, self-hating fundamentalists, you know very little of the physical sciences. The "great, uncaused cause" is a slogan typically spewed by your fundamentalist ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While you would love to avoid the question and dismiss me as a fundamentalist all day long, the topic of this thread has to do with atheism as a religion. If you would like to discuss my druidic 'hate' theories, you can 'ridicule' me here:
> Treeshepherd s Model of Truth US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> You won't agree with the statement that the universe is uncaused? Maybe you're just being stubborn. I thought this would be an easy one for us to come to an understanding about.
> 
> "_There is sufficient evidence at present to justify the belief that the universe began to exist without being caused to do so. This evidence includes the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems that are based on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and the recently introduced Quantum Cosmological Models of the early universe. The singularity theorems lead to an explication of the beginning of the universe that involves the notion of a Big Bang singularity, and the Quantum Cosmological Models represent the beginning largely in terms of the notion of a vacuum fluctuation. Theories that represent the universe as infinitely old or as caused to begin are shown to be at odds with or at least unsupported by these and other current cosmological notions_."
> The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe
> 
> Secular theories point toward an uncaused universe. Agree or disagree.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you're just a pointless spammer, not even one with a high EQ; *E*ntertainment *Q*uotient. 

Just once, I would hope that you christian fundies would not attempt to spackle your gawds into every conceivable crack with the silly and tired "Argument of the uncaused cause". It long ago became tedious and it's no more valid, useful or interesting now than centuries ago. Even if we were to abandon every inquisitive brain cell and slouch into the stupor of religious fundamentalism, to mindlessly accept the intellectual dead end of your religious dogma that requires belief in polytheistic gawds who by magical means were responsible for the inception of the universe tells us nothing about the nature of that cause.

It doesn't tell us whether or not it is planned, intelligent, personal, conscious, arbitrary, loving, cruel, or even whether or not it has a "creator" of its own.

Bottom line is that _your _frail attempt, and that of the other self-hating,  science-loathing fundie cranks who arbitrarily pick a point on some presumed chain of causality and call it "Gawds" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's crank fundamentalist position, and in the armory of fundie christian apologetics, it doesn’t even qualify as a cap gun.


----------



## Hollie

sealybobo said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to link your arguments with those of fundamentalist christians. Are you then surprised at responses that are directed to those arguments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's begin with the first postulation of Atheist religion;
> 
> 1. The universe is a great, uncaused random accident.
> 
> agree or disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The honest answer is we dont know. You claim to know, which is why science is discovering the real answers not theists. Theists claim to already know.
Click to expand...


For some strange, unknown reason, it's not the fundie Christian ministries leading to new discoveries in science, medicine, astronomy, the exploration for life off of this planet, etc.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's begin with your first error wherein you make the false assumptions, false analogies and offer false premises of your contrived slogan of an "Atheist religion".
> 
> like so many angry, self-hating fundamentalists, you know very little of the physical sciences. The "great, uncaused cause" is a slogan typically spewed by your fundamentalist ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While you would love to avoid the question and dismiss me as a fundamentalist all day long, the topic of this thread has to do with atheism as a religion. If you would like to discuss my druidic 'hate' theories, you can 'ridicule' me here:
> Treeshepherd s Model of Truth US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> You won't agree with the statement that the universe is uncaused? Maybe you're just being stubborn. I thought this would be an easy one for us to come to an understanding about.
> 
> "_There is sufficient evidence at present to justify the belief that the universe began to exist without being caused to do so. This evidence includes the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems that are based on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and the recently introduced Quantum Cosmological Models of the early universe. The singularity theorems lead to an explication of the beginning of the universe that involves the notion of a Big Bang singularity, and the Quantum Cosmological Models represent the beginning largely in terms of the notion of a vacuum fluctuation. Theories that represent the universe as infinitely old or as caused to begin are shown to be at odds with or at least unsupported by these and other current cosmological notions_."
> The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe
> 
> Secular theories point toward an uncaused universe. Agree or disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm afraid you're just a pointless spammer, not even one with a high EQ; *E*ntertainment *Q*uotient.
> 
> Just once, I would hope that you christian fundies would not attempt to spackle your gawds into every conceivable crack with the silly and tired "Argument of the uncaused cause". It long ago became tedious and it's no more valid, useful or interesting now than centuries ago. Even if we were to abandon every inquisitive brain cell and slouch into the stupor of religious fundamentalism, to mindlessly accept the intellectual dead end of your religious dogma that requires belief in polytheistic gawds who by magical means were responsible for the inception of the universe tells us nothing about the nature of that cause.
> 
> It doesn't tell us whether or not it is planned, intelligent, personal, conscious, arbitrary, loving, cruel, or even whether or not it has a "creator" of its own.
> 
> Bottom line is that _your _frail attempt, and that of the other self-hating,  science-loathing fundie cranks who arbitrarily pick a point on some presumed chain of causality and call it "Gawds" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's crank fundamentalist position, and in the armory of fundie christian apologetics, it doesn’t even qualify as a cap gun.
Click to expand...


Maybe this is why so many scientists dont spend any time discussing this silly little hypothesis. The only reason I spend so much time on religion is I think its not good for people and its holding us back in so many ways. And I'm not smart enough to be a NASA scientist but I am smart enough to take their word for something over any organized religion on earth current past or future ones.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to link your arguments with those of fundamentalist christians. Are you then surprised at responses that are directed to those arguments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's begin with the first postulation of Atheist religion;
> 
> 1. The universe is a great, uncaused random accident.
> 
> agree or disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The honest answer is we dont know. You claim to know, which is why science is discovering the real answers not theists. Theists claim to already know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For some strange, unknown reason, it's not the fundie Christian ministries leading to new discoveries in science, medicine, astronomy, the exploration for life off of this planet, etc.
Click to expand...

Did you see that video that shows our moon size then earth and all the smaller planets and then bigger planets and then our sun then all the larger stars we know about some 1000 times bigger than our star and then you realize just how small we really are. There must be billions of other life out there and no evidence of an intelligent creator that visited our ancient superstitious and uneducated ancestors. No offence great grandpa x 45.


----------



## Wry Catcher

asaratis said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As an agnostic I'm pleased since we can infer I_conoclastism_ isn't a religion.  *It's a way of looking at the world without the need to appeal to authority.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that:  *to be well armed and not wait for the authorities?*
> 
> ...or  is it:  *being the authority?*
Click to expand...


It's not either, if I understand your meaning and I'm not sure I do.  The Authority to which I referred might be God (for those who believe they converse with Him or Her),  those who act as if they are His/Her spokesperson, and/or The Bible.


----------



## CynthiaZ

sealybobo said:


> The only reason I spend so much time on religion is I think its not good for people and its holding us back in so many ways.


 The reason why you spend your time disparaging religion and the adherents of religion and believe that religion is some sort of evil that is harming humankind and human progress is because you are simply a bigot. You are a bigot who is looking for a scapegoat to blame just because you can't for the life of you understand why the world isn't the way you want it to be. So you need someone to blame, and in your mind it all has to be the fault of religion. That is just irrational bigotry that makes you no better than racists who blame every problem that vexes civilization on what ever minority they hate the most.


----------



## sealybobo

Wry Catcher said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.
> 
> Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.
> 
> 
> re·li·gion
> riˈlijən/
> _noun_
> 
> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
> "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
> 
> synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; More
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As an agnostic I'm pleased since we can infer I_conoclastism_ isn't a religion.  It's a way of looking at the world without the need to appeal to authority.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Whatever that means.  Even us atheists admit the most rational position to take is agnostic atheism.

You aren't buying any story from any religion but remain open to the possibility something created the cosmos. 

On a scale 1 through 10 ten being sure god exists and 1 being sure he doesnt?


----------



## sealybobo

CynthiaZ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I spend so much time on religion is I think its not good for people and its holding us back in so many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why you spend your time disparaging religion and the adherents of religion and believe that religion is some sort of evil that is harming humankind and human progress is because you are simply a bigot. You are a bigot who is looking for a scapegoat to blame just because you can't for the life of you understand why the world isn't the way you want it to be. So you need someone to blame, and in your mind it all has to be the fault of religion. That is just irrational bigotry that makes you no better than racists who blame every problem that vexes civilization on what ever minority they hate the most.
Click to expand...

What I want plays no part of what I believe. That's you.


----------



## sealybobo

CynthiaZ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I spend so much time on religion is I think its not good for people and its holding us back in so many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why you spend your time disparaging religion and the adherents of religion and believe that religion is some sort of evil that is harming humankind and human progress is because you are simply a bigot. You are a bigot who is looking for a scapegoat to blame just because you can't for the life of you understand why the world isn't the way you want it to be. So you need someone to blame, and in your mind it all has to be the fault of religion. That is just irrational bigotry that makes you no better than racists who blame every problem that vexes civilization on what ever minority they hate the most.
Click to expand...

Scientists 2500 years ago discovered the universe was bigger than what we believed and religion squashed that knowledge and continued to obstruct human progress for the next 2500 years. Its probably more like 10,000 years. How did the Pharaoh keep his slaves in check? Religion. How did kings collect taxes? With divine authority. How did black slaves keep their slaves down? Didn't teach them to read and write but taught them bible verses about obeying master.

I hate your stupidity. Yes I blame religion for every war and why we aren't already half way to alpha santori.


----------



## CynthiaZ

sealybobo said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I spend so much time on religion is I think its not good for people and its holding us back in so many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why you spend your time disparaging religion and the adherents of religion and believe that religion is some sort of evil that is harming humankind and human progress is because you are simply a bigot. You are a bigot who is looking for a scapegoat to blame just because you can't for the life of you understand why the world isn't the way you want it to be. So you need someone to blame, and in your mind it all has to be the fault of religion. That is just irrational bigotry that makes you no better than racists who blame every problem that vexes civilization on what ever minority they hate the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I want plays no part of what I believe. That's you.
Click to expand...

You are not being honest. Desire and craving colors everyone's beliefs. In fact desire motivates everything thing that your chimpanzee brain thinks upon or acts upon. It is the primary motivation of all sentient animals on this planet. So don't tell me that your ego and the desires of your ego are not influencing how you think or believe because that is literally impossible. What's next are you going to argue that you do things out of your own free will?


----------



## CynthiaZ

sealybobo said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I spend so much time on religion is I think its not good for people and its holding us back in so many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why you spend your time disparaging religion and the adherents of religion and believe that religion is some sort of evil that is harming humankind and human progress is because you are simply a bigot. You are a bigot who is looking for a scapegoat to blame just because you can't for the life of you understand why the world isn't the way you want it to be. So you need someone to blame, and in your mind it all has to be the fault of religion. That is just irrational bigotry that makes you no better than racists who blame every problem that vexes civilization on what ever minority they hate the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientists 2500 years ago discovered the universe was bigger than what we believed and religion squashed that knowledge and continued to obstruct human progress for the next 2500 years. Its probably more like 10,000 years. How did the Pharaoh keep his slaves in check? Religion. How did kings collect taxes? With divine authority. How did black slaves keep their slaves down? Didn't teach them to read and write but taught them bible verses about obeying master.
> 
> I hate your stupidity. Yes I blame religion for every war and why we aren't already half way to alpha santori.
Click to expand...


Now the cat is out of the bag. You indeed scapegoat religion as being the cause of all the problems that plague humankind. Why did you lie at first?


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I spend so much time on religion is I think its not good for people and its holding us back in so many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why you spend your time disparaging religion and the adherents of religion and believe that religion is some sort of evil that is harming humankind and human progress is because you are simply a bigot. You are a bigot who is looking for a scapegoat to blame just because you can't for the life of you understand why the world isn't the way you want it to be. So you need someone to blame, and in your mind it all has to be the fault of religion. That is just irrational bigotry that makes you no better than racists who blame every problem that vexes civilization on what ever minority they hate the most.
Click to expand...

Aww, you're angry. 

It's just unfortunate for you angry fundamentalists that religion actually is the evil that is fomenting wars across the planet today, as it has historically. 

You christian Taliban are really no different than the islamist Taliban.


----------



## sealybobo

CynthiaZ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I spend so much time on religion is I think its not good for people and its holding us back in so many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why you spend your time disparaging religion and the adherents of religion and believe that religion is some sort of evil that is harming humankind and human progress is because you are simply a bigot. You are a bigot who is looking for a scapegoat to blame just because you can't for the life of you understand why the world isn't the way you want it to be. So you need someone to blame, and in your mind it all has to be the fault of religion. That is just irrational bigotry that makes you no better than racists who blame every problem that vexes civilization on what ever minority they hate the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I want plays no part of what I believe. That's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not being honest. Desire and craving colors everyone's beliefs. In fact desire motivates everything thing that your chimpanzee brain thinks upon or acts upon. It is the primary motivation of all sentient animals on this planet. So don't tell me that your ego and the desires of your ego are not influencing how you think or believe because that is literally impossible. What's next are you going to argue that you do things out of your own free will?
Click to expand...

I suppose there are only a few responses one can give to a god story. Yes I believe means either you are gullible or want to believe or you've been programmed from a very young age or you dont want to go to hell.

There is no other reason someone can believe in virgin births or Resurrections.

Now do I want there to be a heaven because I think I'll go or dont want to believe because I think I'd go to hell? I'm sure you believe I'm afraid of hell. You are wrong. I know if there's a heaven a person like me would go.

I love it when theists like you get angry or combative and start accusing us of being bitter and hating. I thought you approved of free speech and free will?


----------



## sealybobo

You can only believe the god story because you want to believe. Otherwise belief is impossible. You would need evidence and religions provide none.


----------



## Wry Catcher

CynthiaZ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I spend so much time on religion is I think its not good for people and its holding us back in so many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why you spend your time disparaging religion and the adherents of religion and believe that religion is some sort of evil that is harming humankind and human progress is because you are simply a bigot. You are a bigot who is looking for a scapegoat to blame just because you can't for the life of you understand why the world isn't the way you want it to be. So you need someone to blame, and in your mind it all has to be the fault of religion. That is just irrational bigotry that makes you no better than racists who blame every problem that vexes civilization on what ever minority they hate the most.
Click to expand...


You're much too harsh, "A *religious war* or *holy war* (Latin: _bellum sacrum_) is a war primarily caused or justified by differences in religion. The account of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites in the Book of Joshua, the Muslimconquests of the 7th and 8th centuries, and the ChristianCrusades (11th to 13th centuries) and Wars of Religion (16th and 17th centuries) are the classic examples but a religious aspect has been part of warfare as early as the battles of the Mesopotamiancity-states. 

In the modern era, arguments are common over the extent to which religious, economic, or ethnic aspects of a conflict predominate: examples include the Yugoslav Wars and the civil war in Sudan. In several ongoing conflicts including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Syrian civil war, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, religious arguments are overtly present but variously described as fundamentalism or religious extremism depending upon the observer's sympathies. At the same time, members of many religions have been and are active members of the modern anti-war movement."

Religious war - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I spend so much time on religion is I think its not good for people and its holding us back in so many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why you spend your time disparaging religion and the adherents of religion and believe that religion is some sort of evil that is harming humankind and human progress is because you are simply a bigot. You are a bigot who is looking for a scapegoat to blame just because you can't for the life of you understand why the world isn't the way you want it to be. So you need someone to blame, and in your mind it all has to be the fault of religion. That is just irrational bigotry that makes you no better than racists who blame every problem that vexes civilization on what ever minority they hate the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww, you're angry.
> 
> It's just unfortunate for you angry fundamentalists that religion actually is the evil that is fomenting wars across the planet today, as it has historically.
> 
> You christian Taliban are really no different than the islamist Taliban.
Click to expand...

Omg I called her out for being the only one who's angry too.


----------



## CynthiaZ

sealybobo said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I spend so much time on religion is I think its not good for people and its holding us back in so many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why you spend your time disparaging religion and the adherents of religion and believe that religion is some sort of evil that is harming humankind and human progress is because you are simply a bigot. You are a bigot who is looking for a scapegoat to blame just because you can't for the life of you understand why the world isn't the way you want it to be. So you need someone to blame, and in your mind it all has to be the fault of religion. That is just irrational bigotry that makes you no better than racists who blame every problem that vexes civilization on what ever minority they hate the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I want plays no part of what I believe. That's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not being honest. Desire and craving colors everyone's beliefs. In fact desire motivates everything thing that your chimpanzee brain thinks upon or acts upon. It is the primary motivation of all sentient animals on this planet. So don't tell me that your ego and the desires of your ego are not influencing how you think or believe because that is literally impossible. What's next are you going to argue that you do things out of your own free will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose there are only a few responses one can give to a god story. Yes I believe means either you are gullible or want to believe or you've been programmed from a very young age or you dont want to go to hell.
> 
> There is no other reason someone can believe in virgin births or Resurrections.
> 
> Now do I want there to be a heaven because I think I'll go or dont want to believe because I think I'd go to hell? I'm sure you believe I'm afraid of hell. You are wrong. I know if there's a heaven a person like me would go.
> 
> I love it when theists like you get angry or combative and start accusing us of being bitter and hating. I thought you approved of free speech and free will?
Click to expand...


There is something in your little theory that makes it a bunch of bullshit. I for one do not believe in an afterlife.


----------



## Hollie

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I spend so much time on religion is I think its not good for people and its holding us back in so many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why you spend your time disparaging religion and the adherents of religion and believe that religion is some sort of evil that is harming humankind and human progress is because you are simply a bigot. You are a bigot who is looking for a scapegoat to blame just because you can't for the life of you understand why the world isn't the way you want it to be. So you need someone to blame, and in your mind it all has to be the fault of religion. That is just irrational bigotry that makes you no better than racists who blame every problem that vexes civilization on what ever minority they hate the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww, you're angry.
> 
> It's just unfortunate for you angry fundamentalists that religion actually is the evil that is fomenting wars across the planet today, as it has historically.
> 
> You christian Taliban are really no different than the islamist Taliban.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Omg I called her out for being the only one who's angry too.
Click to expand...

I just find it mind blowing how their lives are consumed with attaching religion to a rational position that rejects religious doctrines.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> religion actually is the evil that is fomenting wars across the planet today, as it has historically



That is a very simplistic and naive view as to the causes of war.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I spend so much time on religion is I think its not good for people and its holding us back in so many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why you spend your time disparaging religion and the adherents of religion and believe that religion is some sort of evil that is harming humankind and human progress is because you are simply a bigot. You are a bigot who is looking for a scapegoat to blame just because you can't for the life of you understand why the world isn't the way you want it to be. So you need someone to blame, and in your mind it all has to be the fault of religion. That is just irrational bigotry that makes you no better than racists who blame every problem that vexes civilization on what ever minority they hate the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww, you're angry.
> 
> It's just unfortunate for you angry fundamentalists that religion actually is the evil that is fomenting wars across the planet today, as it has historically.
> 
> You christian Taliban are really no different than the islamist Taliban.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Omg I called her out for being the only one who's angry too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find it mind blowing how their lives are consumed with attaching religion to a rational position that rejects religious doctrines.
Click to expand...


If you believe that your position is rational why do you refuse to provide any proof that it is?


----------



## sealybobo

CynthiaZ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I spend so much time on religion is I think its not good for people and its holding us back in so many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why you spend your time disparaging religion and the adherents of religion and believe that religion is some sort of evil that is harming humankind and human progress is because you are simply a bigot. You are a bigot who is looking for a scapegoat to blame just because you can't for the life of you understand why the world isn't the way you want it to be. So you need someone to blame, and in your mind it all has to be the fault of religion. That is just irrational bigotry that makes you no better than racists who blame every problem that vexes civilization on what ever minority they hate the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I want plays no part of what I believe. That's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not being honest. Desire and craving colors everyone's beliefs. In fact desire motivates everything thing that your chimpanzee brain thinks upon or acts upon. It is the primary motivation of all sentient animals on this planet. So don't tell me that your ego and the desires of your ego are not influencing how you think or believe because that is literally impossible. What's next are you going to argue that you do things out of your own free will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose there are only a few responses one can give to a god story. Yes I believe means either you are gullible or want to believe or you've been programmed from a very young age or you dont want to go to hell.
> 
> There is no other reason someone can believe in virgin births or Resurrections.
> 
> Now do I want there to be a heaven because I think I'll go or dont want to believe because I think I'd go to hell? I'm sure you believe I'm afraid of hell. You are wrong. I know if there's a heaven a person like me would go.
> 
> I love it when theists like you get angry or combative and start accusing us of being bitter and hating. I thought you approved of free speech and free will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is something in your little theory that makes it a bunch of bullshit. I for one do not believe in an afterlife.
Click to expand...

Oh forgive me I forgot about cherry pickers like you and my dad. He just can't believe there isnt a creator or something that made everything so perfect but he knows religions are made up. But then I ask why god hides and he goes right into the "he's testing us" argument. Silly guy. I dont have time to remember everyone's level of insanity. We'll say you're a 6.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I spend so much time on religion is I think its not good for people and its holding us back in so many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why you spend your time disparaging religion and the adherents of religion and believe that religion is some sort of evil that is harming humankind and human progress is because you are simply a bigot. You are a bigot who is looking for a scapegoat to blame just because you can't for the life of you understand why the world isn't the way you want it to be. So you need someone to blame, and in your mind it all has to be the fault of religion. That is just irrational bigotry that makes you no better than racists who blame every problem that vexes civilization on what ever minority they hate the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww, you're angry.
> 
> It's just unfortunate for you angry fundamentalists that religion actually is the evil that is fomenting wars across the planet today, as it has historically.
> 
> You christian Taliban are really no different than the islamist Taliban.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Omg I called her out for being the only one who's angry too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find it mind blowing how their lives are consumed with attaching religion to a rational position that rejects religious doctrines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe that your position is rational why do you refuse to provide any proof that it is?
Click to expand...

