Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[PostmodernProph]

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.

that there is no god....are you one of those atheists who is unaware what atheists believe in?......

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.

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........

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.

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]

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?......

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......

Of course you can. You A-theistic belief regarding the gods of others.

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.

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.

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 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......

 

[PostmodernProph]

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

"concluding" in the absence of proof.....

False. Concluding based upon the completely unsupportable claims

I'm not arguing that what choice you made isn't obvious.....I'm just pointing out that it remains a choice, nonetheless.....

And it's been pointed out that concluding your multi-gods are no less a human invention than Leprechauns is a rational conclusion.

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]

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.

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.

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?......

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......

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......

Obviously yes. Being A-theistic regarding belief in Zeus makes you an atheist.

 

[Hollie]

There is no requirement for "belief" to conclude

"concluding" in the absence of proof.....

False. Concluding based upon the completely unsupportable claims

I'm not arguing that what choice you made isn't obvious.....I'm just pointing out that it remains a choice, nonetheless.....

And it's been pointed out that concluding your multi-gods are no less a human invention than Leprechauns is a rational conclusion.

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.....

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]

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]

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.

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.

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?......

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......

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......

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]

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?

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]

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]

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?

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]

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......

Of course you can. You A-theistic belief regarding the gods of others.

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.

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 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......

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......

 

[PostmodernProph]

"concluding" in the absence of proof.....

False. Concluding based upon the completely unsupportable claims

I'm not arguing that what choice you made isn't obvious.....I'm just pointing out that it remains a choice, nonetheless.....

And it's been pointed out that concluding your multi-gods are no less a human invention than Leprechauns is a rational conclusion.

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.....

Perhaps it's just me

and there you have it....

 

[PostmodernProph]

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......

Of course you can. You A-theistic belief regarding the gods of others.

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.

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 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......

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......

 

[PostmodernProph]

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]

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.......

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.......

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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......

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......

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......

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]

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.

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......

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......

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......

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]

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!"..........

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!"..........

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!"..........

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]

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!"..........

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!"..........

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!"..........

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.

I've always wondered if the fundamentalists know about the two creation stories, or if they just carry that book for show???