Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Uncensored2008]

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]

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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:

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.

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.

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?

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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]

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?

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]

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

"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]

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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?

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]

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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]

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.

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.

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?

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?

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]

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...

That's always a possibility.

 

[Pogo]

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.

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:

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.

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.

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?

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.

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"

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".

 

[asaratis]

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.

"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?

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]

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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]

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.

"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?

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.

So you're saying this guy is a god...

​

Your own logic, dood...

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

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:

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.

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.

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?

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.

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"

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".

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]

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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....

Aaaand I am once again answering that question. The dogma is that your belief is not belief.

 

[Pogo]

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".

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?

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 teachings, not the teacher. 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]

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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....

Aaaand I am once again answering that question. The dogma is that your belief is not belief.

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?