I have provided such proof.

Why don't you entertain us with something to rationally assess your gawds as true and extent to the exclusion of all the other true and extant gawds. 

Do your gawds do tricks?


----------



## sealybobo

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I spend so much time on religion is I think its not good for people and its holding us back in so many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why you spend your time disparaging religion and the adherents of religion and believe that religion is some sort of evil that is harming humankind and human progress is because you are simply a bigot. You are a bigot who is looking for a scapegoat to blame just because you can't for the life of you understand why the world isn't the way you want it to be. So you need someone to blame, and in your mind it all has to be the fault of religion. That is just irrational bigotry that makes you no better than racists who blame every problem that vexes civilization on what ever minority they hate the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww, you're angry.
> 
> It's just unfortunate for you angry fundamentalists that religion actually is the evil that is fomenting wars across the planet today, as it has historically.
> 
> You christian Taliban are really no different than the islamist Taliban.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Omg I called her out for being the only one who's angry too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find it mind blowing how their lives are consumed with attaching religion to a rational position that rejects religious doctrines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe that your position is rational why do you refuse to provide any proof that it is?
Click to expand...

How many times do we have to explain this to you. It is you making the claim not us. 

And your god isnt even a basic theory let alone a scientific one. God is only a hypothesis. 

Do we have to prove the devil isnt a real creature too?


----------



## CynthiaZ

sealybobo said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why you spend your time disparaging religion and the adherents of religion and believe that religion is some sort of evil that is harming humankind and human progress is because you are simply a bigot. You are a bigot who is looking for a scapegoat to blame just because you can't for the life of you understand why the world isn't the way you want it to be. So you need someone to blame, and in your mind it all has to be the fault of religion. That is just irrational bigotry that makes you no better than racists who blame every problem that vexes civilization on what ever minority they hate the most.
> 
> 
> 
> What I want plays no part of what I believe. That's you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not being honest. Desire and craving colors everyone's beliefs. In fact desire motivates everything thing that your chimpanzee brain thinks upon or acts upon. It is the primary motivation of all sentient animals on this planet. So don't tell me that your ego and the desires of your ego are not influencing how you think or believe because that is literally impossible. What's next are you going to argue that you do things out of your own free will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose there are only a few responses one can give to a god story. Yes I believe means either you are gullible or want to believe or you've been programmed from a very young age or you dont want to go to hell.
> 
> There is no other reason someone can believe in virgin births or Resurrections.
> 
> Now do I want there to be a heaven because I think I'll go or dont want to believe because I think I'd go to hell? I'm sure you believe I'm afraid of hell. You are wrong. I know if there's a heaven a person like me would go.
> 
> I love it when theists like you get angry or combative and start accusing us of being bitter and hating. I thought you approved of free speech and free will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is something in your little theory that makes it a bunch of bullshit. I for one do not believe in an afterlife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh forgive me I forgot about cherry pickers like you and my dad. He just can't believe there isnt a creator or something that made everything so perfect but he knows religions are made up. But then I ask why god hides and he goes right into the "he's testing us" argument. Silly guy. I dont have time to remember everyone's level of insanity. We'll say you're a 6.
Click to expand...


I am not a cherry picker. My religious is just open when it comes to believing in an afterlife but ultimately in my tradition the goal is not to have an afterlife. Sorry to inform you but you can't lump all beliefs systems together,  not all religions believe in an afterlife and that includes some sect within Judaism.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why you spend your time disparaging religion and the adherents of religion and believe that religion is some sort of evil that is harming humankind and human progress is because you are simply a bigot. You are a bigot who is looking for a scapegoat to blame just because you can't for the life of you understand why the world isn't the way you want it to be. So you need someone to blame, and in your mind it all has to be the fault of religion. That is just irrational bigotry that makes you no better than racists who blame every problem that vexes civilization on what ever minority they hate the most.
> 
> 
> 
> Aww, you're angry.
> 
> It's just unfortunate for you angry fundamentalists that religion actually is the evil that is fomenting wars across the planet today, as it has historically.
> 
> You christian Taliban are really no different than the islamist Taliban.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Omg I called her out for being the only one who's angry too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find it mind blowing how their lives are consumed with attaching religion to a rational position that rejects religious doctrines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe that your position is rational why do you refuse to provide any proof that it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have provided such proof.
> 
> Why don't you entertain us with something to rationally assess your gawds as true and extent to the exclusion of all the other true and extant gawds.
> 
> Do your gawds do tricks?
Click to expand...


I have asked more than a couple of times to provide some proof that your position is rational and you have yet to deliver.

And no my God does not do tricks.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> religion actually is the evil that is fomenting wars across the planet today, as it has historically
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a very simplistic and naive view as to the causes of war.
Click to expand...

I suppose the history of wars fought to prop up one set of gawds vs. another makes you uncomfortable. 

Odd, don't you think that the gawds always seem to eventually be on the side of the religionists with the larger caliber weapons and greater volume of fire.


----------



## sealybobo

Prove Adam and eve werent real people. Turns out they werent. Prove the Noah story is impossible. We show how it is scientifically impossible. Now theists admit most of these stories are allegories. 

But if some maybe all the stories are made up?


----------



## asaratis

Hollie said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I spend so much time on religion is I think its not good for people and its holding us back in so many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why you spend your time disparaging religion and the adherents of religion and believe that religion is some sort of evil that is harming humankind and human progress is because you are simply a bigot. You are a bigot who is looking for a scapegoat to blame just because you can't for the life of you understand why the world isn't the way you want it to be. So you need someone to blame, and in your mind it all has to be the fault of religion. That is just irrational bigotry that makes you no better than racists who blame every problem that vexes civilization on what ever minority they hate the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww, you're angry.
> 
> It's just unfortunate for you angry fundamentalists that religion actually is the evil that is fomenting wars across the planet today, as it has historically.
> 
> You christian Taliban are really no different than the islamist Taliban.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Omg I called her out for being the only one who's angry too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find it mind blowing how their lives are consumed with attaching religion to a rational position that rejects religious doctrines.
Click to expand...

You don't reject having religious doctrines.  You reject God.  You're religious in your objection...just can't accept that because religion generally relates to God and you don't want to have any connection.


----------



## sealybobo

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aww, you're angry.
> 
> It's just unfortunate for you angry fundamentalists that religion actually is the evil that is fomenting wars across the planet today, as it has historically.
> 
> You christian Taliban are really no different than the islamist Taliban.
> 
> 
> 
> Omg I called her out for being the only one who's angry too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find it mind blowing how their lives are consumed with attaching religion to a rational position that rejects religious doctrines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe that your position is rational why do you refuse to provide any proof that it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have provided such proof.
> 
> Why don't you entertain us with something to rationally assess your gawds as true and extent to the exclusion of all the other true and extant gawds.
> 
> Do your gawds do tricks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked more than a couple of times to provide some proof that your position is rational and you have yet to deliver.
> 
> And no my God does not do tricks.
Click to expand...

Its like we explain it to you and you just say "what?".


----------



## sealybobo

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I spend so much time on religion is I think its not good for people and its holding us back in so many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why you spend your time disparaging religion and the adherents of religion and believe that religion is some sort of evil that is harming humankind and human progress is because you are simply a bigot. You are a bigot who is looking for a scapegoat to blame just because you can't for the life of you understand why the world isn't the way you want it to be. So you need someone to blame, and in your mind it all has to be the fault of religion. That is just irrational bigotry that makes you no better than racists who blame every problem that vexes civilization on what ever minority they hate the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww, you're angry.
> 
> It's just unfortunate for you angry fundamentalists that religion actually is the evil that is fomenting wars across the planet today, as it has historically.
> 
> You christian Taliban are really no different than the islamist Taliban.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Omg I called her out for being the only one who's angry too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find it mind blowing how their lives are consumed with attaching religion to a rational position that rejects religious doctrines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't reject having religious doctrines.  You reject God.  You're religious in your objection...just can't accept that because religion generally relates to God and you don't want to have any connection.
Click to expand...

I have a perfect woman here that wants to marry you. She's a billionaire. Drop everything and come get her. Are you coming? Why not? Why are you rejecting her?


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aww, you're angry.
> 
> It's just unfortunate for you angry fundamentalists that religion actually is the evil that is fomenting wars across the planet today, as it has historically.
> 
> You christian Taliban are really no different than the islamist Taliban.
> 
> 
> 
> Omg I called her out for being the only one who's angry too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find it mind blowing how their lives are consumed with attaching religion to a rational position that rejects religious doctrines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe that your position is rational why do you refuse to provide any proof that it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have provided such proof.
> 
> Why don't you entertain us with something to rationally assess your gawds as true and extent to the exclusion of all the other true and extant gawds.
> 
> Do your gawds do tricks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked more than a couple of times to provide some proof that your position is rational and you have yet to deliver.
> 
> And no my God does not do tricks.
Click to expand...

I have delivered to you more than a couple of times the proof you asked for. 

So tell us about the rational basis you have for your gawds, spirit realms, supernaturalism. Does your vision of heaven include fat, naked babies playing harps?


----------



## CynthiaZ

sealybobo said:


> And your god isnt even a basic theory let alone a scientific one. God is only a hypothesis.


No, God is not a scientific hypothesis. God is a metaphysical concept and as such discussion about God is a discussion of metaphysics and not the physical sciences.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Omg I called her out for being the only one who's angry too.
> 
> 
> 
> I just find it mind blowing how their lives are consumed with attaching religion to a rational position that rejects religious doctrines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe that your position is rational why do you refuse to provide any proof that it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have provided such proof.
> 
> Why don't you entertain us with something to rationally assess your gawds as true and extent to the exclusion of all the other true and extant gawds.
> 
> Do your gawds do tricks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked more than a couple of times to provide some proof that your position is rational and you have yet to deliver.
> 
> And no my God does not do tricks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have delivered to you more than a couple of times the proof you asked for.
> 
> So tell us about the rational basis you have for your gawds, spirit realms, supernaturalism. Does your vision of heaven include fat, naked babies playing harps?
Click to expand...


If you did provide proof then surely you can reference where in this thread you provided them after I asked because I must have missed them or perhaps your proofs got lost in the mail.


----------



## sealybobo

CynthiaZ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your god isnt even a basic theory let alone a scientific one. God is only a hypothesis.
> 
> 
> 
> No, God is not a scientific hypothesis. God is a metaphysical concept and as such discussion about God is a discussion of metaphysics and not the physical sciences.
Click to expand...

I said a scientific theory not scientific hypothesis. God is simply a hypothesis unless you really believe he visited or talks to you then you believe its a fact. Do you?


----------



## sealybobo

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just find it mind blowing how their lives are consumed with attaching religion to a rational position that rejects religious doctrines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe that your position is rational why do you refuse to provide any proof that it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have provided such proof.
> 
> Why don't you entertain us with something to rationally assess your gawds as true and extent to the exclusion of all the other true and extant gawds.
> 
> Do your gawds do tricks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked more than a couple of times to provide some proof that your position is rational and you have yet to deliver.
> 
> And no my God does not do tricks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have delivered to you more than a couple of times the proof you asked for.
> 
> So tell us about the rational basis you have for your gawds, spirit realms, supernaturalism. Does your vision of heaven include fat, naked babies playing harps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you did provide proof then surely you can reference where in this thread you provided them after I asked because I must have missed them or perhaps your proofs got lost in the mail.
Click to expand...

"What?"


----------



## CynthiaZ

sealybobo said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your god isnt even a basic theory let alone a scientific one. God is only a hypothesis.
> 
> 
> 
> No, God is not a scientific hypothesis. God is a metaphysical concept and as such discussion about God is a discussion of metaphysics and not the physical sciences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said a scientific theory not scientific hypothesis. God is simply a hypothesis unless you really believe he visited or talks to you then you believe its a fact. Do you?
Click to expand...


How does a metaphysical concept such as God or even "Meaning" fall under the purview of the physical sciences? They don't.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aww, you're angry.
> 
> It's just unfortunate for you angry fundamentalists that religion actually is the evil that is fomenting wars across the planet today, as it has historically.
> 
> You christian Taliban are really no different than the islamist Taliban.
> 
> 
> 
> Omg I called her out for being the only one who's angry too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find it mind blowing how their lives are consumed with attaching religion to a rational position that rejects religious doctrines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe that your position is rational why do you refuse to provide any proof that it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have provided such proof.
> 
> Why don't you entertain us with something to rationally assess your gawds as true and extent to the exclusion of all the other true and extant gawds.
> 
> Do your gawds do tricks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked more than a couple of times to provide some proof that your position is rational and you have yet to deliver.
> 
> And no my God does not do tricks.
Click to expand...

I have delivered to you more than a couple of times the proof you asked for.

So tell us about the rational basis you have for your gawds, spirit realms, supernaturalism. Does your vision of heaven include fat, naked babies playing harps?


CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just find it mind blowing how their lives are consumed with attaching religion to a rational position that rejects religious doctrines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe that your position is rational why do you refuse to provide any proof that it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have provided such proof.
> 
> Why don't you entertain us with something to rationally assess your gawds as true and extent to the exclusion of all the other true and extant gawds.
> 
> Do your gawds do tricks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked more than a couple of times to provide some proof that your position is rational and you have yet to deliver.
> 
> And no my God does not do tricks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have delivered to you more than a couple of times the proof you asked for.
> 
> So tell us about the rational basis you have for your gawds, spirit realms, supernaturalism. Does your vision of heaven include fat, naked babies playing harps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you did provide proof then surely you can reference where in this thread you provided them after I asked because I must have missed them or perhaps your proofs got lost in the mail.
Click to expand...

You missed them. Try paying attention.

Now, let’s examine what religion proposes. When you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Omg I called her out for being the only one who's angry too.
> 
> 
> 
> I just find it mind blowing how their lives are consumed with attaching religion to a rational position that rejects religious doctrines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe that your position is rational why do you refuse to provide any proof that it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have provided such proof.
> 
> Why don't you entertain us with something to rationally assess your gawds as true and extent to the exclusion of all the other true and extant gawds.
> 
> Do your gawds do tricks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked more than a couple of times to provide some proof that your position is rational and you have yet to deliver.
> 
> And no my God does not do tricks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have delivered to you more than a couple of times the proof you asked for.
> 
> So tell us about the rational basis you have for your gawds, spirit realms, supernaturalism. Does your vision of heaven include fat, naked babies playing harps?
Click to expand...

Dont explain it again. Or just go ahead and show her all around the universe but remember you have to be in all places at all times because while you are showing her one part of the galaxy god could be hiding on another. And god is outside of time and space so good luck debunking that hooey if someone is dumb enough to believe it.

I dont think as many people as we think really take the bible seriously. They know its a fairytale but they grew up to it or it saved them when they were low. Whatever. Knowledge is power.


----------



## sealybobo

CynthiaZ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your god isnt even a basic theory let alone a scientific one. God is only a hypothesis.
> 
> 
> 
> No, God is not a scientific hypothesis. God is a metaphysical concept and as such discussion about God is a discussion of metaphysics and not the physical sciences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said a scientific theory not scientific hypothesis. God is simply a hypothesis unless you really believe he visited or talks to you then you believe its a fact. Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does a metaphysical concept such as God or even "Meaning" fall under the purview of the physical sciences? They don't.
Click to expand...

Then it doesnt exist in any meaningful way. If you want to teach right and wrong do it without the lies. Then I'll get it.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your god isnt even a basic theory let alone a scientific one. God is only a hypothesis.
> 
> 
> 
> No, God is not a scientific hypothesis. God is a metaphysical concept and as such discussion about God is a discussion of metaphysics and not the physical sciences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said a scientific theory not scientific hypothesis. God is simply a hypothesis unless you really believe he visited or talks to you then you believe its a fact. Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does a metaphysical concept such as God or even "Meaning" fall under the purview of the physical sciences? They don't.
Click to expand...

So, your argument is as important and profound as "what's for lunch"


----------



## Hollie

asaratis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I spend so much time on religion is I think its not good for people and its holding us back in so many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why you spend your time disparaging religion and the adherents of religion and believe that religion is some sort of evil that is harming humankind and human progress is because you are simply a bigot. You are a bigot who is looking for a scapegoat to blame just because you can't for the life of you understand why the world isn't the way you want it to be. So you need someone to blame, and in your mind it all has to be the fault of religion. That is just irrational bigotry that makes you no better than racists who blame every problem that vexes civilization on what ever minority they hate the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww, you're angry.
> 
> It's just unfortunate for you angry fundamentalists that religion actually is the evil that is fomenting wars across the planet today, as it has historically.
> 
> You christian Taliban are really no different than the islamist Taliban.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Omg I called her out for being the only one who's angry too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find it mind blowing how their lives are consumed with attaching religion to a rational position that rejects religious doctrines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't reject having religious doctrines.  You reject God.  You're religious in your objection...just can't accept that because religion generally relates to God and you don't want to have any connection.
Click to expand...

And your very existence is affected by that.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists


I never said I believe in any of that. Not all theists believe that God is personal and nor do we all we God as some sort of supernatural extraterrestrial entity.


----------



## sealybobo

CynthiaZ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your god isnt even a basic theory let alone a scientific one. God is only a hypothesis.
> 
> 
> 
> No, God is not a scientific hypothesis. God is a metaphysical concept and as such discussion about God is a discussion of metaphysics and not the physical sciences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said a scientific theory not scientific hypothesis. God is simply a hypothesis unless you really believe he visited or talks to you then you believe its a fact. Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does a metaphysical concept such as God or even "Meaning" fall under the purview of the physical sciences? They don't.
Click to expand...

What is the meaning of your life? I suspect you may want to leave your mark and hopefully leave the world a better place. I
What is the meaning of a dogs life? What is the meaning of gods existence? Its an unanswerable question unless you have the answer?


----------



## sealybobo

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I believe in any of that. Not all theists believe that God is personal and nor do we all we God as some sort of supernatural extraterrestrial entity.
Click to expand...

Then dont call it god.


----------



## CynthiaZ

sealybobo said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your god isnt even a basic theory let alone a scientific one. God is only a hypothesis.
> 
> 
> 
> No, God is not a scientific hypothesis. God is a metaphysical concept and as such discussion about God is a discussion of metaphysics and not the physical sciences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said a scientific theory not scientific hypothesis. God is simply a hypothesis unless you really believe he visited or talks to you then you believe its a fact. Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does a metaphysical concept such as God or even "Meaning" fall under the purview of the physical sciences? They don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then it doesnt exist in any meaningful way. If you want to teach right and wrong do it without the lies. Then I'll get it.
Click to expand...


I am beginning to think the concept of non-overlapping magesteria in beyond your ken.



Hollie said:


> I have delivered to you more than a couple of times the proof you asked for.



Then simply point out where you provided those proofs.


----------



## sealybobo

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I believe in any of that. Not all theists believe that God is personal and nor do we all we God as some sort of supernatural extraterrestrial entity.
Click to expand...

This is where we make the mistake and ask what you believe. Just tell us the differences and what makes you believe what you do.


----------



## sealybobo

CynthiaZ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your god isnt even a basic theory let alone a scientific one. God is only a hypothesis.
> 
> 
> 
> No, God is not a scientific hypothesis. God is a metaphysical concept and as such discussion about God is a discussion of metaphysics and not the physical sciences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said a scientific theory not scientific hypothesis. God is simply a hypothesis unless you really believe he visited or talks to you then you believe its a fact. Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does a metaphysical concept such as God or even "Meaning" fall under the purview of the physical sciences? They don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then it doesnt exist in any meaningful way. If you want to teach right and wrong do it without the lies. Then I'll get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am beginning to think the concept of non-overlapping magesteria in beyond your ken.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have delivered to you more than a couple of times the proof you asked for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then simply point of where you provided those proofs.
Click to expand...

Ashmuunchinnoweroo. "What?"


----------



## CynthiaZ

sealybobo said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I believe in any of that. Not all theists believe that God is personal and nor do we all we God as some sort of supernatural extraterrestrial entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then dont call it god.
Click to expand...

Why not? Different religious traditions have different conceptions of God. I told you before that we do not all believe the same no matter how hard you try to lump us all together.


----------



## sealybobo

CynthiaZ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I believe in any of that. Not all theists believe that God is personal and nor do we all we God as some sort of supernatural extraterrestrial entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then dont call it god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not? Different religious traditions have different conceptions of God. I told you before that we do not all believe the same no matter how hard you try to lump us all together.
Click to expand...

Militant athiests in the future won't be so bad when religions stop saying non believers burn for eternity.


----------



## Treeshepherd

Hollie said:


> I'm afraid you're just a pointless spammer, not even one with a high EQ; *E*ntertainment *Q*uotient.
> 
> Just once, I would hope that you christian fundies would not attempt to spackle your gawds into every conceivable crack with the silly and tired "Argument of the uncaused cause". It long ago became tedious and it's no more valid, useful or interesting now than centuries ago. Even if we were to abandon every inquisitive brain cell and slouch into the stupor of religious fundamentalism, to mindlessly accept the intellectual dead end of your religious dogma that requires belief in polytheistic gawds who by magical means were responsible for the inception of the universe tells us nothing about the nature of that cause.
> 
> It doesn't tell us whether or not it is planned, intelligent, personal, conscious, arbitrary, loving, cruel, or even whether or not it has a "creator" of its own.
> 
> Bottom line is that _your _frail attempt, and that of the other self-hating, science-loathing fundie cranks who arbitrarily pick a point on some presumed chain of causality and call it "Gawds" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's crank fundamentalist position, and in the armory of fundie christian apologetics, it doesn’t even qualify as a cap gun.



