Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[emilynghiem]

I have already disproven your gods. Prove I haven't.

Have you still not seen the futility of your nonsensical "prove it isn't" fallacy you use to prop-up your gods?

Hi Hollie: WOW! If you have proven God does not exist, you should win a Nobel!
Even Godel could only prove that (if there is a God) "only God can know truth";
"The rest of us have beliefs based on our perception of facts and accepted prior knowledge"

[RE]: Professor Kurt Godel's incompleteness and undecidability theorems. With these two theorems, Godel proved that only God(s) can know truth(s). The rest of us have beliefs based on our perception of facts and accepted prior knowledge (e.g. Scripture, the Bible, Koran, Torah).

The only things we can be relatively sure of are that we must keep our science and religion separate - the world is not flat and the sun does not revolve around the Earth - contrary to medieval truth. Religion is based on faith; science is based on best applied observations and math.

Since our perception, those facts we perceived, or the prior knowledge we accept
COULD still be faulty, then we can always be wrong or this "truth" can change.
So we can "never know" because of this possibility of error or change.

Hollie: As I stated before, the most I believe we can prove is by agreement:
1. agreeing on the meanings of God, and which meanings align to be compatible, complementary or reconcileable
2. agreeing to FORGIVE differences, even conflicts, in order to work around those and not get in the way of
COMMUNICATING the meanings and ideas we DO agree on, even if we don't see or word them in the same terms
3. proving that the degree of FORGIVENESS is what determines ability to reconcile and agree on truth,
NOT the belief system of each person which can remain in complete conflict

I believe we can prove that through experience, and documenting the results of forgiving and not forgiving conflicts or relationships, and showing the statistical patterns:
* forgiveness will correlate with reconciling differences across religious and political beliefs or groups even conflicting ones
* unforgiveness will correlate with rejection and inability to resolve conflicts, even between members of the same groups

The real issue dividing people is whether we can forgive or not.
The other differences and conflicts that may never change are not the problem because
those can be worked around to find solutions to the same degree people are willing to forgive
and deal with those differences instead of divide and judge each other for them.

This I believe can be proven.
And I am willing to prove it, by proving it!

Your proof there is not a God cannot be proven.
(The most you can do is prove it cannot be proven, but relies on faith,
which is not the same as disproving God. You can also explain that if God represents infinitive or collective truth/knowledge/laws of all the universe, then man would have to be God in order to understand and prove all those things. So by our nature we can never prove the existence of something so beyond us, we cannot even perceive it all, much less communicate a proof of it.)

If you want to make a running bet, I will bet you 10 million
that we can sooner prove forgiveness/unforgiveness is the correlating factor
in reaching agreement on the meanings of God, Jesus etc.

vs. trying to prove God or Jesus are not real which I bet you will not happen.

I can sooner prove the meaning of Jesus "can be reconciled" with the meaning of Justice,
which does not rely on either Jesus or Justice really existing to prove they are reconcilable as concepts.

We can prove reconciliation is possible and it follows a pattern of steps or stages.
But to prove the system reiterates to lead to a full consensus would require to finish that process to fully prove consensus can be reached. i believe we can at least prove the
pattern can be followed, and replicates itself.

Same with establishing AGREEMENT on God by reconciling with meanings such as
life love truth wisdom good will creation universe nature
universal laws natural laws, etc.

Hollie if you want to prove God does not exist,
you would have to prove these do not exist, too, and/or prove that God is not any of these.

All those words in boldface are aspects of what people mean by God
so all that has to be proven to be only perceived in our minds and "made up by man"

Good luck!

 

[Pogo]

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.

That was a definition not a list of attributes. I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded. It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition.

That's absurd. There is no such "set of beliefs". Any given atheist may have wildly different beliefs about religions, general moral guidelines, politics or anything else. They have nothing in common on the basis of atheism except not believing in the Easter Bunny theistic approach to religion.

I challenge you to prove your point by listing this "set of beliefs" -- or any part of it.

The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge." Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?

All beliefs are personal conclusions. All beliefs are introspective. Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.

If there's a point in that section. I don't see it.

As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth. The truth being their own beliefs. Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus. Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.

Agree with the last sentence. Haven't seen the rest. Also haven't seen where anyone declining theisim professes to "know the truth". Seems to me religion by definition tries to address the Unknowable. And it stays that way, for if something is knowable, we call that "science".

 

[Carla_Danger]

......


From your link...

Godless Church Services for Atheists Go Global
Congregations for atheists are springing up all over the planet. There’s already a schism: celebrate life without a deity, or preach atheism. The celebration is winning.
Plans to set up almost 400 “atheist churches” on five continents are underway after the extraordinary success of one small congregation that began holding godless services just over a year ago.

