Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[sealybobo]

Did god fuck her?

 

[sealybobo]

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?

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]

I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179

That wasn't a joke?

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?

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]

I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179

That wasn't a joke?

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?

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...

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

I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179

That wasn't a joke?

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?

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...

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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?

I go to church to meet women and to socialize.

????....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]

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]

I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179

That wasn't a joke?

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?

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...

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color

do most bald people deny the existence of hair?.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Why there is no god

I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179

That wasn't a joke?

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?

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...

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.......

 

[Hollie]

Why there is no god

I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179

That wasn't a joke?

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?

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...

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.......

That simply is true. Your inability to understand some very simple concepts is concerning.

 

[dblack]

Why there is no god

I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179

That wasn't a joke?

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?

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...

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.......

That simply is true. Your inability to understand some very simple concepts is concerning.

oh joy! let's debate what the meaning of 'is' is.

 

[Tuatara]

I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179

That wasn't a joke?

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?

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]

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.

There is no atheist version of "God did it."

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’.

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.

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.

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]

Why there is no god

I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179

That wasn't a joke?

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?

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...

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.......

That simply is true. Your inability to understand some very simple concepts is concerning.

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]

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
ˌadjective

1. 
   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; informalBible-thumping "an evangelical preacher"

     [TBODY] [/TBODY]
   • zealous in advocating something.

noun
noun: evangelical; plural noun: evangelicals

1. 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?

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?

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?

 

[Hollie]

Why there is no god

I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179

That wasn't a joke?

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?

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...

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.......

That simply is true. Your inability to understand some very simple concepts is concerning.

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......

I understand you're angry and frustrated at your inability to offer a coherent argument.