I'm one of the few persons here attempting to define the common postulations of atheists. That makes me one of the few non-spammers.  

A fundamentalist tends to support socially conservative laws and a literal interpretation of the scripture. That isn't me. Your insistence on putting me in that box causes me to think you haven't much discernment. Maybe to you anyone who has metaphysical theories is a fundamentalist. That would be an awfully broad stereotype. 

You call me a self-hating, and a crank. My response to that is that you don't exactly come across as the embodiment of mirth, Hollie. Anyway, you won't answer a simple question, so I'll move on to someone else. 

Maybe sealybobo can help me.


----------



## Treeshepherd

sealy, I'm making a list of common atheist postulations. The first atheist postulation is this; 1. the universe is uncaused.

You said, 





sealybobo said:


> The honest answer is we dont know. You claim to know, which is why science is discovering the real answers not theists. Theists claim to already know.



I don't know anything for sure, just for the record, but forget about me. We're talking about atheism. Do you say you don't know because you are agnostic rather than atheist? If so, would you agree that an atheist would say we live in an accidental universe?


----------



## CynthiaZ

sealybobo said:


> Militant athiests in the future won't be so bad when religions stop saying non believers burn for eternity.



How optimistic of you. Very naive but we can't fault you for your optimism. I noticed something about some atheists. You have the tendency to ignore some basic facts about the nature of this world and in particular you ignore the basic facts about human nature. We are always going to have conflict. We will have conflict even if religion were to disappear tomorrow. It is in our nature to conflict with not only other human beings but with the natural world. To deny this very basic truth is to deny reality. We live in a hostile and violent world and we ourselves are hostile and violent by nature. Those are the facts of life.


----------



## Treeshepherd

CynthiaZ said:


> How optimistic of you. Very naive but we can't fault you for your optimism. I noticed something about some atheists. You have the tendency to ignore some basic facts about the nature of this world and in particular you ignore the basic facts about human nature. We are always going to have conflict. We will have conflict even if religion were to disappear tomorrow. It is in our nature to conflict with not only other human beings but with the natural world. To deny this very basic truth is to deny reality. We live in a hostile and violent world and we ourselves are hostile and violent by nature. Those are the facts of life.



Well said. 

As I've always said, war is fought over territory, resources and political power. There's also the biological fact that genetic kindred compete violently against other genetic kindred from bacteria all the way up to humans. As you put it, it's in our human nature. Religion is merely a tool that has been often exploited, like nationalism/jingoism or the modern appeal to fight the 'humanitarian war'. 

Clearly from the opinions of atheists/agnostics here, religion is viewed the *primary *cause of war and violence in the world.  That doesn't seem to be an opinion derived from a science like sociology.


----------



## sealybobo

Treeshepherd said:


> sealy, I'm making a list of common atheist postulations. The first atheist postulation is this; 1. the universe is uncaused.
> 
> You said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The honest answer is we dont know. You claim to know, which is why science is discovering the real answers not theists. Theists claim to already know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anything for sure, just for the record, but forget about me. We're talking about atheism. Do you say you don't know because you are agnostic rather than atheist? If so, would you agree that an atheist would say we live in an accidental universe?
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be accidental?


----------



## sealybobo

CynthiaZ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militant athiests in the future won't be so bad when religions stop saying non believers burn for eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How optimistic of you. Very naive but we can't fault you for your optimism. I noticed something about some atheists. You have the tendency to ignore some basic facts about the nature of this world and in particular you ignore the basic facts about human nature. We are always going to have conflict. We will have conflict even if religion were to disappear tomorrow. It is in our nature to conflict with not only other human beings but with the natural world. To deny this very basic truth is to deny reality. We live in a hostile and violent world and we ourselves are hostile and violent by nature. Those are the facts of life.
Click to expand...

We already hear many christians say they dont believe non christians go to hell. 300 years ago they burned non christians. We've come a long way.

Humans will always find things to argue and worry about. That doesnt mean we shouldnt try to eliminate things we argue and worry about.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I believe in any of that. Not all theists believe that God is personal and nor do we all we God as some sort of supernatural extraterrestrial entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then dont call it god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not? Different religious traditions have different conceptions of God. I told you before that we do not all believe the same no matter how hard you try to lump us all together.
Click to expand...

 So, gawds are whatever you need them to be. You configure them to assuage your fears and superstitions because the comforting myths shield you from uncomfortable truths.


----------



## Hollie

Treeshepherd said:


> sealy, I'm making a list of common atheist postulations. The first atheist postulation is this; 1. the universe is uncaused.
> 
> You said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The honest answer is we dont know. You claim to know, which is why science is discovering the real answers not theists. Theists claim to already know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anything for sure, just for the record, but forget about me. We're talking about atheism. Do you say you don't know because you are agnostic rather than atheist? If so, would you agree that an atheist would say we live in an accidental universe?
Click to expand...

 You're simply making a list of slogans and cliches' that are a staple at your fundamentalist ministries.


----------



## sealybobo

Treeshepherd said:


> sealy, I'm making a list of common atheist postulations. The first atheist postulation is this; 1. the universe is uncaused.
> 
> You said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The honest answer is we dont know. You claim to know, which is why science is discovering the real answers not theists. Theists claim to already know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anything for sure, just for the record, but forget about me. We're talking about atheism. Do you say you don't know because you are agnostic rather than atheist? If so, would you agree that an atheist would say we live in an accidental universe?
Click to expand...

The big bang is a cause no? What caused the big bang? I might guess a spark and you think its a bearded man in a robe. Whose postulating?


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I believe in any of that. Not all theists believe that God is personal and nor do we all we God as some sort of supernatural extraterrestrial entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then dont call it god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not? Different religious traditions have different conceptions of God. I told you before that we do not all believe the same no matter how hard you try to lump us all together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, gawds are whatever you need them to be. You configure them to assuage your fears and superstitions because the comforting myths shield you from uncomfortable truths.
Click to expand...

Or like my sweet innocent naive dad just can't imagine a clock could be made without a clock maker.

He doesnt worry about what happens when he dies and he doesnt fear hell. He just can't believe there is no creator.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I believe in any of that. Not all theists believe that God is personal and nor do we all we God as some sort of supernatural extraterrestrial entity.
Click to expand...

So, you have created your own fetching designer religion with your own Invention of designer gawds. Lovely. The problem is that you seem to have built your religion from a bunch of second hand parts of fundamentalist Christianity.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your god isnt even a basic theory let alone a scientific one. God is only a hypothesis.
> 
> 
> 
> No, God is not a scientific hypothesis. God is a metaphysical concept and as such discussion about God is a discussion of metaphysics and not the physical sciences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said a scientific theory not scientific hypothesis. God is simply a hypothesis unless you really believe he visited or talks to you then you believe its a fact. Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does a metaphysical concept such as God or even "Meaning" fall under the purview of the physical sciences? They don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then it doesnt exist in any meaningful way. If you want to teach right and wrong do it without the lies. Then I'll get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am beginning to think the concept of non-overlapping magesteria in beyond your ken.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have delivered to you more than a couple of times the proof you asked for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then simply point out where you provided those proofs.
Click to expand...

The gawds have guided you: _seek'eth and the'ist shall find'ith. Unless'eth the'ist are helpless'eth._


----------



## Hollie

Treeshepherd said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid you're just a pointless spammer, not even one with a high EQ; *E*ntertainment *Q*uotient.
> 
> Just once, I would hope that you christian fundies would not attempt to spackle your gawds into every conceivable crack with the silly and tired "Argument of the uncaused cause". It long ago became tedious and it's no more valid, useful or interesting now than centuries ago. Even if we were to abandon every inquisitive brain cell and slouch into the stupor of religious fundamentalism, to mindlessly accept the intellectual dead end of your religious dogma that requires belief in polytheistic gawds who by magical means were responsible for the inception of the universe tells us nothing about the nature of that cause.
> 
> It doesn't tell us whether or not it is planned, intelligent, personal, conscious, arbitrary, loving, cruel, or even whether or not it has a "creator" of its own.
> 
> Bottom line is that _your _frail attempt, and that of the other self-hating, science-loathing fundie cranks who arbitrarily pick a point on some presumed chain of causality and call it "Gawds" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's crank fundamentalist position, and in the armory of fundie christian apologetics, it doesn’t even qualify as a cap gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm one of the few persons here attempting to define the common postulations of atheists. That makes me one of the few non-spammers.
> 
> A fundamentalist tends to support socially conservative laws and a literal interpretation of the scripture. That isn't me. Your insistence on putting me in that box causes me to think you haven't much discernment. Maybe to you anyone who has metaphysical theories is a fundamentalist. That would be an awfully broad stereotype.
> 
> You call me a self-hating, and a crank. My response to that is that you don't exactly come across as the embodiment of mirth, Hollie. Anyway, you won't answer a simple question, so I'll move on to someone else.
> 
> Maybe sealybobo can help me.
Click to expand...

The problem you're having is that your heavy-handed proselytizing is not winning converts. It hasn't gone unnoticed that you religious extremists are incensed that anyone dare challenge your dogma. This thread has become a vehicle for four primary zealots attempting to force their religion on others.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militant athiests in the future won't be so bad when religions stop saying non believers burn for eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How optimistic of you. Very naive but we can't fault you for your optimism. I noticed something about some atheists. You have the tendency to ignore some basic facts about the nature of this world and in particular you ignore the basic facts about human nature. We are always going to have conflict. We will have conflict even if religion were to disappear tomorrow. It is in our nature to conflict with not only other human beings but with the natural world. To deny this very basic truth is to deny reality. We live in a hostile and violent world and we ourselves are hostile and violent by nature. Those are the facts of life.
Click to expand...

I noticed something about religious zealots: they tend to be self-loathing and incapable of envisioning a world without trembling in fear before angry gawds. Your comments are, naturally, reflective of those basic tenets of christianity: mankind is elementally base and evil because of original sin. 

It's truly a sickness to accept such a worldview.

I would never raise a child by Instilling in him or her the presumption that they are evil or base or inherently sinful. That's psychologically and emotionally abusive. To promote such abuse speaks volumes about the fear, self-hate and hostility of the abuser.

Such abuse is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I believe in any of that. Not all theists believe that God is personal and nor do we all we God as some sort of supernatural extraterrestrial entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then dont call it god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not? Different religious traditions have different conceptions of God. I told you before that we do not all believe the same no matter how hard you try to lump us all together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, gawds are whatever you need them to be. You configure them to assuage your fears and superstitions because the comforting myths shield you from uncomfortable truths.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Religion and 'god' are creations of man, devoid of divinity and authority, reflecting man's ignorance and fear.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid you're just a pointless spammer, not even one with a high EQ; *E*ntertainment *Q*uotient.
> 
> Just once, I would hope that you christian fundies would not attempt to spackle your gawds into every conceivable crack with the silly and tired "Argument of the uncaused cause". It long ago became tedious and it's no more valid, useful or interesting now than centuries ago. Even if we were to abandon every inquisitive brain cell and slouch into the stupor of religious fundamentalism, to mindlessly accept the intellectual dead end of your religious dogma that requires belief in polytheistic gawds who by magical means were responsible for the inception of the universe tells us nothing about the nature of that cause.
> 
> It doesn't tell us whether or not it is planned, intelligent, personal, conscious, arbitrary, loving, cruel, or even whether or not it has a "creator" of its own.
> 
> Bottom line is that _your _frail attempt, and that of the other self-hating, science-loathing fundie cranks who arbitrarily pick a point on some presumed chain of causality and call it "Gawds" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's crank fundamentalist position, and in the armory of fundie christian apologetics, it doesn’t even qualify as a cap gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm one of the few persons here attempting to define the common postulations of atheists. That makes me one of the few non-spammers.
> 
> A fundamentalist tends to support socially conservative laws and a literal interpretation of the scripture. That isn't me. Your insistence on putting me in that box causes me to think you haven't much discernment. Maybe to you anyone who has metaphysical theories is a fundamentalist. That would be an awfully broad stereotype.
> 
> You call me a self-hating, and a crank. My response to that is that you don't exactly come across as the embodiment of mirth, Hollie. Anyway, you won't answer a simple question, so I'll move on to someone else.
> 
> Maybe sealybobo can help me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem you're having is that your heavy-handed proselytizing is not winning converts. It hasn't gone unnoticed that you religious extremists are incensed that anyone dare challenge your dogma. This thread has become a vehicle for four primary zealots attempting to force their religion on others.
Click to expand...

No good comes from telling someone believe or burn in hell or die.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

sealybobo said:


> No good comes from telling someone believe or burn in hell or die.





*White Christian America in Decline: Why Young People Are Sick of Conservative Religion*
*you can sense the way the country is lurching away from conservative Christian values and towards a more liberal, secular outlook. And conservative Christians aren’t taking these changes well at all.To look at the Christian right now is to see a people who know they are losing power and are desperately trying to reassert dominance before it’s lost altogether.*


----------



## Carla_Danger

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Omg I called her out for being the only one who's angry too.
> 
> 
> 
> I just find it mind blowing how their lives are consumed with attaching religion to a rational position that rejects religious doctrines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe that your position is rational why do you refuse to provide any proof that it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have provided such proof.
> 
> Why don't you entertain us with something to rationally assess your gawds as true and extent to the exclusion of all the other true and extant gawds.
> 
> Do your gawds do tricks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked more than a couple of times to provide some proof that your position is rational and you have yet to deliver.
> 
> And no my God does not do tricks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have delivered to you more than a couple of times the proof you asked for.
> 
> So tell us about the rational basis you have for your gawds, spirit realms, supernaturalism. Does your vision of heaven include fat, naked babies playing harps?
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe that your position is rational why do you refuse to provide any proof that it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have provided such proof.
> 
> Why don't you entertain us with something to rationally assess your gawds as true and extent to the exclusion of all the other true and extant gawds.
> 
> Do your gawds do tricks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked more than a couple of times to provide some proof that your position is rational and you have yet to deliver.
> 
> And no my God does not do tricks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have delivered to you more than a couple of times the proof you asked for.
> 
> So tell us about the rational basis you have for your gawds, spirit realms, supernaturalism. Does your vision of heaven include fat, naked babies playing harps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you did provide proof then surely you can reference where in this thread you provided them after I asked because I must have missed them or perhaps your proofs got lost in the mail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You missed them. Try paying attention.
> 
> Now, let’s examine what religion proposes. When you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion.
Click to expand...



Once I was on a mission to learn how to play the harp, in order to get me more prepared for heaven. Let me tell you, the harp hurts your fingers! It's not an easy instrument to learn.  It takes a while to toughen up your fingers!


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lutraphile said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position. Your succumbing to fears and superstitions is your own waking nightmare to deal with. Spending your life in trembling fear of angry deities is a prescription for a maladjusted personality as evidenced by the hyper-religious and their inability to resolve a reality based worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> Please everyone watch the following:
> Was Adolf Hitler a Christian - a report on How Hitler Viewed God - The 700 Club CBN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Citing the 700 Club in a discussion of religion...not exactly unbiased
> Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikiquote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the 700 Club not the truest reflection of christianity?
> 
> Who decides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is Hollie not the truest reflection  of the ignorance of atheists?........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dont be mad cause she calls bullshit on your ridiculous religions.
Click to expand...

/shrugs....don't be mad because you are left looking ignorant......do you agree with her that life originated from organic organisms?......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you have no logical argument that concludes the non existence of supernatural entities.....if you had one you could diagram it....all you can do is shout "you are a fundamentalist"........
> 
> 
> 
> It's not up to me to disprove any of the gawds you offer no evidence for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then you shouldn't pretend you can......
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you can't actually say that, because you don't even know where to start....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're typically befuddled. We start with you YEC'ists making claims to magical gawds ard the ones responsible for supporting your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol....you think that I am the one befuddled, yet you still think I'm a young earther.......anyone stupid enough to believe that is the one befuddled.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your attempts at argument are identical to the YEC'ist cranks.
Click to expand...

my arguments that the earth is not 6000 years old are identical to young earthers?.......on the other hand, Boss argued that life comes from life and you said no, it comes from organic organisms.......that's what I would call an identical argument......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lutraphile said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position. Your succumbing to fears and superstitions is your own waking nightmare to deal with. Spending your life in trembling fear of angry deities is a prescription for a maladjusted personality as evidenced by the hyper-religious and their inability to resolve a reality based worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> Please everyone watch the following:
> Was Adolf Hitler a Christian - a report on How Hitler Viewed God - The 700 Club CBN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Citing the 700 Club in a discussion of religion...not exactly unbiased
> Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikiquote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the 700 Club not the truest reflection of christianity?
> 
> Who decides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is Hollie not the truest reflection  of the ignorance of atheists?........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're so befuddled you're left to your usual attempts at juvenile name-calling.
Click to expand...

wait....do you mean that since m arguments are identical to another's it make me just like them?....I must be a Hollieander.......


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe that your position is rational why do you refuse to provide any proof that it is?
> 
> 
> 
> I have provided such proof.
> 
> Why don't you entertain us with something to rationally assess your gawds as true and extent to the exclusion of all the other true and extant gawds.
> 
> Do your gawds do tricks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked more than a couple of times to provide some proof that your position is rational and you have yet to deliver.
> 
> And no my God does not do tricks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have delivered to you more than a couple of times the proof you asked for.
> 
> So tell us about the rational basis you have for your gawds, spirit realms, supernaturalism. Does your vision of heaven include fat, naked babies playing harps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you did provide proof then surely you can reference where in this thread you provided them after I asked because I must have missed them or perhaps your proofs got lost in the mail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "What?"
Click to expand...

let me translate for you....why do you keep pretending you have some proof when everyone knows you don't.......


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> sealy, I'm making a list of common atheist postulations. The first atheist postulation is this; 1. the universe is uncaused.
> 
> You said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The honest answer is we dont know. You claim to know, which is why science is discovering the real answers not theists. Theists claim to already know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anything for sure, just for the record, but forget about me. We're talking about atheism. Do you say you don't know because you are agnostic rather than atheist? If so, would you agree that an atheist would say we live in an accidental universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does it have to be accidental?
Click to expand...

because caused and accidental are the only two options and you deny caused.......


sealybobo said:


> What caused the big bang? I might guess a spark and you think its a bearded man in a robe.


see?....an accident or a cause.....


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not up to me to disprove any of the gawds you offer no evidence for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then you shouldn't pretend you can......
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually can say that conclusions regarding the non-existence of alleged supernatural entities is a rational and reasonable position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you can't actually say that, because you don't even know where to start....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're typically befuddled. We start with you YEC'ists making claims to magical gawds ard the ones responsible for supporting your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol....you think that I am the one befuddled, yet you still think I'm a young earther.......anyone stupid enough to believe that is the one befuddled.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your attempts at argument are identical to the YEC'ist cranks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> my arguments that the earth is not 6000 years old are identical to young earthers?.......on the other hand, Boss argued that life comes from life and you said no, it comes from organic organisms.......that's what I would call an identical argument......
Click to expand...

"The gawds did it" answers all questions.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> sealy, I'm making a list of common atheist postulations. The first atheist postulation is this; 1. the universe is uncaused.
> 
> You said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The honest answer is we dont know. You claim to know, which is why science is discovering the real answers not theists. Theists claim to already know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anything for sure, just for the record, but forget about me. We're talking about atheism. Do you say you don't know because you are agnostic rather than atheist? If so, would you agree that an atheist would say we live in an accidental universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does it have to be accidental?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because caused and accidental are the only two options and you deny caused.......
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What caused the big bang? I might guess a spark and you think its a bearded man in a robe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> see?....an accident or a cause.....
Click to expand...

What caused god? Same thing caused the big bang.


----------



## Treeshepherd

sealybobo said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> sealy, I'm making a list of common atheist postulations. The first atheist postulation is this; 1. the universe is uncaused.
> 
> You said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The honest answer is we dont know. You claim to know, which is why science is discovering the real answers not theists. Theists claim to already know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anything for sure, just for the record, but forget about me. We're talking about atheism. Do you say you don't know because you are agnostic rather than atheist? If so, would you agree that an atheist would say we live in an accidental universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The big bang is a cause no? What caused the big bang? I might guess a spark and you think its a bearded man in a robe. Whose postulating?
Click to expand...




sealybobo said:


> No good comes from telling someone believe or burn in hell or die.



I don't even believe in Hell, and I've never mentioned the subject on USMB, and now suddenly I'm accused of being a guy who tells people that they're going to burn in a lake of fire upon the judgement of a bearded man. You're replacing everything I've ever said with a template of a fictional character that you've created in your minds. 

You obviously can't be reasoned with. You bring too much baggage to the thread. At the same time, you haven't really objected to my list of atheist tenets in any logical way, like A is not true because I rather believe in B. I'll continue to work on my own.