Word about the religion-free church spread like wildfire after the first Sunday Assembly was held in a deconsecrated church in Highbury, North London, in January 2013. By September, 100 congregations will be holding services from Singapore and South Africa to Sao Paulo and San Diego. A further 274 teams currently are working on plans to launch their own assemblies.



I'll repeat....religion-free!

I'll repeat: from the same link....

In 150 years of the Anglican Church’s Lambeth Conference, it’s safe to say none has begun quite like this--with a raucous group karaoke rendition of “I’m So Excited,” but then Sunday Assembly is a very different kind of world religion.

The author of the article doesn't get to have it both ways, and he was correct to say it's religion free.

 

[Pogo]

You can't "question" nothingness. There is no "dogma" since atheism is not a thing or concept; it's simply the dearth of a concept. In the same way that dark is not a "thing" but the dearth of light and silence is not a "thing" but the dearth of sound. Second, you can't "blaspheme" something you never accepted in the first place.

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. That, like it or not, is something.

No, it is simply the absence of belief that there is. The absence of something is not another something.

As a parallel:
Zero degrees Kelvin is the absolute absence of heat energy. That doesn't make "cold" an "energy".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Now you are claiming that Emily is the authority on religion because a) you are to stupid to look up the actual dictionary definition, and b) you prefer to ignore the fact that I actually posted a definition that comes from a dictionary that proves you are wrong.

Let me do so again, I will even make the pertinent definition large enough for you to see without your rose colored glasses.

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion
More example sentences

The freedom to manifest religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching encompasses a broad range of acts.
The secularization debate is primarily concerned with the role or power of religion and churches in society.
Bonaparte, however, had never made the mistake of underestimating either the power of religion or the resilience of the Church.
Get more examples

Synonyms
faith, belief, worship, creed; sect, church, cult, denomination
View synonyms
1.1A particular system of faith and worship: the world’s great religions
More example sentences

No organized religion preaches murder and hatred of innocent people.
The official state religion is Roman Catholicism, but Evangelical Protestant movements are making converts among traditional Catholic believers.
Christianity is the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Get more examples

1.2A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance: consumerism is the new religion
More example sentences

It's the backdrop because football is considered a religion worldwide and the most viewed game.
We've been told time and again that cricket is a religion in India.
In this city where rugby is a religion, there is the feeling that Moses has led them to the mountaintop.
Get more examples​

religion definition of religion in Oxford dictionary American English US

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So now you would have this Court believe that any belief about anything constitutes a "religion"?

Or did you mean to type "non-belief" with a hyphen? i.e. that the absence of belief is itself a belief?

No, we are pointing out that the court does believe that, and that you have already said you believe there is no god, which is a belief, not a non belief. A non belief is indefensible, so no logical person ever tries to defend one.

 

[Pogo]

So now you would have this Court believe that any belief about anything constitutes a "religion"?

Or did you mean to type "non-belief" with a hyphen? i.e. that the absence of belief is itself a belief?

No, we are pointing out that the court does believe that, and that you have already said you believe there is no god, which is a belief, not a non belief. A non belief is indefensible, so no logical person ever tries to defend one.

I did not say that. If you're going to descend to your usual strawmanism, you're dismissed.

 

[emilynghiem]

You can't "question" nothingness. There is no "dogma" since atheism is not a thing or concept; it's simply the dearth of a concept. In the same way that dark is not a "thing" but the dearth of light and silence is not a "thing" but the dearth of sound. Second, you can't "blaspheme" something you never accepted in the first place.

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. That, like it or not, is something.

Yes and no.

Some people BELIEVE there is "no god."
Others just DON'T BELIEVE or think in those terms.

Because this is so confusing, over who is a real ATHEIST
and who is agnostic, I tend to use the term NONTHEIST.

So regardless what you believe or don't believe,
if you THINK in "nontheistic" terms, and don't personify
Justice as Jesus or the forces of Life/Nature as a PERSONAL God,
that means you use "secular" terms, natural laws and science to communicate truths as you understand them.

If you are THEIST and use the Bible, Quran, Buddhist or Jewish or any other scriptures
you believe are sacred authority as your laws, then you will use THOSE laws or religions to reach
agreement on principles and concepts with people.

The real issue is what terms/languages/laws you use to communicate
And then to reconcile with people using different laws or languages,
that is where forgiveness and reconciling meanings comes into place.

if we cannot forgive each other's terminology, we'll never get to the meanings
and concepts behind them where we could communicate and reach agreement.

Instead of arguing who is or what is an Atheist or religion or what,
why not just listen to what each other is trying to say, using whatever terms THEY use.
And don't argue about the terms we DON'T agree on or agree to use.

What ARE we talking about and what DO we agree to call those things?

 

[Pogo]

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.

Now you are claiming that Emily is the authority on religion because a) you are to stupid to look up the actual dictionary definition, and b) you prefer to ignore the fact that I actually posted a definition that comes from a dictionary that proves you are wrong.