----------



## Treeshepherd

improved Tenets of Atheism

1. The universe is a great, uncaused random accident. No metaphysical will or instruction preceeded the universe which could have caused it. No 'purpose' exists outside of it. The Big Bang theory assumes a cause and was first proposed by a priest, which is unpalatable. Consequently atheism is moving past that theory to the Universal wave function theory among others. These theories postulate an uncaused universe. 

2. Rejection of the Christian concept of free will, and free will as a suitable explanation for the existence of evil.
A developing concept among atheists is that human behavior is ultimately controlled by genes, by brain neurochemistry, and by interactions with the environment. In its most extreme form, determinism completely denies the existence of human free will. There is quite a bit of difference of opinion here among atheists. 

3. Salvation through technology, leading toward transhumanism. In the absence of Providence, man must assume the role of Creator and tweak his own biology rather than leave the future to random possibilities. 

4. The belief that the primary cause of war is theistic religion. Conflict theory that proposes genetic, economic or political root causes of war are completely ignored among the most ardent atheists. 

5. The belief or propensity to postulate that the history of science is a simple story of rationality prevailing over theism. Like oil and water, they do not mix. For example,_ the Church was the root cause of the Dark Ages and not the collapse of the Roman Empire_. 

6. The atheist believes that love is merely an adapted chemical reaction in the brain. Any further meaning is something that an atheist may choose to humor himself with.

7. For utilitarian reasons of quality of life, the atheist invents moral rules by which a community should be governed, subjectively justifying that set of morals as well as humanly possible. Sometimes, the atheist postulates that morality is genetically inherited.

The list is not exhaustive and needs further work. But, in a nutshell, that's my articulation of atheist religion.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militant athiests in the future won't be so bad when religions stop saying non believers burn for eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How optimistic of you. Very naive but we can't fault you for your optimism. I noticed something about some atheists. You have the tendency to ignore some basic facts about the nature of this world and in particular you ignore the basic facts about human nature. We are always going to have conflict. We will have conflict even if religion were to disappear tomorrow. It is in our nature to conflict with not only other human beings but with the natural world. To deny this very basic truth is to deny reality. We live in a hostile and violent world and we ourselves are hostile and violent by nature. Those are the facts of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed something about religious zealots: they tend to be self-loathing and incapable of envisioning a world without trembling in fear before angry gawds. Your comments are, naturally, reflective of those basic tenets of christianity: mankind is elementally base and evil because of original sin.
> 
> It's truly a sickness to accept such a worldview.
> 
> I would never raise a child by Instilling in him or her the presumption that they are evil or base or inherently sinful. That's psychologically and emotionally abusive. To promote such abuse speaks volumes about the fear, self-hate and hostility of the abuser.
> 
> Such abuse is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.
Click to expand...


Wow. And you claim religious people are trying to deny reality. I am just stating the facts.
What kind of world do you think we live in? A world of unicorns and rainbows where good always triumphs over evil and everyone gets a happily ever after? I am sorry but we do not live in that world. We live in this world and in this world just about every living creature nourishes itself by metabolizing the death of other living creatures. In order to live in our world you have to kill and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Simple biology tells us that we are all basically animals and that we are driven by the same instincts and desires has any other animal. And like our closet evolutionary cousin the chimpanzee we are inherently tribal and violent primates who enforced hierarchical control  by savage violence. This isn't something new, we have always been this ways and our biology isn't going to change anytime soon. 

And as for your little myths of scientism and moral progress. It's just not going to happen. There is never going to be a scientific utopia where technology solves all our problems. Our nature will just not allow it. Every time human beings attempt to build a utopia the first thing they do is demonize others who they think are impeding their fantasy world and therefore make things worse by creating more conflict and the cycle of violence just keeps rolling on and on and on all because their are people who someone got it in their head that they can fix this. It was are attempt to control and fix nature to suit us that got us into this mess in the first place and impeding catastrophic consequence loom over us with are meddling with nature. Now we are facing a mass extinction event dues to our abusing the planet. If that reality frightens you then too bad. All your wishful thinking and sci-fi fantasy will do nothing to fix or prevent it. So you might as well accept it and come to terms with it. Nothing last forever in this world, all things are impermanent and that includes the human race.


----------



## Avatar4321

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militant athiests in the future won't be so bad when religions stop saying non believers burn for eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How optimistic of you. Very naive but we can't fault you for your optimism. I noticed something about some atheists. You have the tendency to ignore some basic facts about the nature of this world and in particular you ignore the basic facts about human nature. We are always going to have conflict. We will have conflict even if religion were to disappear tomorrow. It is in our nature to conflict with not only other human beings but with the natural world. To deny this very basic truth is to deny reality. We live in a hostile and violent world and we ourselves are hostile and violent by nature. Those are the facts of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed something about religious zealots: they tend to be self-loathing and incapable of envisioning a world without trembling in fear before angry gawds. Your comments are, naturally, reflective of those basic tenets of christianity: mankind is elementally base and evil because of original sin.
> 
> It's truly a sickness to accept such a worldview.
> 
> I would never raise a child by Instilling in him or her the presumption that they are evil or base or inherently sinful. That's psychologically and emotionally abusive. To promote such abuse speaks volumes about the fear, self-hate and hostility of the abuser.
> 
> Such abuse is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. And you claim religious people are trying to deny reality. I am just stating the facts.
> What kind of world do you think we live in? A world of unicorns and rainbows where good always triumphs over evil and everyone gets a happily ever after? I am sorry but we do not live in that world. We live in this world and in this world just about every living creature nourishes itself by metabolizing the death of other living creatures. In order to live in our world you have to kill and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Simple biology tells us that we are all basically animals and that we are driven by the same instincts and desires has any other animal. And like our closet evolutionary cousin the chimpanzee we are inherently tribal and violent primates who enforced hierarchical control  by savage violence. This isn't something new, we have always been this ways and our biology isn't going to change anytime soon.
> 
> And as for your little myths of scientism and moral progress. It's just not going to happen. There is never going to be a scientific utopia where technology solves all our problems. Our nature will just not allow it. Every time human beings attempt to build a utopia the first thing they do is demonize others who they think are impeding their fantasy world and therefore make things worse by creating more conflict and the cycle of violence just keeps rolling on and on and on all because their are people who someone got it in their head that they can fix this. It was are attempt to control and fix nature to suit us that got us into this mess in the first place and impeding catastrophic consequence loom over us with are meddling with nature. Now we are facing a mass extinction event dues to our abusing the planet. If that reality frightens you then too bad. All your wishful thinking and sci-fi fantasy will do nothing to fix or prevent it. So you might as well accept it and come to terms with it. Nothing last forever in this world, all things are impermanent and that includes the human race.
Click to expand...


To be fair, we are in a world of unicorns and rainbows. Rainbows come after the storm, and unicorns are just known as rhinos to modern society.

human nature is not something people want to deal with. They want to ignore it. It's nice to think everyone is a great person. But they aren't. We are all pretty crappy people if we just do our own thing. It's only when we are reborn spiritually that we become something greater than our fallen nature.

That's why the Atonement of Christ is so important. Through Christ's sacrifice we can literally become new people and have our nature changed. We can become good through Him. We can do good through Him.


----------



## Treeshepherd

CynthiaZ said:


> Now we are facing a mass extinction event dues to our abusing the planet. If that reality frightens you then too bad. All your wishful thinking and sci-fi fantasy will do nothing to fix or prevent it. So you might as well accept it and come to terms with it. Nothing last forever in this world, all things are impermanent and that includes the human race.



I think it's likely that the human race could be extincted by an overly logical transhuman race.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militant athiests in the future won't be so bad when religions stop saying non believers burn for eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How optimistic of you. Very naive but we can't fault you for your optimism. I noticed something about some atheists. You have the tendency to ignore some basic facts about the nature of this world and in particular you ignore the basic facts about human nature. We are always going to have conflict. We will have conflict even if religion were to disappear tomorrow. It is in our nature to conflict with not only other human beings but with the natural world. To deny this very basic truth is to deny reality. We live in a hostile and violent world and we ourselves are hostile and violent by nature. Those are the facts of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed something about religious zealots: they tend to be self-loathing and incapable of envisioning a world without trembling in fear before angry gawds. Your comments are, naturally, reflective of those basic tenets of christianity: mankind is elementally base and evil because of original sin.
> 
> It's truly a sickness to accept such a worldview.
> 
> I would never raise a child by Instilling in him or her the presumption that they are evil or base or inherently sinful. That's psychologically and emotionally abusive. To promote such abuse speaks volumes about the fear, self-hate and hostility of the abuser.
> 
> Such abuse is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. And you claim religious people are trying to deny reality. I am just stating the facts.
> What kind of world do you think we live in? A world of unicorns and rainbows where good always triumphs over evil and everyone gets a happily ever after? I am sorry but we do not live in that world. We live in this world and in this world just about every living creature nourishes itself by metabolizing the death of other living creatures. In order to live in our world you have to kill and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Simple biology tells us that we are all basically animals and that we are driven by the same instincts and desires has any other animal. And like our closet evolutionary cousin the chimpanzee we are inherently tribal and violent primates who enforced hierarchical control  by savage violence. This isn't something new, we have always been this ways and our biology isn't going to change anytime soon.
> 
> And as for your little myths of scientism and moral progress. It's just not going to happen. There is never going to be a scientific utopia where technology solves all our problems. Our nature will just not allow it. Every time human beings attempt to build a utopia the first thing they do is demonize others who they think are impeding their fantasy world and therefore make things worse by creating more conflict and the cycle of violence just keeps rolling on and on and on all because their are people who someone got it in their head that they can fix this. It was are attempt to control and fix nature to suit us that got us into this mess in the first place and impeding catastrophic consequence loom over us with are meddling with nature. Now we are facing a mass extinction event dues to our abusing the planet. If that reality frightens you then too bad. All your wishful thinking and sci-fi fantasy will do nothing to fix or prevent it. So you might as well accept it and come to terms with it. Nothing last forever in this world, all things are impermanent and that includes the human race.
Click to expand...

As I noted earlier,  you're suffering from religiously inspired self-hate. It's a legacy of the myth of original sin wherein fundie christians believe they carry the curse imparted to A&E (not the cable station). Free yourself from that burden.


----------



## Treeshepherd

Hollie said:


> As I noted earlier, you're suffering from religiously inspired self-hate. It's a legacy of the myth of original sin wherein fundie christians believe they carry the curse imparted to A&E (not the cable station). Free yourself from that burden.



Like a fundie Christian, I don't think you're capable of conceiving of the Adam and Eve story as anything more than cartoonish. It couldn't represent to you a deep allegory having to do with a human shift of consciousness into ego.

Thanks for reminding me to add to my list of tenets the similarity of the fundie and the atheist in their approach to scripture. The sole difference is in the response, with one being an acceptor and the other a denier.


----------



## Hollie

Treeshepherd said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I noted earlier, you're suffering from religiously inspired self-hate. It's a legacy of the myth of original sin wherein fundie christians believe they carry the curse imparted to A&E (not the cable station). Free yourself from that burden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like a fundie Christian, I don't think you're capable of conceiving of the Adam and Eve story as anything more than cartoonish. It couldn't represent to you a deep allegory having to do with a human shift of consciousness into ego.
> 
> Thanks for reminding me to add to my list of tenets the similarity of the fundie and the atheist in their approach to scripture. The sole difference is in the response, with one being an acceptor and the other a denier.
Click to expand...

The A&E fable is cartoonist. I've previously laid out the irreconcilable problems with the genesis fable.

Do let us know what parts of the bibles are literally true and which are not.


----------



## Avatar4321

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militant athiests in the future won't be so bad when religions stop saying non believers burn for eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How optimistic of you. Very naive but we can't fault you for your optimism. I noticed something about some atheists. You have the tendency to ignore some basic facts about the nature of this world and in particular you ignore the basic facts about human nature. We are always going to have conflict. We will have conflict even if religion were to disappear tomorrow. It is in our nature to conflict with not only other human beings but with the natural world. To deny this very basic truth is to deny reality. We live in a hostile and violent world and we ourselves are hostile and violent by nature. Those are the facts of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed something about religious zealots: they tend to be self-loathing and incapable of envisioning a world without trembling in fear before angry gawds. Your comments are, naturally, reflective of those basic tenets of christianity: mankind is elementally base and evil because of original sin.
> 
> It's truly a sickness to accept such a worldview.
> 
> I would never raise a child by Instilling in him or her the presumption that they are evil or base or inherently sinful. That's psychologically and emotionally abusive. To promote such abuse speaks volumes about the fear, self-hate and hostility of the abuser.
> 
> Such abuse is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. And you claim religious people are trying to deny reality. I am just stating the facts.
> What kind of world do you think we live in? A world of unicorns and rainbows where good always triumphs over evil and everyone gets a happily ever after? I am sorry but we do not live in that world. We live in this world and in this world just about every living creature nourishes itself by metabolizing the death of other living creatures. In order to live in our world you have to kill and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Simple biology tells us that we are all basically animals and that we are driven by the same instincts and desires has any other animal. And like our closet evolutionary cousin the chimpanzee we are inherently tribal and violent primates who enforced hierarchical control  by savage violence. This isn't something new, we have always been this ways and our biology isn't going to change anytime soon.
> 
> And as for your little myths of scientism and moral progress. It's just not going to happen. There is never going to be a scientific utopia where technology solves all our problems. Our nature will just not allow it. Every time human beings attempt to build a utopia the first thing they do is demonize others who they think are impeding their fantasy world and therefore make things worse by creating more conflict and the cycle of violence just keeps rolling on and on and on all because their are people who someone got it in their head that they can fix this. It was are attempt to control and fix nature to suit us that got us into this mess in the first place and impeding catastrophic consequence loom over us with are meddling with nature. Now we are facing a mass extinction event dues to our abusing the planet. If that reality frightens you then too bad. All your wishful thinking and sci-fi fantasy will do nothing to fix or prevent it. So you might as well accept it and come to terms with it. Nothing last forever in this world, all things are impermanent and that includes the human race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I noted earlier,  you're suffering from religiously inspired self-hate. It's a legacy of the myth of original sin wherein fundie christians believe they carry the curse imparted to A&E (not the cable station). Free yourself from that burden.
Click to expand...


how is it self hate to recognize human nature for what it is and your capacity to do evil?

human beings are capable of great evil. Whether their our corruption, apathy, or willful choice. 

that's human nature. You cannot avoid it or deny it


----------



## Treeshepherd

Hollie said:


> The A&E fable is cartoonist. I've previously laid out the irreconcilable problems with the genesis fable.
> 
> Do let us know what parts of the bibles are literally true and which are not.



You have an irreconcilable problem with any allegory when the source is scriptural. 

To answer your question though, there are certainly some parts of scripture which approximate historicity. Cyrus the Great, for example, was an actual king of kings in Persia.


----------



## Hollie

Avatar4321 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militant athiests in the future won't be so bad when religions stop saying non believers burn for eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How optimistic of you. Very naive but we can't fault you for your optimism. I noticed something about some atheists. You have the tendency to ignore some basic facts about the nature of this world and in particular you ignore the basic facts about human nature. We are always going to have conflict. We will have conflict even if religion were to disappear tomorrow. It is in our nature to conflict with not only other human beings but with the natural world. To deny this very basic truth is to deny reality. We live in a hostile and violent world and we ourselves are hostile and violent by nature. Those are the facts of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed something about religious zealots: they tend to be self-loathing and incapable of envisioning a world without trembling in fear before angry gawds. Your comments are, naturally, reflective of those basic tenets of christianity: mankind is elementally base and evil because of original sin.
> 
> It's truly a sickness to accept such a worldview.
> 
> I would never raise a child by Instilling in him or her the presumption that they are evil or base or inherently sinful. That's psychologically and emotionally abusive. To promote such abuse speaks volumes about the fear, self-hate and hostility of the abuser.
> 
> Such abuse is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. And you claim religious people are trying to deny reality. I am just stating the facts.
> What kind of world do you think we live in? A world of unicorns and rainbows where good always triumphs over evil and everyone gets a happily ever after? I am sorry but we do not live in that world. We live in this world and in this world just about every living creature nourishes itself by metabolizing the death of other living creatures. In order to live in our world you have to kill and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Simple biology tells us that we are all basically animals and that we are driven by the same instincts and desires has any other animal. And like our closet evolutionary cousin the chimpanzee we are inherently tribal and violent primates who enforced hierarchical control  by savage violence. This isn't something new, we have always been this ways and our biology isn't going to change anytime soon.
> 
> And as for your little myths of scientism and moral progress. It's just not going to happen. There is never going to be a scientific utopia where technology solves all our problems. Our nature will just not allow it. Every time human beings attempt to build a utopia the first thing they do is demonize others who they think are impeding their fantasy world and therefore make things worse by creating more conflict and the cycle of violence just keeps rolling on and on and on all because their are people who someone got it in their head that they can fix this. It was are attempt to control and fix nature to suit us that got us into this mess in the first place and impeding catastrophic consequence loom over us with are meddling with nature. Now we are facing a mass extinction event dues to our abusing the planet. If that reality frightens you then too bad. All your wishful thinking and sci-fi fantasy will do nothing to fix or prevent it. So you might as well accept it and come to terms with it. Nothing last forever in this world, all things are impermanent and that includes the human race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I noted earlier,  you're suffering from religiously inspired self-hate. It's a legacy of the myth of original sin wherein fundie christians believe they carry the curse imparted to A&E (not the cable station). Free yourself from that burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how is it self hate to recognize human nature for what it is and your capacity to do evil?
> 
> human beings are capable of great evil. Whether their our corruption, apathy, or willful choice.
> 
> that's human nature. You cannot avoid it or deny it
Click to expand...

And, with a historical perspective, the religious entities have exceeded the brutality of the non-religious.  

Let's not pretend that Christianity is the wondrous panacea  you would like to portray it as.


----------



## Treeshepherd

Hollie said:


> Let's not pretend that Christianity is the wondrous panacea you would like to portray it as.


That's not my intention. My attention in this thread is to identify characteristics of atheism. I'm doing so by observation. Here is a good example of one of the tenets (religion is the root cause of war and violence);


Hollie said:


> And, with a historical perspective, the religious entities have exceeded the brutality of the non-religious.


----------



## Hollie

Treeshepherd said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The A&E fable is cartoonist. I've previously laid out the irreconcilable problems with the genesis fable.
> 
> Do let us know what parts of the bibles are literally true and which are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have an irreconcilable problem with any allegory when the source is scriptural.
> 
> To answer your question though, there are certainly some parts of scripture which approximate historicity. Cyrus the Great, for example, was an actual king of kings in Persia.
Click to expand...




Treeshepherd said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The A&E fable is cartoonist. I've previously laid out the irreconcilable problems with the genesis fable.
> 
> Do let us know what parts of the bibles are literally true and which are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have an irreconcilable problem with any allegory when the source is scriptural.
> 
> To answer your question though, there are certainly some parts of scripture which approximate historicity. Cyrus the Great, for example, was an actual king of kings in Persia.
Click to expand...

This is the first I've heard that you have been tasked with determining which parts of the bibles are literal renderings and which are not. 

Give us your listing.


----------



## Hollie

Treeshepherd said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not pretend that Christianity is the wondrous panacea you would like to portray it as.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not my intention. My attention in this thread is to identify characteristics of atheism. I'm doing so by observation. Here is a good example of one of the tenets (religion is the root cause of war and violence);
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, with a historical perspective, the religious entities have exceeded the brutality of the non-religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Your homework assignment is to compile the relevant data.


----------



## Treeshepherd

Hollie said:


> This is the first I've heard that you have been tasked with determining which parts of the bibles are literal renderings and which are not.
> 
> Give us your listing.



That's really irrelevant to a thread concerned with atheist religion, and rather irrelevant to my approach to the scriptures of traditional world religions. Scripture is not meant to settle anything. Its purpose is to provoke thought and questions. In a historical sense, I think there's something to learn about the evolution of western thought.

But, I'll humor you. I would say that some small portion of the Bible approximates historicity, like the fact that Cyrus the Great was a real King of kings in Persia. I could probably find other examples. It's not something I'm interested in or take time to study.


----------



## Hollie

Treeshepherd said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the first I've heard that you have been tasked with determining which parts of the bibles are literal renderings and which are not.
> 
> Give us your listing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's really irrelevant to a thread concerned with atheist religion, and rather irrelevant to my approach to the scriptures of traditional world religions. Scripture is not meant to settle anything. Its purpose is to provoke thought and questions. In a historical sense, I think there's something to learn about the evolution of western thought.
> 
> But, I'll humor you. I would say that some small portion of the Bible approximates historicity, like the fact that Cyrus the Great was a real King of kings in Persia. I could probably find other examples. It's not something I'm interested in or take time to study.
Click to expand...

You have decided that genesis is an allegory. I'm just curious about the jeebus rising from the dead, thing.

Is that literally true, kinda' true but not really true or not true at all?


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militant athiests in the future won't be so bad when religions stop saying non believers burn for eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How optimistic of you. Very naive but we can't fault you for your optimism. I noticed something about some atheists. You have the tendency to ignore some basic facts about the nature of this world and in particular you ignore the basic facts about human nature. We are always going to have conflict. We will have conflict even if religion were to disappear tomorrow. It is in our nature to conflict with not only other human beings but with the natural world. To deny this very basic truth is to deny reality. We live in a hostile and violent world and we ourselves are hostile and violent by nature. Those are the facts of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed something about religious zealots: they tend to be self-loathing and incapable of envisioning a world without trembling in fear before angry gawds. Your comments are, naturally, reflective of those basic tenets of christianity: mankind is elementally base and evil because of original sin.
> 
> It's truly a sickness to accept such a worldview.
> 
> I would never raise a child by Instilling in him or her the presumption that they are evil or base or inherently sinful. That's psychologically and emotionally abusive. To promote such abuse speaks volumes about the fear, self-hate and hostility of the abuser.
> 
> Such abuse is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. And you claim religious people are trying to deny reality. I am just stating the facts.
> What kind of world do you think we live in? A world of unicorns and rainbows where good always triumphs over evil and everyone gets a happily ever after? I am sorry but we do not live in that world. We live in this world and in this world just about every living creature nourishes itself by metabolizing the death of other living creatures. In order to live in our world you have to kill and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Simple biology tells us that we are all basically animals and that we are driven by the same instincts and desires has any other animal. And like our closet evolutionary cousin the chimpanzee we are inherently tribal and violent primates who enforced hierarchical control  by savage violence. This isn't something new, we have always been this ways and our biology isn't going to change anytime soon.
> 
> And as for your little myths of scientism and moral progress. It's just not going to happen. There is never going to be a scientific utopia where technology solves all our problems. Our nature will just not allow it. Every time human beings attempt to build a utopia the first thing they do is demonize others who they think are impeding their fantasy world and therefore make things worse by creating more conflict and the cycle of violence just keeps rolling on and on and on all because their are people who someone got it in their head that they can fix this. It was are attempt to control and fix nature to suit us that got us into this mess in the first place and impeding catastrophic consequence loom over us with are meddling with nature. Now we are facing a mass extinction event dues to our abusing the planet. If that reality frightens you then too bad. All your wishful thinking and sci-fi fantasy will do nothing to fix or prevent it. So you might as well accept it and come to terms with it. Nothing last forever in this world, all things are impermanent and that includes the human race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I noted earlier,  you're suffering from religiously inspired self-hate. It's a legacy of the myth of original sin wherein fundie christians believe they carry the curse imparted to A&E (not the cable station). Free yourself from that burden.
Click to expand...

Curse? Who said our animal nature is a curse? It is just the way we are.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Avatar4321 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militant athiests in the future won't be so bad when religions stop saying non believers burn for eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How optimistic of you. Very naive but we can't fault you for your optimism. I noticed something about some atheists. You have the tendency to ignore some basic facts about the nature of this world and in particular you ignore the basic facts about human nature. We are always going to have conflict. We will have conflict even if religion were to disappear tomorrow. It is in our nature to conflict with not only other human beings but with the natural world. To deny this very basic truth is to deny reality. We live in a hostile and violent world and we ourselves are hostile and violent by nature. Those are the facts of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed something about religious zealots: they tend to be self-loathing and incapable of envisioning a world without trembling in fear before angry gawds. Your comments are, naturally, reflective of those basic tenets of christianity: mankind is elementally base and evil because of original sin.
> 
> It's truly a sickness to accept such a worldview.
> 
> I would never raise a child by Instilling in him or her the presumption that they are evil or base or inherently sinful. That's psychologically and emotionally abusive. To promote such abuse speaks volumes about the fear, self-hate and hostility of the abuser.
> 
> Such abuse is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. And you claim religious people are trying to deny reality. I am just stating the facts.
> What kind of world do you think we live in? A world of unicorns and rainbows where good always triumphs over evil and everyone gets a happily ever after? I am sorry but we do not live in that world. We live in this world and in this world just about every living creature nourishes itself by metabolizing the death of other living creatures. In order to live in our world you have to kill and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Simple biology tells us that we are all basically animals and that we are driven by the same instincts and desires has any other animal. And like our closet evolutionary cousin the chimpanzee we are inherently tribal and violent primates who enforced hierarchical control  by savage violence. This isn't something new, we have always been this ways and our biology isn't going to change anytime soon.
> 
> And as for your little myths of scientism and moral progress. It's just not going to happen. There is never going to be a scientific utopia where technology solves all our problems. Our nature will just not allow it. Every time human beings attempt to build a utopia the first thing they do is demonize others who they think are impeding their fantasy world and therefore make things worse by creating more conflict and the cycle of violence just keeps rolling on and on and on all because their are people who someone got it in their head that they can fix this. It was are attempt to control and fix nature to suit us that got us into this mess in the first place and impeding catastrophic consequence loom over us with are meddling with nature. Now we are facing a mass extinction event dues to our abusing the planet. If that reality frightens you then too bad. All your wishful thinking and sci-fi fantasy will do nothing to fix or prevent it. So you might as well accept it and come to terms with it. Nothing last forever in this world, all things are impermanent and that includes the human race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I noted earlier,  you're suffering from religiously inspired self-hate. It's a legacy of the myth of original sin wherein fundie christians believe they carry the curse imparted to A&E (not the cable station). Free yourself from that burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how is it self hate to recognize human nature for what it is and your capacity to do evil?
> 
> human beings are capable of great evil. Whether their our corruption, apathy, or willful choice.
> 
> that's human nature. You cannot avoid it or deny it
Click to expand...


I think atheists do an awful lot to deny it. It is one of the reasons they scapegoat religion and demonize believers. They need someone to blame for this mess and they do not want to accept that it is our very nature that has cause calamity because they would have to admit that their own nature is subject to the same things as everyone else.


----------



## Treeshepherd

Hollie said:


> You have decided that genesis is an allegory. I'm just curious about the jeebus rising from the dead, thing.



I have to go to work. It would take more than a messageboard post to explain the J-man. In the simplest terms I would say that to me, Jesus represents the idea that there is an element of sacrifice to the process of creation. Our existence came at great cost.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militant athiests in the future won't be so bad when religions stop saying non believers burn for eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How optimistic of you. Very naive but we can't fault you for your optimism. I noticed something about some atheists. You have the tendency to ignore some basic facts about the nature of this world and in particular you ignore the basic facts about human nature. We are always going to have conflict. We will have conflict even if religion were to disappear tomorrow. It is in our nature to conflict with not only other human beings but with the natural world. To deny this very basic truth is to deny reality. We live in a hostile and violent world and we ourselves are hostile and violent by nature. Those are the facts of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed something about religious zealots: they tend to be self-loathing and incapable of envisioning a world without trembling in fear before angry gawds. Your comments are, naturally, reflective of those basic tenets of christianity: mankind is elementally base and evil because of original sin.
> 
> It's truly a sickness to accept such a worldview.
> 
> I would never raise a child by Instilling in him or her the presumption that they are evil or base or inherently sinful. That's psychologically and emotionally abusive. To promote such abuse speaks volumes about the fear, self-hate and hostility of the abuser.
> 
> Such abuse is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. And you claim religious people are trying to deny reality. I am just stating the facts.
> What kind of world do you think we live in? A world of unicorns and rainbows where good always triumphs over evil and everyone gets a happily ever after? I am sorry but we do not live in that world. We live in this world and in this world just about every living creature nourishes itself by metabolizing the death of other living creatures. In order to live in our world you have to kill and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Simple biology tells us that we are all basically animals and that we are driven by the same instincts and desires has any other animal. And like our closet evolutionary cousin the chimpanzee we are inherently tribal and violent primates who enforced hierarchical control  by savage violence. This isn't something new, we have always been this ways and our biology isn't going to change anytime soon.
> 
> And as for your little myths of scientism and moral progress. It's just not going to happen. There is never going to be a scientific utopia where technology solves all our problems. Our nature will just not allow it. Every time human beings attempt to build a utopia the first thing they do is demonize others who they think are impeding their fantasy world and therefore make things worse by creating more conflict and the cycle of violence just keeps rolling on and on and on all because their are people who someone got it in their head that they can fix this. It was are attempt to control and fix nature to suit us that got us into this mess in the first place and impeding catastrophic consequence loom over us with are meddling with nature. Now we are facing a mass extinction event dues to our abusing the planet. If that reality frightens you then too bad. All your wishful thinking and sci-fi fantasy will do nothing to fix or prevent it. So you might as well accept it and come to terms with it. Nothing last forever in this world, all things are impermanent and that includes the human race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I noted earlier,  you're suffering from religiously inspired self-hate. It's a legacy of the myth of original sin wherein fundie christians believe they carry the curse imparted to A&E (not the cable station). Free yourself from that burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Curse? Who said our animal nature is a curse? It is just the way we are.
Click to expand...

You should read your bibles.


----------



## Hollie

Treeshepherd said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have decided that genesis is an allegory. I'm just curious about the jeebus rising from the dead, thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to go to work. It would take more than a messageboard post to explain the J-man. In the simplest terms I would say that to me, Jesus represents the idea that there is an element of sacrifice to the process of creation. Our existence came at great cost.
Click to expand...

What process of creation?


----------



## sealybobo

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militant athiests in the future won't be so bad when religions stop saying non believers burn for eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How optimistic of you. Very naive but we can't fault you for your optimism. I noticed something about some atheists. You have the tendency to ignore some basic facts about the nature of this world and in particular you ignore the basic facts about human nature. We are always going to have conflict. We will have conflict even if religion were to disappear tomorrow. It is in our nature to conflict with not only other human beings but with the natural world. To deny this very basic truth is to deny reality. We live in a hostile and violent world and we ourselves are hostile and violent by nature. Those are the facts of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed something about religious zealots: they tend to be self-loathing and incapable of envisioning a world without trembling in fear before angry gawds. Your comments are, naturally, reflective of those basic tenets of christianity: mankind is elementally base and evil because of original sin.
> 
> It's truly a sickness to accept such a worldview.
> 
> I would never raise a child by Instilling in him or her the presumption that they are evil or base or inherently sinful. That's psychologically and emotionally abusive. To promote such abuse speaks volumes about the fear, self-hate and hostility of the abuser.
> 
> Such abuse is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. And you claim religious people are trying to deny reality. I am just stating the facts.
> What kind of world do you think we live in? A world of unicorns and rainbows where good always triumphs over evil and everyone gets a happily ever after? I am sorry but we do not live in that world. We live in this world and in this world just about every living creature nourishes itself by metabolizing the death of other living creatures. In order to live in our world you have to kill and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Simple biology tells us that we are all basically animals and that we are driven by the same instincts and desires has any other animal. And like our closet evolutionary cousin the chimpanzee we are inherently tribal and violent primates who enforced hierarchical control  by savage violence. This isn't something new, we have always been this ways and our biology isn't going to change anytime soon.
> 
> And as for your little myths of scientism and moral progress. It's just not going to happen. There is never going to be a scientific utopia where technology solves all our problems. Our nature will just not allow it. Every time human beings attempt to build a utopia the first thing they do is demonize others who they think are impeding their fantasy world and therefore make things worse by creating more conflict and the cycle of violence just keeps rolling on and on and on all because their are people who someone got it in their head that they can fix this. It was are attempt to control and fix nature to suit us that got us into this mess in the first place and impeding catastrophic consequence loom over us with are meddling with nature. Now we are facing a mass extinction event dues to our abusing the planet. If that reality frightens you then too bad. All your wishful thinking and sci-fi fantasy will do nothing to fix or prevent it. So you might as well accept it and come to terms with it. Nothing last forever in this world, all things are impermanent and that includes the human race.
Click to expand...

Everytime science flourished in history religious rulers squashed it because knowledge is power. 

But in a lot of ways I agree with you. You make me think. If we were all liberal pussies the isis would easily take us over. America is made up of assholes pussies and dicks. The way it should be.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How optimistic of you. Very naive but we can't fault you for your optimism. I noticed something about some atheists. You have the tendency to ignore some basic facts about the nature of this world and in particular you ignore the basic facts about human nature. We are always going to have conflict. We will have conflict even if religion were to disappear tomorrow. It is in our nature to conflict with not only other human beings but with the natural world. To deny this very basic truth is to deny reality. We live in a hostile and violent world and we ourselves are hostile and violent by nature. Those are the facts of life.
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed something about religious zealots: they tend to be self-loathing and incapable of envisioning a world without trembling in fear before angry gawds. Your comments are, naturally, reflective of those basic tenets of christianity: mankind is elementally base and evil because of original sin.
> 
> It's truly a sickness to accept such a worldview.
> 
> I would never raise a child by Instilling in him or her the presumption that they are evil or base or inherently sinful. That's psychologically and emotionally abusive. To promote such abuse speaks volumes about the fear, self-hate and hostility of the abuser.
> 
> Such abuse is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. And you claim religious people are trying to deny reality. I am just stating the facts.
> What kind of world do you think we live in? A world of unicorns and rainbows where good always triumphs over evil and everyone gets a happily ever after? I am sorry but we do not live in that world. We live in this world and in this world just about every living creature nourishes itself by metabolizing the death of other living creatures. In order to live in our world you have to kill and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Simple biology tells us that we are all basically animals and that we are driven by the same instincts and desires has any other animal. And like our closet evolutionary cousin the chimpanzee we are inherently tribal and violent primates who enforced hierarchical control  by savage violence. This isn't something new, we have always been this ways and our biology isn't going to change anytime soon.
> 
> And as for your little myths of scientism and moral progress. It's just not going to happen. There is never going to be a scientific utopia where technology solves all our problems. Our nature will just not allow it. Every time human beings attempt to build a utopia the first thing they do is demonize others who they think are impeding their fantasy world and therefore make things worse by creating more conflict and the cycle of violence just keeps rolling on and on and on all because their are people who someone got it in their head that they can fix this. It was are attempt to control and fix nature to suit us that got us into this mess in the first place and impeding catastrophic consequence loom over us with are meddling with nature. Now we are facing a mass extinction event dues to our abusing the planet. If that reality frightens you then too bad. All your wishful thinking and sci-fi fantasy will do nothing to fix or prevent it. So you might as well accept it and come to terms with it. Nothing last forever in this world, all things are impermanent and that includes the human race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I noted earlier,  you're suffering from religiously inspired self-hate. It's a legacy of the myth of original sin wherein fundie christians believe they carry the curse imparted to A&E (not the cable station). Free yourself from that burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how is it self hate to recognize human nature for what it is and your capacity to do evil?
> 
> human beings are capable of great evil. Whether their our corruption, apathy, or willful choice.
> 
> that's human nature. You cannot avoid it or deny it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think atheists do an awful lot to deny it. It is one of the reasons they scapegoat religion and demonize believers. They need someone to blame for this mess and they do not want to accept that it is our very nature that has cause calamity because they would have to admit that their own nature is subject to the same things as everyone else.
Click to expand...


Gee whiz. What a shame that all those horrible atheists are blaming you lovely religious folks for "all this mess". Although, "all this mess" involves you lovely religious folks slaughtering each other across the globe. 

Can't you email the jeebus and have him move up the timetable for the christo-apocalypse? Isn't it about time for another of your gawds humanity wiping episodes?


----------



## sealybobo

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militant athiests in the future won't be so bad when religions stop saying non believers burn for eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How optimistic of you. Very naive but we can't fault you for your optimism. I noticed something about some atheists. You have the tendency to ignore some basic facts about the nature of this world and in particular you ignore the basic facts about human nature. We are always going to have conflict. We will have conflict even if religion were to disappear tomorrow. It is in our nature to conflict with not only other human beings but with the natural world. To deny this very basic truth is to deny reality. We live in a hostile and violent world and we ourselves are hostile and violent by nature. Those are the facts of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed something about religious zealots: they tend to be self-loathing and incapable of envisioning a world without trembling in fear before angry gawds. Your comments are, naturally, reflective of those basic tenets of christianity: mankind is elementally base and evil because of original sin.
> 
> It's truly a sickness to accept such a worldview.
> 
> I would never raise a child by Instilling in him or her the presumption that they are evil or base or inherently sinful. That's psychologically and emotionally abusive. To promote such abuse speaks volumes about the fear, self-hate and hostility of the abuser.
> 
> Such abuse is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. And you claim religious people are trying to deny reality. I am just stating the facts.
> What kind of world do you think we live in? A world of unicorns and rainbows where good always triumphs over evil and everyone gets a happily ever after? I am sorry but we do not live in that world. We live in this world and in this world just about every living creature nourishes itself by metabolizing the death of other living creatures. In order to live in our world you have to kill and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Simple biology tells us that we are all basically animals and that we are driven by the same instincts and desires has any other animal. And like our closet evolutionary cousin the chimpanzee we are inherently tribal and violent primates who enforced hierarchical control  by savage violence. This isn't something new, we have always been this ways and our biology isn't going to change anytime soon.
> 
> And as for your little myths of scientism and moral progress. It's just not going to happen. There is never going to be a scientific utopia where technology solves all our problems. Our nature will just not allow it. Every time human beings attempt to build a utopia the first thing they do is demonize others who they think are impeding their fantasy world and therefore make things worse by creating more conflict and the cycle of violence just keeps rolling on and on and on all because their are people who someone got it in their head that they can fix this. It was are attempt to control and fix nature to suit us that got us into this mess in the first place and impeding catastrophic consequence loom over us with are meddling with nature. Now we are facing a mass extinction event dues to our abusing the planet. If that reality frightens you then too bad. All your wishful thinking and sci-fi fantasy will do nothing to fix or prevent it. So you might as well accept it and come to terms with it. Nothing last forever in this world, all things are impermanent and that includes the human race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I noted earlier,  you're suffering from religiously inspired self-hate. It's a legacy of the myth of original sin wherein fundie christians believe they carry the curse imparted to A&E (not the cable station). Free yourself from that burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Curse? Who said our animal nature is a curse? It is just the way we are.
Click to expand...

Yes. No different than any other animal. That's another atheism 101 for your list. We should start a church. Who would be our pope? Neal degrass Tyson?


----------



## Carla_Danger

Treeshepherd said:


> improved Tenets of Atheism
> 
> 1. The universe is a great, uncaused random accident. No metaphysical will or instruction preceeded the universe which could have caused it. No 'purpose' exists outside of it. The Big Bang theory assumes a cause and was first proposed by a priest, which is unpalatable. Consequently atheism is moving past that theory to the Universal wave function theory among others. These theories postulate an uncaused universe.
> 
> 2. Rejection of the Christian concept of free will, and free will as a suitable explanation for the existence of evil.
> A developing concept among atheists is that human behavior is ultimately controlled by genes, by brain neurochemistry, and by interactions with the environment. In its most extreme form, determinism completely denies the existence of human free will. There is quite a bit of difference of opinion here among atheists.
> 
> 3. Salvation through technology, leading toward transhumanism. In the absence of Providence, man must assume the role of Creator and tweak his own biology rather than leave the future to random possibilities.
> 
> 4. The belief that the primary cause of war is theistic religion. Conflict theory that proposes genetic, economic or political root causes of war are completely ignored among the most ardent atheists.
> 
> 5. The belief or propensity to postulate that the history of science is a simple story of rationality prevailing over theism. Like oil and water, they do not mix. For example,_ the Church was the root cause of the Dark Ages and not the collapse of the Roman Empire_.
> 
> 6. The atheist believes that love is merely an adapted chemical reaction in the brain. Any further meaning is something that an atheist may choose to humor himself with.
> 
> 7. For utilitarian reasons of quality of life, the atheist invents moral rules by which a community should be governed, subjectively justifying that set of morals as well as humanly possible. Sometimes, the atheist postulates that morality is genetically inherited.
> 
> The list is not exhaustive and needs further work. But, in a nutshell, that's my articulation of atheist religion.





I'm not going by those.  I'm sorry, you'll have to re-do the list.


----------



## Avatar4321

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed something about religious zealots: they tend to be self-loathing and incapable of envisioning a world without trembling in fear before angry gawds. Your comments are, naturally, reflective of those basic tenets of christianity: mankind is elementally base and evil because of original sin.
> 
> It's truly a sickness to accept such a worldview.
> 
> I would never raise a child by Instilling in him or her the presumption that they are evil or base or inherently sinful. That's psychologically and emotionally abusive. To promote such abuse speaks volumes about the fear, self-hate and hostility of the abuser.
> 
> Such abuse is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. And you claim religious people are trying to deny reality. I am just stating the facts.
> What kind of world do you think we live in? A world of unicorns and rainbows where good always triumphs over evil and everyone gets a happily ever after? I am sorry but we do not live in that world. We live in this world and in this world just about every living creature nourishes itself by metabolizing the death of other living creatures. In order to live in our world you have to kill and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Simple biology tells us that we are all basically animals and that we are driven by the same instincts and desires has any other animal. And like our closet evolutionary cousin the chimpanzee we are inherently tribal and violent primates who enforced hierarchical control  by savage violence. This isn't something new, we have always been this ways and our biology isn't going to change anytime soon.
> 
> And as for your little myths of scientism and moral progress. It's just not going to happen. There is never going to be a scientific utopia where technology solves all our problems. Our nature will just not allow it. Every time human beings attempt to build a utopia the first thing they do is demonize others who they think are impeding their fantasy world and therefore make things worse by creating more conflict and the cycle of violence just keeps rolling on and on and on all because their are people who someone got it in their head that they can fix this. It was are attempt to control and fix nature to suit us that got us into this mess in the first place and impeding catastrophic consequence loom over us with are meddling with nature. Now we are facing a mass extinction event dues to our abusing the planet. If that reality frightens you then too bad. All your wishful thinking and sci-fi fantasy will do nothing to fix or prevent it. So you might as well accept it and come to terms with it. Nothing last forever in this world, all things are impermanent and that includes the human race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I noted earlier,  you're suffering from religiously inspired self-hate. It's a legacy of the myth of original sin wherein fundie christians believe they carry the curse imparted to A&E (not the cable station). Free yourself from that burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how is it self hate to recognize human nature for what it is and your capacity to do evil?
> 
> human beings are capable of great evil. Whether their our corruption, apathy, or willful choice.
> 
> that's human nature. You cannot avoid it or deny it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think atheists do an awful lot to deny it. It is one of the reasons they scapegoat religion and demonize believers. They need someone to blame for this mess and they do not want to accept that it is our very nature that has cause calamity because they would have to admit that their own nature is subject to the same things as everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. What a shame that all those horrible atheists are blaming you lovely religious folks for "all this mess". Although, "all this mess" involves you lovely religious folks slaughtering each other across the globe.
> 
> Can't you email the jeebus and have him move up the timetable for the christo-apocalypse? Isn't it about time for another of your gawds humanity wiping episodes?
Click to expand...


God isn't going to wipe out humanity. He's going to stop you from doing it


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How optimistic of you. Very naive but we can't fault you for your optimism. I noticed something about some atheists. You have the tendency to ignore some basic facts about the nature of this world and in particular you ignore the basic facts about human nature. We are always going to have conflict. We will have conflict even if religion were to disappear tomorrow. It is in our nature to conflict with not only other human beings but with the natural world. To deny this very basic truth is to deny reality. We live in a hostile and violent world and we ourselves are hostile and violent by nature. Those are the facts of life.
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed something about religious zealots: they tend to be self-loathing and incapable of envisioning a world without trembling in fear before angry gawds. Your comments are, naturally, reflective of those basic tenets of christianity: mankind is elementally base and evil because of original sin.
> 
> It's truly a sickness to accept such a worldview.
> 
> I would never raise a child by Instilling in him or her the presumption that they are evil or base or inherently sinful. That's psychologically and emotionally abusive. To promote such abuse speaks volumes about the fear, self-hate and hostility of the abuser.
> 
> Such abuse is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. And you claim religious people are trying to deny reality. I am just stating the facts.
> What kind of world do you think we live in? A world of unicorns and rainbows where good always triumphs over evil and everyone gets a happily ever after? I am sorry but we do not live in that world. We live in this world and in this world just about every living creature nourishes itself by metabolizing the death of other living creatures. In order to live in our world you have to kill and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Simple biology tells us that we are all basically animals and that we are driven by the same instincts and desires has any other animal. And like our closet evolutionary cousin the chimpanzee we are inherently tribal and violent primates who enforced hierarchical control  by savage violence. This isn't something new, we have always been this ways and our biology isn't going to change anytime soon.
> 
> And as for your little myths of scientism and moral progress. It's just not going to happen. There is never going to be a scientific utopia where technology solves all our problems. Our nature will just not allow it. Every time human beings attempt to build a utopia the first thing they do is demonize others who they think are impeding their fantasy world and therefore make things worse by creating more conflict and the cycle of violence just keeps rolling on and on and on all because their are people who someone got it in their head that they can fix this. It was are attempt to control and fix nature to suit us that got us into this mess in the first place and impeding catastrophic consequence loom over us with are meddling with nature. Now we are facing a mass extinction event dues to our abusing the planet. If that reality frightens you then too bad. All your wishful thinking and sci-fi fantasy will do nothing to fix or prevent it. So you might as well accept it and come to terms with it. Nothing last forever in this world, all things are impermanent and that includes the human race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I noted earlier,  you're suffering from religiously inspired self-hate. It's a legacy of the myth of original sin wherein fundie christians believe they carry the curse imparted to A&E (not the cable station). Free yourself from that burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Curse? Who said our animal nature is a curse? It is just the way we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should read your bibles.
Click to expand...


I am neither a Christian or a Jew so I don't view them as an authority for me. Do you actually believe that every religious person in the world is a Christian? Because you really  do seem that ignorant by your remarks in this forum


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed something about religious zealots: they tend to be self-loathing and incapable of envisioning a world without trembling in fear before angry gawds. Your comments are, naturally, reflective of those basic tenets of christianity: mankind is elementally base and evil because of original sin.
> 
> It's truly a sickness to accept such a worldview.
> 
> I would never raise a child by Instilling in him or her the presumption that they are evil or base or inherently sinful. That's psychologically and emotionally abusive. To promote such abuse speaks volumes about the fear, self-hate and hostility of the abuser.
> 
> Such abuse is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. And you claim religious people are trying to deny reality. I am just stating the facts.
> What kind of world do you think we live in? A world of unicorns and rainbows where good always triumphs over evil and everyone gets a happily ever after? I am sorry but we do not live in that world. We live in this world and in this world just about every living creature nourishes itself by metabolizing the death of other living creatures. In order to live in our world you have to kill and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Simple biology tells us that we are all basically animals and that we are driven by the same instincts and desires has any other animal. And like our closet evolutionary cousin the chimpanzee we are inherently tribal and violent primates who enforced hierarchical control  by savage violence. This isn't something new, we have always been this ways and our biology isn't going to change anytime soon.
> 
> And as for your little myths of scientism and moral progress. It's just not going to happen. There is never going to be a scientific utopia where technology solves all our problems. Our nature will just not allow it. Every time human beings attempt to build a utopia the first thing they do is demonize others who they think are impeding their fantasy world and therefore make things worse by creating more conflict and the cycle of violence just keeps rolling on and on and on all because their are people who someone got it in their head that they can fix this. It was are attempt to control and fix nature to suit us that got us into this mess in the first place and impeding catastrophic consequence loom over us with are meddling with nature. Now we are facing a mass extinction event dues to our abusing the planet. If that reality frightens you then too bad. All your wishful thinking and sci-fi fantasy will do nothing to fix or prevent it. So you might as well accept it and come to terms with it. Nothing last forever in this world, all things are impermanent and that includes the human race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I noted earlier,  you're suffering from religiously inspired self-hate. It's a legacy of the myth of original sin wherein fundie christians believe they carry the curse imparted to A&E (not the cable station). Free yourself from that burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how is it self hate to recognize human nature for what it is and your capacity to do evil?
> 
> human beings are capable of great evil. Whether their our corruption, apathy, or willful choice.
> 
> that's human nature. You cannot avoid it or deny it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think atheists do an awful lot to deny it. It is one of the reasons they scapegoat religion and demonize believers. They need someone to blame for this mess and they do not want to accept that it is our very nature that has cause calamity because they would have to admit that their own nature is subject to the same things as everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. What a shame that all those horrible atheists are blaming you lovely religious folks for "all this mess". Although, "all this mess" involves you lovely religious folks slaughtering each other across the globe.
> 
> Can't you email the jeebus and have him move up the timetable for the christo-apocalypse? Isn't it about time for another of your gawds humanity wiping episodes?
Click to expand...


Our current situation is not a result of the conflicts that were and are being fought. Those conflicts were inevitable because certain situations developed that put an even greater emphasis on the production of goods and consumption of resources which led to even greater competition, conflict and exploitation. Our current problems happened because humanity industrialized too fast for it's own good.  And that industrialization was a product of the scientific and technological revolutions of the 17th and 18th century. If anything is to blame for our current situation it is scientific and technological "progress". And yet you people are somehow the causes of our troubles is going to solve our trouble. Not very rational or logical to say the least.


----------



## Hollie

Avatar4321 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. And you claim religious people are trying to deny reality. I am just stating the facts.
> What kind of world do you think we live in? A world of unicorns and rainbows where good always triumphs over evil and everyone gets a happily ever after? I am sorry but we do not live in that world. We live in this world and in this world just about every living creature nourishes itself by metabolizing the death of other living creatures. In order to live in our world you have to kill and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Simple biology tells us that we are all basically animals and that we are driven by the same instincts and desires has any other animal. And like our closet evolutionary cousin the chimpanzee we are inherently tribal and violent primates who enforced hierarchical control  by savage violence. This isn't something new, we have always been this ways and our biology isn't going to change anytime soon.
> 
> And as for your little myths of scientism and moral progress. It's just not going to happen. There is never going to be a scientific utopia where technology solves all our problems. Our nature will just not allow it. Every time human beings attempt to build a utopia the first thing they do is demonize others who they think are impeding their fantasy world and therefore make things worse by creating more conflict and the cycle of violence just keeps rolling on and on and on all because their are people who someone got it in their head that they can fix this. It was are attempt to control and fix nature to suit us that got us into this mess in the first place and impeding catastrophic consequence loom over us with are meddling with nature. Now we are facing a mass extinction event dues to our abusing the planet. If that reality frightens you then too bad. All your wishful thinking and sci-fi fantasy will do nothing to fix or prevent it. So you might as well accept it and come to terms with it. Nothing last forever in this world, all things are impermanent and that includes the human race.
> 
> 
> 
> As I noted earlier,  you're suffering from religiously inspired self-hate. It's a legacy of the myth of original sin wherein fundie christians believe they carry the curse imparted to A&E (not the cable station). Free yourself from that burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how is it self hate to recognize human nature for what it is and your capacity to do evil?
> 
> human beings are capable of great evil. Whether their our corruption, apathy, or willful choice.
> 
> that's human nature. You cannot avoid it or deny it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think atheists do an awful lot to deny it. It is one of the reasons they scapegoat religion and demonize believers. They need someone to blame for this mess and they do not want to accept that it is our very nature that has cause calamity because they would have to admit that their own nature is subject to the same things as everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. What a shame that all those horrible atheists are blaming you lovely religious folks for "all this mess". Although, "all this mess" involves you lovely religious folks slaughtering each other across the globe.
> 
> Can't you email the jeebus and have him move up the timetable for the christo-apocalypse? Isn't it about time for another of your gawds humanity wiping episodes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God isn't going to wipe out humanity. He's going to stop you from doing it
Click to expand...

I have nothing regarding humanity wiping on my calendar.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. And you claim religious people are trying to deny reality. I am just stating the facts.
> What kind of world do you think we live in? A world of unicorns and rainbows where good always triumphs over evil and everyone gets a happily ever after? I am sorry but we do not live in that world. We live in this world and in this world just about every living creature nourishes itself by metabolizing the death of other living creatures. In order to live in our world you have to kill and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Simple biology tells us that we are all basically animals and that we are driven by the same instincts and desires has any other animal. And like our closet evolutionary cousin the chimpanzee we are inherently tribal and violent primates who enforced hierarchical control  by savage violence. This isn't something new, we have always been this ways and our biology isn't going to change anytime soon.
> 
> And as for your little myths of scientism and moral progress. It's just not going to happen. There is never going to be a scientific utopia where technology solves all our problems. Our nature will just not allow it. Every time human beings attempt to build a utopia the first thing they do is demonize others who they think are impeding their fantasy world and therefore make things worse by creating more conflict and the cycle of violence just keeps rolling on and on and on all because their are people who someone got it in their head that they can fix this. It was are attempt to control and fix nature to suit us that got us into this mess in the first place and impeding catastrophic consequence loom over us with are meddling with nature. Now we are facing a mass extinction event dues to our abusing the planet. If that reality frightens you then too bad. All your wishful thinking and sci-fi fantasy will do nothing to fix or prevent it. So you might as well accept it and come to terms with it. Nothing last forever in this world, all things are impermanent and that includes the human race.
> 
> 
> 
> As I noted earlier,  you're suffering from religiously inspired self-hate. It's a legacy of the myth of original sin wherein fundie christians believe they carry the curse imparted to A&E (not the cable station). Free yourself from that burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how is it self hate to recognize human nature for what it is and your capacity to do evil?
> 
> human beings are capable of great evil. Whether their our corruption, apathy, or willful choice.
> 
> that's human nature. You cannot avoid it or deny it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think atheists do an awful lot to deny it. It is one of the reasons they scapegoat religion and demonize believers. They need someone to blame for this mess and they do not want to accept that it is our very nature that has cause calamity because they would have to admit that their own nature is subject to the same things as everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. What a shame that all those horrible atheists are blaming you lovely religious folks for "all this mess". Although, "all this mess" involves you lovely religious folks slaughtering each other across the globe.
> 
> Can't you email the jeebus and have him move up the timetable for the christo-apocalypse? Isn't it about time for another of your gawds humanity wiping episodes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our current situation is not a result of the conflicts that were and are being fought. Those conflicts were inevitable because certain situations developed that put an even greater emphasis on the production of goods and consumption of resources which led to even greater competition, conflict and exploitation. Our current problems happened because humanity industrialized too fast for it's own good.  And that industrialization was a product of the scientific and technological revolutions of the 17th and 18th century. If anything is to blame for our current situation it is scientific and technological "progress". And yet you people are somehow the causes of our troubles is going to solve our trouble. Not very rational or logical to say the least.
Click to expand...

Yes. The attainment of knowledge is a horrible thing.


----------



## Hollie

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed something about religious zealots: they tend to be self-loathing and incapable of envisioning a world without trembling in fear before angry gawds. Your comments are, naturally, reflective of those basic tenets of christianity: mankind is elementally base and evil because of original sin.
> 
> It's truly a sickness to accept such a worldview.
> 
> I would never raise a child by Instilling in him or her the presumption that they are evil or base or inherently sinful. That's psychologically and emotionally abusive. To promote such abuse speaks volumes about the fear, self-hate and hostility of the abuser.
> 
> Such abuse is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. And you claim religious people are trying to deny reality. I am just stating the facts.
> What kind of world do you think we live in? A world of unicorns and rainbows where good always triumphs over evil and everyone gets a happily ever after? I am sorry but we do not live in that world. We live in this world and in this world just about every living creature nourishes itself by metabolizing the death of other living creatures. In order to live in our world you have to kill and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Simple biology tells us that we are all basically animals and that we are driven by the same instincts and desires has any other animal. And like our closet evolutionary cousin the chimpanzee we are inherently tribal and violent primates who enforced hierarchical control  by savage violence. This isn't something new, we have always been this ways and our biology isn't going to change anytime soon.
> 
> And as for your little myths of scientism and moral progress. It's just not going to happen. There is never going to be a scientific utopia where technology solves all our problems. Our nature will just not allow it. Every time human beings attempt to build a utopia the first thing they do is demonize others who they think are impeding their fantasy world and therefore make things worse by creating more conflict and the cycle of violence just keeps rolling on and on and on all because their are people who someone got it in their head that they can fix this. It was are attempt to control and fix nature to suit us that got us into this mess in the first place and impeding catastrophic consequence loom over us with are meddling with nature. Now we are facing a mass extinction event dues to our abusing the planet. If that reality frightens you then too bad. All your wishful thinking and sci-fi fantasy will do nothing to fix or prevent it. So you might as well accept it and come to terms with it. Nothing last forever in this world, all things are impermanent and that includes the human race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I noted earlier,  you're suffering from religiously inspired self-hate. It's a legacy of the myth of original sin wherein fundie christians believe they carry the curse imparted to A&E (not the cable station). Free yourself from that burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Curse? Who said our animal nature is a curse? It is just the way we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should read your bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am neither a Christian or a Jew so I don't view them as an authority for me. Do you actually believe that every religious person in the world is a Christian? Because you really  do seem that ignorant by your remarks in this forum
Click to expand...

I just find your extremist positions to be in line with the worst elements of fundamentalist christianity.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. And you claim religious people are trying to deny reality. I am just stating the facts.
> What kind of world do you think we live in? A world of unicorns and rainbows where good always triumphs over evil and everyone gets a happily ever after? I am sorry but we do not live in that world. We live in this world and in this world just about every living creature nourishes itself by metabolizing the death of other living creatures. In order to live in our world you have to kill and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Simple biology tells us that we are all basically animals and that we are driven by the same instincts and desires has any other animal. And like our closet evolutionary cousin the chimpanzee we are inherently tribal and violent primates who enforced hierarchical control  by savage violence. This isn't something new, we have always been this ways and our biology isn't going to change anytime soon.
> 
> And as for your little myths of scientism and moral progress. It's just not going to happen. There is never going to be a scientific utopia where technology solves all our problems. Our nature will just not allow it. Every time human beings attempt to build a utopia the first thing they do is demonize others who they think are impeding their fantasy world and therefore make things worse by creating more conflict and the cycle of violence just keeps rolling on and on and on all because their are people who someone got it in their head that they can fix this. It was are attempt to control and fix nature to suit us that got us into this mess in the first place and impeding catastrophic consequence loom over us with are meddling with nature. Now we are facing a mass extinction event dues to our abusing the planet. If that reality frightens you then too bad. All your wishful thinking and sci-fi fantasy will do nothing to fix or prevent it. So you might as well accept it and come to terms with it. Nothing last forever in this world, all things are impermanent and that includes the human race.
> 
> 
> 
> As I noted earlier,  you're suffering from religiously inspired self-hate. It's a legacy of the myth of original sin wherein fundie christians believe they carry the curse imparted to A&E (not the cable station). Free yourself from that burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Curse? Who said our animal nature is a curse? It is just the way we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should read your bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am neither a Christian or a Jew so I don't view them as an authority for me. Do you actually believe that every religious person in the world is a Christian? Because you really  do seem that ignorant by your remarks in this forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find your extremist positions to be in line with the worst elements of fundamentalist christianity.
Click to expand...

 You don't even really know what my positions are except were I told you that we are animals driven by instinct and hunger just like any other animal


----------



## sealybobo

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed something about religious zealots: they tend to be self-loathing and incapable of envisioning a world without trembling in fear before angry gawds. Your comments are, naturally, reflective of those basic tenets of christianity: mankind is elementally base and evil because of original sin.
> 
> It's truly a sickness to accept such a worldview.
> 
> I would never raise a child by Instilling in him or her the presumption that they are evil or base or inherently sinful. That's psychologically and emotionally abusive. To promote such abuse speaks volumes about the fear, self-hate and hostility of the abuser.
> 
> Such abuse is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. And you claim religious people are trying to deny reality. I am just stating the facts.
> What kind of world do you think we live in? A world of unicorns and rainbows where good always triumphs over evil and everyone gets a happily ever after? I am sorry but we do not live in that world. We live in this world and in this world just about every living creature nourishes itself by metabolizing the death of other living creatures. In order to live in our world you have to kill and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Simple biology tells us that we are all basically animals and that we are driven by the same instincts and desires has any other animal. And like our closet evolutionary cousin the chimpanzee we are inherently tribal and violent primates who enforced hierarchical control  by savage violence. This isn't something new, we have always been this ways and our biology isn't going to change anytime soon.
> 
> And as for your little myths of scientism and moral progress. It's just not going to happen. There is never going to be a scientific utopia where technology solves all our problems. Our nature will just not allow it. Every time human beings attempt to build a utopia the first thing they do is demonize others who they think are impeding their fantasy world and therefore make things worse by creating more conflict and the cycle of violence just keeps rolling on and on and on all because their are people who someone got it in their head that they can fix this. It was are attempt to control and fix nature to suit us that got us into this mess in the first place and impeding catastrophic consequence loom over us with are meddling with nature. Now we are facing a mass extinction event dues to our abusing the planet. If that reality frightens you then too bad. All your wishful thinking and sci-fi fantasy will do nothing to fix or prevent it. So you might as well accept it and come to terms with it. Nothing last forever in this world, all things are impermanent and that includes the human race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I noted earlier,  you're suffering from religiously inspired self-hate. It's a legacy of the myth of original sin wherein fundie christians believe they carry the curse imparted to A&E (not the cable station). Free yourself from that burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Curse? Who said our animal nature is a curse? It is just the way we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should read your bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am neither a Christian or a Jew so I don't view them as an authority for me. Do you actually believe that every religious person in the world is a Christian? Because you really  do seem that ignorant by your remarks in this forum
Click to expand...

Sorry its hard to keep track of you all. Trust me we mean all you theists when we attack christians. 

There's another athiest tenant. We dont care what god you are referring to. Cherry picker.


----------



## sealybobo

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I noted earlier,  you're suffering from religiously inspired self-hate. It's a legacy of the myth of original sin wherein fundie christians believe they carry the curse imparted to A&E (not the cable station). Free yourself from that burden.
> 
> 
> 
> Curse? Who said our animal nature is a curse? It is just the way we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should read your bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am neither a Christian or a Jew so I don't view them as an authority for me. Do you actually believe that every religious person in the world is a Christian? Because you really  do seem that ignorant by your remarks in this forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find your extremist positions to be in line with the worst elements of fundamentalist christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't even really know what my positions are except were I told you that we are animals driven by instinct and hunger just like any other animal
Click to expand...

Do you believe in god? That's all we need to know.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I noted earlier,  you're suffering from religiously inspired self-hate. It's a legacy of the myth of original sin wherein fundie christians believe they carry the curse imparted to A&E (not the cable station). Free yourself from that burden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how is it self hate to recognize human nature for what it is and your capacity to do evil?
> 
> human beings are capable of great evil. Whether their our corruption, apathy, or willful choice.
> 
> that's human nature. You cannot avoid it or deny it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think atheists do an awful lot to deny it. It is one of the reasons they scapegoat religion and demonize believers. They need someone to blame for this mess and they do not want to accept that it is our very nature that has cause calamity because they would have to admit that their own nature is subject to the same things as everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. What a shame that all those horrible atheists are blaming you lovely religious folks for "all this mess". Although, "all this mess" involves you lovely religious folks slaughtering each other across the globe.
> 
> Can't you email the jeebus and have him move up the timetable for the christo-apocalypse? Isn't it about time for another of your gawds humanity wiping episodes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our current situation is not a result of the conflicts that were and are being fought. Those conflicts were inevitable because certain situations developed that put an even greater emphasis on the production of goods and consumption of resources which led to even greater competition, conflict and exploitation. Our current problems happened because humanity industrialized too fast for it's own good.  And that industrialization was a product of the scientific and technological revolutions of the 17th and 18th century. If anything is to blame for our current situation it is scientific and technological "progress". And yet you people are somehow the causes of our troubles is going to solve our trouble. Not very rational or logical to say the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. The attainment of knowledge is a horrible thing.
Click to expand...

When it is done without wisdom it certainly can be. A child who is taught how to build bombs could be a very dangerous person.


----------



## sealybobo

CynthiaZ said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how is it self hate to recognize human nature for what it is and your capacity to do evil?
> 
> human beings are capable of great evil. Whether their our corruption, apathy, or willful choice.
> 
> that's human nature. You cannot avoid it or deny it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think atheists do an awful lot to deny it. It is one of the reasons they scapegoat religion and demonize believers. They need someone to blame for this mess and they do not want to accept that it is our very nature that has cause calamity because they would have to admit that their own nature is subject to the same things as everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. What a shame that all those horrible atheists are blaming you lovely religious folks for "all this mess". Although, "all this mess" involves you lovely religious folks slaughtering each other across the globe.
> 
> Can't you email the jeebus and have him move up the timetable for the christo-apocalypse? Isn't it about time for another of your gawds humanity wiping episodes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our current situation is not a result of the conflicts that were and are being fought. Those conflicts were inevitable because certain situations developed that put an even greater emphasis on the production of goods and consumption of resources which led to even greater competition, conflict and exploitation. Our current problems happened because humanity industrialized too fast for it's own good.  And that industrialization was a product of the scientific and technological revolutions of the 17th and 18th century. If anything is to blame for our current situation it is scientific and technological "progress". And yet you people are somehow the causes of our troubles is going to solve our trouble. Not very rational or logical to say the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. The attainment of knowledge is a horrible thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it is done without wisdom it certainly can be. A child who is taught how to build bombs could be a very dangerous person.
Click to expand...

One reason or example of why believing in gods is bad is that people who believe such things can be convinced to kill for their god.


----------



## CynthiaZ

Hollie said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I noted earlier,  you're suffering from religiously inspired self-hate. It's a legacy of the myth of original sin wherein fundie christians believe they carry the curse imparted to A&E (not the cable station). Free yourself from that burden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how is it self hate to recognize human nature for what it is and your capacity to do evil?
> 
> human beings are capable of great evil. Whether their our corruption, apathy, or willful choice.
> 
> that's human nature. You cannot avoid it or deny it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think atheists do an awful lot to deny it. It is one of the reasons they scapegoat religion and demonize believers. They need someone to blame for this mess and they do not want to accept that it is our very nature that has cause calamity because they would have to admit that their own nature is subject to the same things as everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee whiz. What a shame that all those horrible atheists are blaming you lovely religious folks for "all this mess". Although, "all this mess" involves you lovely religious folks slaughtering each other across the globe.
> 
> Can't you email the jeebus and have him move up the timetable for the christo-apocalypse? Isn't it about time for another of your gawds humanity wiping episodes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God isn't going to wipe out humanity. He's going to stop you from doing it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have nothing regarding humanity wiping on my calendar.
Click to expand...

Well most climate and environmental scientists do have something about mass extinction on their calenders.


----------



## CynthiaZ

sealybobo said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. And you claim religious people are trying to deny reality. I am just stating the facts.
> What kind of world do you think we live in? A world of unicorns and rainbows where good always triumphs over evil and everyone gets a happily ever after? I am sorry but we do not live in that world. We live in this world and in this world just about every living creature nourishes itself by metabolizing the death of other living creatures. In order to live in our world you have to kill and there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Simple biology tells us that we are all basically animals and that we are driven by the same instincts and desires has any other animal. And like our closet evolutionary cousin the chimpanzee we are inherently tribal and violent primates who enforced hierarchical control  by savage violence. This isn't something new, we have always been this ways and our biology isn't going to change anytime soon.
> 
> And as for your little myths of scientism and moral progress. It's just not going to happen. There is never going to be a scientific utopia where technology solves all our problems. Our nature will just not allow it. Every time human beings attempt to build a utopia the first thing they do is demonize others who they think are impeding their fantasy world and therefore make things worse by creating more conflict and the cycle of violence just keeps rolling on and on and on all because their are people who someone got it in their head that they can fix this. It was are attempt to control and fix nature to suit us that got us into this mess in the first place and impeding catastrophic consequence loom over us with are meddling with nature. Now we are facing a mass extinction event dues to our abusing the planet. If that reality frightens you then too bad. All your wishful thinking and sci-fi fantasy will do nothing to fix or prevent it. So you might as well accept it and come to terms with it. Nothing last forever in this world, all things are impermanent and that includes the human race.
> 
> 
> 
> As I noted earlier,  you're suffering from religiously inspired self-hate. It's a legacy of the myth of original sin wherein fundie christians believe they carry the curse imparted to A&E (not the cable station). Free yourself from that burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Curse? Who said our animal nature is a curse? It is just the way we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should read your bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am neither a Christian or a Jew so I don't view them as an authority for me. Do you actually believe that every religious person in the world is a Christian? Because you really  do seem that ignorant by your remarks in this forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry its hard to keep track of you all. Trust me we mean all you theists when we attack christians.
> 
> There's another athiest tenant. We dont care what god you are referring to. Cherry picker.
Click to expand...

It really is just you intellectual laziness the belies nothing more your willful ignorance of the subject of religion. You know what people usually think of a person who goes around pretending he is an expert on a subject he has no knowledge of and then goes around criticizing it? People usually think that person is an asshole.


----------



## Carla_Danger

CynthiaZ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I noted earlier,  you're suffering from religiously inspired self-hate. It's a legacy of the myth of original sin wherein fundie christians believe they carry the curse imparted to A&E (not the cable station). Free yourself from that burden.
> 
> 
> 
> Curse? Who said our animal nature is a curse? It is just the way we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should read your bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am neither a Christian or a Jew so I don't view them as an authority for me. Do you actually believe that every religious person in the world is a Christian? Because you really  do seem that ignorant by your remarks in this forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry its hard to keep track of you all. Trust me we mean all you theists when we attack christians.
> 
> There's another athiest tenant. We dont care what god you are referring to. Cherry picker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It really is just you intellectual laziness the belies nothing more your willful ignorance of the subject of religion. You know what people usually think of a person who goes around pretending he is an expert on a subject he has no knowledge of and then goes around criticizing it? People usually think that person is an asshole.
Click to expand...



Would you like for me to hold up a mirror?


----------



## CynthiaZ

Carla_Danger said:


> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Curse? Who said our animal nature is a curse? It is just the way we are.
> 
> 
> 
> You should read your bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am neither a Christian or a Jew so I don't view them as an authority for me. Do you actually believe that every religious person in the world is a Christian? Because you really  do seem that ignorant by your remarks in this forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry its hard to keep track of you all. Trust me we mean all you theists when we attack christians.
> 
> There's another athiest tenant. We dont care what god you are referring to. Cherry picker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It really is just you intellectual laziness the belies nothing more your willful ignorance of the subject of religion. You know what people usually think of a person who goes around pretending he is an expert on a subject he has no knowledge of and then goes around criticizing it? People usually think that person is an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like for me to hold up a mirror?
Click to expand...

Go ahead but you may not like what you see when you find yourself staring at the intellectually vacuous person that is a true reflection of who you really are. You know nothing about religion and the diversity of religious experience yet you continue and continue to talk about it like you are an expert. And your criticism is just as shallow. Failing because your own lack of character and intellectual fortitude to except that the problems of humanity lie completely within the problem of human nature you in your laziness and cowardice choose instead to create a scapegoat. A scapegoat called "religion" but is unlike any religion known to humanity because it is product of your own fevered and fanatical imagination. Just as Klu Klux Klan blamed all that was wrong in the world on former black slaves and Northern carpetbaggers, so you to choose to scapegoat "religion" because it is an easy target in your mind and you just don't have the will or fortitude to see the complexity that lies behind humanities problems so you instead choose to be as simple minded as the fundamentalist and racist bigots that you fault. But the truth is you are just like them. So please hold up your mirror and take a good look in it because all you are going to see is the reflection of a two-faced bigoted hypocrite. And being the bigot you are, you do nothing but spread more hatred and more aggression and further the problems that you unjustly lay at the feet of some abstraction you call "religion".


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> sealy, I'm making a list of common atheist postulations. The first atheist postulation is this; 1. the universe is uncaused.
> 
> You said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The honest answer is we dont know. You claim to know, which is why science is discovering the real answers not theists. Theists claim to already know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anything for sure, just for the record, but forget about me. We're talking about atheism. Do you say you don't know because you are agnostic rather than atheist? If so, would you agree that an atheist would say we live in an accidental universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does it have to be accidental?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because caused and accidental are the only two options and you deny caused.......
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What caused the big bang? I might guess a spark and you think its a bearded man in a robe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> see?....an accident or a cause.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What caused god? Same thing caused the big bang.
Click to expand...

if there is no beginning one needs no cause......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> I've previously laid out the irreconcilable problems with the genesis fable.


lol.....you've done no such thing on this board....is this something you did as a high school paper and remember fondly?......


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've previously laid out the irreconcilable problems with the genesis fable.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....you've done no such thing on this board....is this something you did as a high school paper and remember fondly?......
Click to expand...

I actually have. It' was a simple matter to show the collapse of the Genesis fable as a confused rambling with quite a number of irreconcilable problems.

Your ignorance of the various bibles you worship, the gawds invented around those bibles and your lack of any ability to refute the errors, contradictions and omissions makes you a laughable joke.

Go find my post and refute it, coward.


----------



## sealybobo

CynthiaZ said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I noted earlier,  you're suffering from religiously inspired self-hate. It's a legacy of the myth of original sin wherein fundie christians believe they carry the curse imparted to A&E (not the cable station). Free yourself from that burden.
> 
> 
> 
> Curse? Who said our animal nature is a curse? It is just the way we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should read your bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am neither a Christian or a Jew so I don't view them as an authority for me. Do you actually believe that every religious person in the world is a Christian? Because you really  do seem that ignorant by your remarks in this forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry its hard to keep track of you all. Trust me we mean all you theists when we attack christians.
> 
> There's another athiest tenant. We dont care what god you are referring to. Cherry picker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It really is just you intellectual laziness the belies nothing more your willful ignorance of the subject of religion. You know what people usually think of a person who goes around pretending he is an expert on a subject he has no knowledge of and then goes around criticizing it? People usually think that person is an asshole.
Click to expand...

What dont I know? Fill me in on what I'm missing.

You sound like a Muslim or Mormon trying to convince me that god talked to Joseph or Mohammad. But instead you dont believe those religions you just believe your silly story. Well I dont. Does that make me an asshole? Good.


----------



## sealybobo

CynthiaZ said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CynthiaZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should read your bibles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am neither a Christian or a Jew so I don't view them as an authority for me. Do you actually believe that every religious person in the world is a Christian? Because you really  do seem that ignorant by your remarks in this forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry its hard to keep track of you all. Trust me we mean all you theists when we attack christians.
> 
> There's another athiest tenant. We dont care what god you are referring to. Cherry picker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It really is just you intellectual laziness the belies nothing more your willful ignorance of the subject of religion. You know what people usually think of a person who goes around pretending he is an expert on a subject he has no knowledge of and then goes around criticizing it? People usually think that person is an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like for me to hold up a mirror?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go ahead but you may not like what you see when you find yourself staring at the intellectually vacuous person that is a true reflection of who you really are. You know nothing about religion and the diversity of religious experience yet you continue and continue to talk about it like you are an expert. And your criticism is just as shallow. Failing because your own lack of character and intellectual fortitude to except that the problems of humanity lie completely within the problem of human nature you in your laziness and cowardice choose instead to create a scapegoat. A scapegoat called "religion" but is unlike any religion known to humanity because it is product of your own fevered and fanatical imagination. Just as Klu Klux Klan blamed all that was wrong in the world on former black slaves and Northern carpetbaggers, so you to choose to scapegoat "religion" because it is an easy target in your mind and you just don't have the will or fortitude to see the complexity that lies behind humanities problems so you instead choose to be as simple minded as the fundamentalist and racist bigots that you fault. But the truth is you are just like them. So please hold up your mirror and take a good look in it because all you are going to see is the reflection of a two-faced bigoted hypocrite. And being the bigot you are, you do nothing but spread more hatred and more aggression and further the problems that you unjustly lay at the feet of some abstraction you call "religion".
Click to expand...

Yea sure. You keep believing people who are trying to help you out of your delusion are mean people. I bet you think Satan has taken over our minds. Stupid.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've previously laid out the irreconcilable problems with the genesis fable.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....you've done no such thing on this board....is this something you did as a high school paper and remember fondly?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I actually have. It' was a simple matter to show the collapse of the Genesis fable as a confused rambling with quite a number of irreconcilable problems.
> 
> Your ignorance of the various bibles you worship, the gawds invented around those bibles and your lack of any ability to refute the errors, contradictions and omissions makes you a laughable joke.
> 
> Go find my post and refute it, coward.
Click to expand...

Most athiest have done a lot more research and soul searching to overcome the brainwashing the 90% of society is under.

Its like we're the only ones sober but they won't let us drive.

They're mad because we dont share their delusion.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've previously laid out the irreconcilable problems with the genesis fable.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....you've done no such thing on this board....is this something you did as a high school paper and remember fondly?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I actually have. It' was a simple matter to show the collapse of the Genesis fable as a confused rambling with quite a number of irreconcilable problems.
> 
> Your ignorance of the various bibles you worship, the gawds invented around those bibles and your lack of any ability to refute the errors, contradictions and omissions makes you a laughable joke.
> 
> Go find my post and refute it, coward.
Click to expand...

tell me where you have hidden it, coward......or did you just claim......"the only way anyone is allowed to read Genesis is as if it were literal narrative and therefore I decree it invalid".......now THAT is ignorance of the Bible I read......


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've previously laid out the irreconcilable problems with the genesis fable.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....you've done no such thing on this board....is this something you did as a high school paper and remember fondly?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I actually have. It' was a simple matter to show the collapse of the Genesis fable as a confused rambling with quite a number of irreconcilable problems.
> 
> Your ignorance of the various bibles you worship, the gawds invented around those bibles and your lack of any ability to refute the errors, contradictions and omissions makes you a laughable joke.
> 
> Go find my post and refute it, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tell me where you have hidden it, coward......or did you just claim......"the only way anyone is allowed to read Genesis is as if it were literal narrative and therefore I decree it invalid".......now THAT is ignorance of the Bible I read......
Click to expand...

My prior post is not hidden. You had posted in the thread until you were presented with the absurdity of the genesis fable when you found that a good time to shuffle off.

Coward. Look for the thread.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've previously laid out the irreconcilable problems with the genesis fable.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....you've done no such thing on this board....is this something you did as a high school paper and remember fondly?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I actually have. It' was a simple matter to show the collapse of the Genesis fable as a confused rambling with quite a number of irreconcilable problems.
> 
> Your ignorance of the various bibles you worship, the gawds invented around those bibles and your lack of any ability to refute the errors, contradictions and omissions makes you a laughable joke.
> 
> Go find my post and refute it, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tell me where you have hidden it, coward......or did you just claim......"the only way anyone is allowed to read Genesis is as if it were literal narrative and therefore I decree it invalid".......now THAT is ignorance of the Bible I read......
Click to expand...

Why for 2014 years you all swore it was literal and now those are just allegories? Won't be long till you admit
 Jesus is a made up story too. He might a been a real person but no more a god than ghandi or mlk. Should Indians turn ghandi into a god?


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've previously laid out the irreconcilable problems with the genesis fable.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....you've done no such thing on this board....is this something you did as a high school paper and remember fondly?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I actually have. It' was a simple matter to show the collapse of the Genesis fable as a confused rambling with quite a number of irreconcilable problems.
> 
> Your ignorance of the various bibles you worship, the gawds invented around those bibles and your lack of any ability to refute the errors, contradictions and omissions makes you a laughable joke.
> 
> Go find my post and refute it, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tell me where you have hidden it, coward......or did you just claim......"the only way anyone is allowed to read Genesis is as if it were literal narrative and therefore I decree it invalid".......now THAT is ignorance of the Bible I read......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My prior post is not hidden. You had posted in the thread until you were presented with the absurdity of the genesis fable when you found that a good time to shuffle off.
> 
> Coward. Look for the thread.
Click to expand...

Won't be long till Jesus is no different than ghandi. He was no god. Probably never said he was. That was his future followers and catholics that turned him into a god.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've previously laid out the irreconcilable problems with the genesis fable.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....you've done no such thing on this board....is this something you did as a high school paper and remember fondly?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I actually have. It' was a simple matter to show the collapse of the Genesis fable as a confused rambling with quite a number of irreconcilable problems.
> 
> Your ignorance of the various bibles you worship, the gawds invented around those bibles and your lack of any ability to refute the errors, contradictions and omissions makes you a laughable joke.
> 
> Go find my post and refute it, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tell me where you have hidden it, coward......or did you just claim......"the only way anyone is allowed to read Genesis is as if it were literal narrative and therefore I decree it invalid".......now THAT is ignorance of the Bible I read......
Click to expand...

First show us where god is hiding. The creep. Like a peeping tom. Watching me whack off and claims he's not turned on yet watches every time I do it.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've previously laid out the irreconcilable problems with the genesis fable.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....you've done no such thing on this board....is this something you did as a high school paper and remember fondly?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I actually have. It' was a simple matter to show the collapse of the Genesis fable as a confused rambling with quite a number of irreconcilable problems.
> 
> Your ignorance of the various bibles you worship, the gawds invented around those bibles and your lack of any ability to refute the errors, contradictions and omissions makes you a laughable joke.
> 
> Go find my post and refute it, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tell me where you have hidden it, coward......or did you just claim......"the only way anyone is allowed to read Genesis is as if it were literal narrative and therefore I decree it invalid".......now THAT is ignorance of the Bible I read......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My prior post is not hidden. You had posted in the thread until you were presented with the absurdity of the genesis fable when you found that a good time to shuffle off.
> 
> Coward. Look for the thread.
Click to expand...

there is no thread to look for.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've previously laid out the irreconcilable problems with the genesis fable.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....you've done no such thing on this board....is this something you did as a high school paper and remember fondly?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I actually have. It' was a simple matter to show the collapse of the Genesis fable as a confused rambling with quite a number of irreconcilable problems.
> 
> Your ignorance of the various bibles you worship, the gawds invented around those bibles and your lack of any ability to refute the errors, contradictions and omissions makes you a laughable joke.
> 
> Go find my post and refute it, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tell me where you have hidden it, coward......or did you just claim......"the only way anyone is allowed to read Genesis is as if it were literal narrative and therefore I decree it invalid".......now THAT is ignorance of the Bible I read......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why for 2014 years you all swore it was literal and now those are just allegories? Won't be long till you admit
> Jesus is a made up story too. He might a been a real person but no more a god than ghandi or mlk. Should Indians turn ghandi into a god?
Click to expand...

I am quite certain I am not 2014 years old.....in fact, I am quite certain I am 63....I am not responsible for what someone else believes, you or another Christian.....It isn't that difficult to identify the different genres of scripture.....I accept the fact it is challenging for you.....everything that requires thinking is challenging to you......


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've previously laid out the irreconcilable problems with the genesis fable.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....you've done no such thing on this board....is this something you did as a high school paper and remember fondly?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I actually have. It' was a simple matter to show the collapse of the Genesis fable as a confused rambling with quite a number of irreconcilable problems.
> 
> Your ignorance of the various bibles you worship, the gawds invented around those bibles and your lack of any ability to refute the errors, contradictions and omissions makes you a laughable joke.
> 
> Go find my post and refute it, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tell me where you have hidden it, coward......or did you just claim......"the only way anyone is allowed to read Genesis is as if it were literal narrative and therefore I decree it invalid".......now THAT is ignorance of the Bible I read......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First show us where god is hiding. The creep. Like a peeping tom. Watching me whack off and claims he's not turned on yet watches every time I do it.
Click to expand...

sorry child....even Hollie wouldn't be turned on by that.....


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've previously laid out the irreconcilable problems with the genesis fable.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....you've done no such thing on this board....is this something you did as a high school paper and remember fondly?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I actually have. It' was a simple matter to show the collapse of the Genesis fable as a confused rambling with quite a number of irreconcilable problems.
> 
> Your ignorance of the various bibles you worship, the gawds invented around those bibles and your lack of any ability to refute the errors, contradictions and omissions makes you a laughable joke.
> 
> Go find my post and refute it, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tell me where you have hidden it, coward......or did you just claim......"the only way anyone is allowed to read Genesis is as if it were literal narrative and therefore I decree it invalid".......now THAT is ignorance of the Bible I read......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My prior post is not hidden. You had posted in the thread until you were presented with the absurdity of the genesis fable when you found that a good time to shuffle off.
> 
> Coward. Look for the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no thread to look for.....
Click to expand...

Of course there is. You failed as usual.

why not just sit on your butt and pray Page 28 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've previously laid out the irreconcilable problems with the genesis fable.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....you've done no such thing on this board....is this something you did as a high school paper and remember fondly?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I actually have. It' was a simple matter to show the collapse of the Genesis fable as a confused rambling with quite a number of irreconcilable problems.
> 
> Your ignorance of the various bibles you worship, the gawds invented around those bibles and your lack of any ability to refute the errors, contradictions and omissions makes you a laughable joke.
> 
> Go find my post and refute it, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tell me where you have hidden it, coward......or did you just claim......"the only way anyone is allowed to read Genesis is as if it were literal narrative and therefore I decree it invalid".......now THAT is ignorance of the Bible I read......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First show us where god is hiding. The creep. Like a peeping tom. Watching me whack off and claims he's not turned on yet watches every time I do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry child....even Hollie wouldn't be turned on by that.....
Click to expand...

lovely folks you christians.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....you've done no such thing on this board....is this something you did as a high school paper and remember fondly?......
> 
> 
> 
> I actually have. It' was a simple matter to show the collapse of the Genesis fable as a confused rambling with quite a number of irreconcilable problems.
> 
> Your ignorance of the various bibles you worship, the gawds invented around those bibles and your lack of any ability to refute the errors, contradictions and omissions makes you a laughable joke.
> 
> Go find my post and refute it, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tell me where you have hidden it, coward......or did you just claim......"the only way anyone is allowed to read Genesis is as if it were literal narrative and therefore I decree it invalid".......now THAT is ignorance of the Bible I read......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My prior post is not hidden. You had posted in the thread until you were presented with the absurdity of the genesis fable when you found that a good time to shuffle off.
> 
> Coward. Look for the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no thread to look for.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course there is. You failed as usual.
> 
> why not just sit on your butt and pray Page 28 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


lol.....that's it?......sorry but your logical argument fails at this point....
"What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that"......of course there is.......it was the action of the person in the story that was evil, not the action of God.....
next?......
by the way I already explained this to you in post #284 in that thread.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....you've done no such thing on this board....is this something you did as a high school paper and remember fondly?......
> 
> 
> 
> I actually have. It' was a simple matter to show the collapse of the Genesis fable as a confused rambling with quite a number of irreconcilable problems.
> 
> Your ignorance of the various bibles you worship, the gawds invented around those bibles and your lack of any ability to refute the errors, contradictions and omissions makes you a laughable joke.
> 
> Go find my post and refute it, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tell me where you have hidden it, coward......or did you just claim......"the only way anyone is allowed to read Genesis is as if it were literal narrative and therefore I decree it invalid".......now THAT is ignorance of the Bible I read......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First show us where god is hiding. The creep. Like a peeping tom. Watching me whack off and claims he's not turned on yet watches every time I do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry child....even Hollie wouldn't be turned on by that.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lovely folks you christians.
Click to expand...

???....I'm not the one talking about whacking off where he can be seen......that's your buddy the atheist.......


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually have. It' was a simple matter to show the collapse of the Genesis fable as a confused rambling with quite a number of irreconcilable problems.
> 
> Your ignorance of the various bibles you worship, the gawds invented around those bibles and your lack of any ability to refute the errors, contradictions and omissions makes you a laughable joke.
> 
> Go find my post and refute it, coward.
> 
> 
> 
> tell me where you have hidden it, coward......or did you just claim......"the only way anyone is allowed to read Genesis is as if it were literal narrative and therefore I decree it invalid".......now THAT is ignorance of the Bible I read......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My prior post is not hidden. You had posted in the thread until you were presented with the absurdity of the genesis fable when you found that a good time to shuffle off.
> 
> Coward. Look for the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no thread to look for.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course there is. You failed as usual.
> 
> why not just sit on your butt and pray Page 28 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.....that's it?......sorry but your logical argument fails at this point....
> "What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that"......of course there is.......it was the action of the person in the story that was evil, not the action of God.....
> next?......
> by the way I already explained this to you in post #284 in that thread.....
Click to expand...

I was certain you would slither away this time as you did last. 

It's just so typical of the self-loathing zealots who understand nothing of the silly Sunday school lessons they were taught at the Pat Robertsom madrassah.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually have. It' was a simple matter to show the collapse of the Genesis fable as a confused rambling with quite a number of irreconcilable problems.
> 
> Your ignorance of the various bibles you worship, the gawds invented around those bibles and your lack of any ability to refute the errors, contradictions and omissions makes you a laughable joke.
> 
> Go find my post and refute it, coward.
> 
> 
> 
> tell me where you have hidden it, coward......or did you just claim......"the only way anyone is allowed to read Genesis is as if it were literal narrative and therefore I decree it invalid".......now THAT is ignorance of the Bible I read......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First show us where god is hiding. The creep. Like a peeping tom. Watching me whack off and claims he's not turned on yet watches every time I do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry child....even Hollie wouldn't be turned on by that.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lovely folks you christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???....I'm not the one talking about whacking off where he can be seen......that's your buddy the atheist.......
Click to expand...

Where can I go so god doesnt see? Do you masturbate knowing gods watching?


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually have. It' was a simple matter to show the collapse of the Genesis fable as a confused rambling with quite a number of irreconcilable problems.
> 
> Your ignorance of the various bibles you worship, the gawds invented around those bibles and your lack of any ability to refute the errors, contradictions and omissions makes you a laughable joke.
> 
> Go find my post and refute it, coward.
> 
> 
> 
> tell me where you have hidden it, coward......or did you just claim......"the only way anyone is allowed to read Genesis is as if it were literal narrative and therefore I decree it invalid".......now THAT is ignorance of the Bible I read......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My prior post is not hidden. You had posted in the thread until you were presented with the absurdity of the genesis fable when you found that a good time to shuffle off.
> 
> Coward. Look for the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no thread to look for.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course there is. You failed as usual.
> 
> why not just sit on your butt and pray Page 28 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.....that's it?......sorry but your logical argument fails at this point....
> "What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that"......of course there is.......it was the action of the person in the story that was evil, not the action of God.....
> next?......
> by the way I already explained this to you in post #284 in that thread.....
Click to expand...

I love trying to explain to my dad science says there doesnt have to be a god. I dont try to explain exactly because he just says " how does science know that for sure".

Now mind you he admits that no one ever met god and he believes Jesus as god is just embellishment. Same as Mohammad and moses and Jo smith. So he gets this much.

But he just can't fathom that all this happened by chance or without some kind of creator. Is there a hell? He cherry picks that one. Is god testing us by hiding and you have to be good or else? He believes that. So I get where you theists are coming from. You guys just can't believe there is no god. Besides that theists are like snowflakes.

Other than that some of you want to believe. Or some of you been brainwashed.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me where you have hidden it, coward......or did you just claim......"the only way anyone is allowed to read Genesis is as if it were literal narrative and therefore I decree it invalid".......now THAT is ignorance of the Bible I read......
> 
> 
> 
> My prior post is not hidden. You had posted in the thread until you were presented with the absurdity of the genesis fable when you found that a good time to shuffle off.
> 
> Coward. Look for the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no thread to look for.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course there is. You failed as usual.
> 
> why not just sit on your butt and pray Page 28 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.....that's it?......sorry but your logical argument fails at this point....
> "What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that"......of course there is.......it was the action of the person in the story that was evil, not the action of God.....
> next?......
> by the way I already explained this to you in post #284 in that thread.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was certain you would slither away this time as you did last.
> 
> It's just so typical of the self-loathing zealots who understand nothing of the silly Sunday school lessons they were taught at the Pat Robertsom madrassah.
Click to expand...

don't dare respond to my comment this time either I see......too busy pretending I am what you wish I was........


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me where you have hidden it, coward......or did you just claim......"the only way anyone is allowed to read Genesis is as if it were literal narrative and therefore I decree it invalid".......now THAT is ignorance of the Bible I read......
> 
> 
> 
> First show us where god is hiding. The creep. Like a peeping tom. Watching me whack off and claims he's not turned on yet watches every time I do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry child....even Hollie wouldn't be turned on by that.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lovely folks you christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???....I'm not the one talking about whacking off where he can be seen......that's your buddy the atheist.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where can I go so god doesnt see? Do you masturbate knowing gods watching?
Click to expand...

you bring the special touch of your own type of classiness to this board, silly...


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me where you have hidden it, coward......or did you just claim......"the only way anyone is allowed to read Genesis is as if it were literal narrative and therefore I decree it invalid".......now THAT is ignorance of the Bible I read......
> 
> 
> 
> My prior post is not hidden. You had posted in the thread until you were presented with the absurdity of the genesis fable when you found that a good time to shuffle off.
> 
> Coward. Look for the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no thread to look for.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course there is. You failed as usual.
> 
> why not just sit on your butt and pray Page 28 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.....that's it?......sorry but your logical argument fails at this point....
> "What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that"......of course there is.......it was the action of the person in the story that was evil, not the action of God.....
> next?......
> by the way I already explained this to you in post #284 in that thread.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love trying to explain to my dad science says there doesnt have to be a god. I dont try to explain exactly because he just says " how does science know that for sure".
> 
> Now mind you he admits that no one ever met god and he believes Jesus as god is just embellishment. Same as Mohammad and moses and Jo smith. So he gets this much.
> 
> But he just can't fathom that all this happened by chance or without some kind of creator. Is there a hell? He cherry picks that one. Is god testing us by hiding and you have to be good or else? He believes that. So I get where you theists are coming from. You guys just can't believe there is no god. Besides that theists are like snowflakes.
> 
> Other than that some of you want to believe. Or some of you been brainwashed.
Click to expand...

I'm glad to see that your dad still knows more than you do about science......I thought maybe your ignorance would have worn him down by now.....


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> First show us where god is hiding. The creep. Like a peeping tom. Watching me whack off and claims he's not turned on yet watches every time I do it.
> 
> 
> 
> sorry child....even Hollie wouldn't be turned on by that.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lovely folks you christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???....I'm not the one talking about whacking off where he can be seen......that's your buddy the atheist.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where can I go so god doesnt see? Do you masturbate knowing gods watching?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you bring the special touch of your own type of classiness to this board, silly...
Click to expand...

Dr Ruth can talk about it but I can't?


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My prior post is not hidden. You had posted in the thread until you were presented with the absurdity of the genesis fable when you found that a good time to shuffle off.
> 
> Coward. Look for the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no thread to look for.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course there is. You failed as usual.
> 
> why not just sit on your butt and pray Page 28 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.....that's it?......sorry but your logical argument fails at this point....
> "What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that"......of course there is.......it was the action of the person in the story that was evil, not the action of God.....
> next?......
> by the way I already explained this to you in post #284 in that thread.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love trying to explain to my dad science says there doesnt have to be a god. I dont try to explain exactly because he just says " how does science know that for sure".
> 
> Now mind you he admits that no one ever met god and he believes Jesus as god is just embellishment. Same as Mohammad and moses and Jo smith. So he gets this much.
> 
> But he just can't fathom that all this happened by chance or without some kind of creator. Is there a hell? He cherry picks that one. Is god testing us by hiding and you have to be good or else? He believes that. So I get where you theists are coming from. You guys just can't believe there is no god. Besides that theists are like snowflakes.
> 
> Other than that some of you want to believe. Or some of you been brainwashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm glad to see that your dad still knows more than you do about science......I thought maybe your ignorance would have worn him down by now.....
Click to expand...

I dont argue so he gets mad. I pretty much agree there must be "something" even though I dont. So add liar to my list. 

Omg family guy Brian told the family he's an athiest and Lois says that's about the worst thing a person can be. Now megs trying to make him play fetch with a cross. Kirk Cameron converted her.


----------



## sealybobo

Now meg told the news Brian's an athiest. Now people are trying to kill Brian.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My prior post is not hidden. You had posted in the thread until you were presented with the absurdity of the genesis fable when you found that a good time to shuffle off.
> 
> Coward. Look for the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no thread to look for.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course there is. You failed as usual.
> 
> why not just sit on your butt and pray Page 28 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.....that's it?......sorry but your logical argument fails at this point....
> "What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that"......of course there is.......it was the action of the person in the story that was evil, not the action of God.....
> next?......
> by the way I already explained this to you in post #284 in that thread.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was certain you would slither away this time as you did last.
> 
> It's just so typical of the self-loathing zealots who understand nothing of the silly Sunday school lessons they were taught at the Pat Robertsom madrassah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't dare respond to my comment this time either I see......too busy pretending I am what you wish I was........
Click to expand...

I just find it comical that you make bellicose claims in support of your YEC'ist worldview, yet, when your literal rendering of the Genesis tale is dismantled as confused and contradictory, you shuffle off slack-jawed and dumbfounded.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no thread to look for.....
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is. You failed as usual.
> 
> why not just sit on your butt and pray Page 28 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.....that's it?......sorry but your logical argument fails at this point....
> "What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that"......of course there is.......it was the action of the person in the story that was evil, not the action of God.....
> next?......
> by the way I already explained this to you in post #284 in that thread.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was certain you would slither away this time as you did last.
> 
> It's just so typical of the self-loathing zealots who understand nothing of the silly Sunday school lessons they were taught at the Pat Robertsom madrassah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't dare respond to my comment this time either I see......too busy pretending I am what you wish I was........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find it comical that you make bellicose claims in support of your YEC'ist worldview, yet, when your literal rendering of the Genesis tale is dismantled as confused and contradictory, you shuffle off slack-jawed and dumbfounded.
Click to expand...

you apparently have me confused with someone you wish you were arguing with instead of me......I don't believe in the literal rendering of Genesis that fundamentalists and atheists insist on......


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is. You failed as usual.
> 
> why not just sit on your butt and pray Page 28 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....that's it?......sorry but your logical argument fails at this point....
> "What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that"......of course there is.......it was the action of the person in the story that was evil, not the action of God.....
> next?......
> by the way I already explained this to you in post #284 in that thread.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was certain you would slither away this time as you did last.
> 
> It's just so typical of the self-loathing zealots who understand nothing of the silly Sunday school lessons they were taught at the Pat Robertsom madrassah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't dare respond to my comment this time either I see......too busy pretending I am what you wish I was........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find it comical that you make bellicose claims in support of your YEC'ist worldview, yet, when your literal rendering of the Genesis tale is dismantled as confused and contradictory, you shuffle off slack-jawed and dumbfounded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you apparently have me confused with someone you wish you were arguing with instead of me......I don't believe in the literal rendering of Genesis that fundamentalists and atheists insist on......
Click to expand...

As usual, you're backsliding and dancing as your extremist views regrading a YEC'IST literal rendering of the genesis fable is shown to be rife with errors and contradictions.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....that's it?......sorry but your logical argument fails at this point....
> "What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that"......of course there is.......it was the action of the person in the story that was evil, not the action of God.....
> next?......
> by the way I already explained this to you in post #284 in that thread.....
> 
> 
> 
> I was certain you would slither away this time as you did last.
> 
> It's just so typical of the self-loathing zealots who understand nothing of the silly Sunday school lessons they were taught at the Pat Robertsom madrassah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't dare respond to my comment this time either I see......too busy pretending I am what you wish I was........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find it comical that you make bellicose claims in support of your YEC'ist worldview, yet, when your literal rendering of the Genesis tale is dismantled as confused and contradictory, you shuffle off slack-jawed and dumbfounded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you apparently have me confused with someone you wish you were arguing with instead of me......I don't believe in the literal rendering of Genesis that fundamentalists and atheists insist on......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you're backsliding and dancing as your extremist views regrading a YEC'IST literal rendering of the genesis fable is shown to be rife with errors and contradictions.
Click to expand...

and as usual, you pasted a comment you've used against every person you've ever argued against, regardless of what they say or believe......


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was certain you would slither away this time as you did last.
> 
> It's just so typical of the self-loathing zealots who understand nothing of the silly Sunday school lessons they were taught at the Pat Robertsom madrassah.
> 
> 
> 
> don't dare respond to my comment this time either I see......too busy pretending I am what you wish I was........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find it comical that you make bellicose claims in support of your YEC'ist worldview, yet, when your literal rendering of the Genesis tale is dismantled as confused and contradictory, you shuffle off slack-jawed and dumbfounded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you apparently have me confused with someone you wish you were arguing with instead of me......I don't believe in the literal rendering of Genesis that fundamentalists and atheists insist on......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you're backsliding and dancing as your extremist views regrading a YEC'IST literal rendering of the genesis fable is shown to be rife with errors and contradictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and as usual, you pasted a comment you've used against every person you've ever argued against, regardless of what they say or believe......
Click to expand...

You clones are predictable in that your attempts at argument follow a script.


----------



## PostmodernProph

lol......Miss Paste Her Own Quotes complains that we're the ones following a script......


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> lol......Miss Paste Her Own Quotes complains that we're the ones following a script......


And you YEC'sits still cannot refute it.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol......Miss Paste Her Own Quotes complains that we're the ones following a script......
> 
> 
> 
> And you YEC'sits still cannot refute it.
Click to expand...

refute what....that I am a YEC....obviously I can
that I follow some type of script?.....those that actually read my posts know that I don't follow the script you claim I do...


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol......Miss Paste Her Own Quotes complains that we're the ones following a script......
> 
> 
> 
> And you YEC'sits still cannot refute it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> refute what....that I am a YEC....obviously I can
> that I follow some type of script?.....those that actually read my posts know that I don't follow the script you claim I do...
Click to expand...

You're following exactly the script you YEC'ists claim not to follow.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol......Miss Paste Her Own Quotes complains that we're the ones following a script......
> 
> 
> 
> And you YEC'sits still cannot refute it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> refute what....that I am a YEC....obviously I can
> that I follow some type of script?.....those that actually read my posts know that I don't follow the script you claim I do...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're following exactly the script you YEC'ists claim not to follow.
Click to expand...

so you insist when I say the earth is NOT 6000 years old I am following a script that says the earth is 6000 years old........and at the same time you want people to believe you aren't an idiot.....


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol......Miss Paste Her Own Quotes complains that we're the ones following a script......
> 
> 
> 
> And you YEC'sits still cannot refute it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> refute what....that I am a YEC....obviously I can
> that I follow some type of script?.....those that actually read my posts know that I don't follow the script you claim I do...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're following exactly the script you YEC'ists claim not to follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you insist when I say the earth is NOT 6000 years old I am following a script that says the earth is 6000 years old........and at the same time you want people to believe you aren't an idiot.....
Click to expand...

I understand you're angry and frustrated at not being able to defend your YEC'ist beliefs but you will have to deal with knowledge and enlightenment making your worldview indefensible.


----------



## PostmodernProph

lol....you are angry that I don't believe what you feel confident arguing with......so you refuse to accept the fact I don't believe it.....


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> lol....you are angry that I don't believe what you feel confident arguing with......so you refuse to accept the fact I don't believe it.....


Of course you do.Your odd view of reality is entirely consistent with that of the Christian extremist - little more than a clone of any one of the fundie online ministries.


----------



## PostmodernProph

bad news Hollie.......no matter how often you repeat that prayer it isn't going to be answered......


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> bad news Hollie.......no matter how often you repeat that prayer it isn't going to be answered......


That actually defines the goals of your fundamentalist ministries. I'm afraid you need to get past the indoctrination you were subjected to at your madrassah.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> bad news Hollie.......no matter how often you repeat that prayer it isn't going to be answered......
> 
> 
> 
> That actually defines the goals of your fundamentalist ministries. I'm afraid you need to get past the indoctrination you were subjected to at your madrassah.
Click to expand...

the only goal of my ministry is to correct the impact of your ignorant posts so that no children be harmed in the reading of this board......


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> bad news Hollie.......no matter how often you repeat that prayer it isn't going to be answered......
> 
> 
> 
> That actually defines the goals of your fundamentalist ministries. I'm afraid you need to get past the indoctrination you were subjected to at your madrassah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the only goal of my ministry is to correct the impact of your ignorant posts so that no children be harmed in the reading of this board......
Click to expand...

Your ministry churns out you clones like assembly line YEC'ist groupies for the ICR.


----------



## Carla_Danger

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> bad news Hollie.......no matter how often you repeat that prayer it isn't going to be answered......
> 
> 
> 
> That actually defines the goals of your fundamentalist ministries. I'm afraid you need to get past the indoctrination you were subjected to at your madrassah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the only goal of my ministry is to correct the impact of your ignorant posts so that no children be harmed in the reading of this board......
Click to expand...




You're posting for Jeebus?

It's odd that you'd be worried about children. Why would they be reading this forum, when they can learn valuable stories/lessons in the Bible, like how Noah turned out to be a drunk?


----------



## PostmodernProph

that looks like the sort of book folks like you would want to hawk......


----------



## Carla_Danger

PostmodernProph said:


> that looks like the sort of book folks like you would want to hawk......




I preferred not lying by omission with my own children. To each his own I suppose.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Carla_Danger said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> that looks like the sort of book folks like you would want to hawk......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I preferred not lying by omission with my own children. To each his own I suppose.
Click to expand...

we all know you prefer actively lying.....


----------



## Carla_Danger

PostmodernProph said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> that looks like the sort of book folks like you would want to hawk......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I preferred not lying by omission with my own children. To each his own I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we all know you prefer actively lying.....
Click to expand...



What have I ever lied to you about?


----------



## PostmodernProph

Carla_Danger said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> that looks like the sort of book folks like you would want to hawk......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I preferred not lying by omission with my own children. To each his own I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we all know you prefer actively lying.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What have I ever lied to you about?
Click to expand...

?????......more than half your posts are not true.....


----------