Let me do so again, I will even make the pertinent definition large enough for you to see without your rose colored glasses.

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion
More example sentences

The freedom to manifest religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching encompasses a broad range of acts.
The secularization debate is primarily concerned with the role or power of religion and churches in society.
Bonaparte, however, had never made the mistake of underestimating either the power of religion or the resilience of the Church.
Get more examples

Synonyms
faith, belief, worship, creed; sect, church, cult, denomination
View synonyms
1.1A particular system of faith and worship: the world’s great religions
More example sentences

No organized religion preaches murder and hatred of innocent people.
The official state religion is Roman Catholicism, but Evangelical Protestant movements are making converts among traditional Catholic believers.
Christianity is the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Get more examples

1.2A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance: consumerism is the new religion
More example sentences

It's the backdrop because football is considered a religion worldwide and the most viewed game.
We've been told time and again that cricket is a religion in India.
In this city where rugby is a religion, there is the feeling that Moses has led them to the mountaintop.
Get more examples​

religion definition of religion in Oxford dictionary American English US

That's the same colloquial sense I just finished describing. And as you're devolving to your usual ad hom tantrums, you're back on ignore.

I apologize to the thread for feeding the troll in his glorious Second coming.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

That was a definition not a list of attributes. I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded. It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition.

That's absurd. There is no such "set of beliefs". Any given atheist may have wildly different beliefs about religions, general moral guidelines, politics or anything else. They have nothing in common on the basis of atheism except not believing in the Easter Bunny theistic approach to religion.

I challenge you to prove your point by listing this "set of beliefs" -- or any part of it.

The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge." Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?

All beliefs are personal conclusions. All beliefs are introspective. Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.

If there's a point in that section. I don't see it.

As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth. The truth being their own beliefs. Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus. Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.

Agree with the last sentence. Haven't seen the rest. Also haven't seen where anyone declining theisim professes to "know the truth". Seems to me religion by definition tries to address the Unknowable. And it stays that way, for if something is knowable, we call that "science".

Ok, a set of beliefs: And keep in mind that these need not be taken as absolutes but with varying degrees of ardor. I would refer you back to Dawkins list for that.

1- There are no gods
2- The various god based religions are false
3- The universe has no controlling force behind it
4- The universe is not an artifact

Will those work for a start?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sorry Emily, that simply doesn't work. Under that broad a definition an interest in anything at all could be described as "religion".

"I'm going to the grocery store; are you interested in coming along? Bring your prayer mat".

What you have there appears to be a colloquialism, a deliberately overstated misuse for comic effect. When a fan says they "worship" a rock musician (movie actor, sports player, whoever) they don't mean it literally. It's simply expressing a strong degree of passion integrated into the verb instead of standing alone as an adjective; it's imagery.

Doesn't apply here even in the colloquial sense; atheism is a simple logical conclusion, as such rational and not subject to passion.


What gives you the idea I'm not religious? Curious. I've barely ever even been in this forum.

I guess you missed the modifying words, or perhaps just slept through the courses on parsing sentences in school. Maybe you should read a book, that would make you an instant expert, and you wouldn't end up looking stupid.

http://www.amazon.com/Sister-Bernad...=8-1&keywords=parsing+sentences&tag=ff0d01-20

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, it is simply the absence of belief that there is. The absence of something is not another something.

As a parallel:
Zero degrees Kelvin is the absolute absence of heat energy. That doesn't make "cold" an "energy".

Sigh.

archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
​

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheismhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Once again, you are arguing with the dictionary. If you don't like that, perhaps you should stoop using English. You obviously don't understand it.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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...

You are pathetic, my friend....totally unequipped to participate in logical debate, obviously a regular user of the errant belief that "the last cute post wins" and incessantly depending upon false claims of what others say in order to beat a fucking dead horse.

Good luck in the continuance of your education. You have a long row to hoe.

Here's another interesting read about atheist churches...going GLOBAL!!

Godless Church Services for Atheists Go Global - The Daily Beast

The church’s first General Assembly is being held this weekend with leaders from all over the world gathered in South London. In 150 years of the Anglican Church’s Lambeth Conference, it’s safe to say none has begun quite like this--with a raucous group karaoke rendition of “I’m So Excited,” but then Sunday Assembly is a very different kind of world religion. Their gatherings resemble traditional church services with singing, lessons and the chance to interact with members of the community. The only thing missing is God.

They did karaoke to "I'm So Excited" LOL! That is so funny!

 

[Pogo]

You can't "question" nothingness. There is no "dogma" since atheism is not a thing or concept; it's simply the dearth of a concept. In the same way that dark is not a "thing" but the dearth of light and silence is not a "thing" but the dearth of sound. Second, you can't "blaspheme" something you never accepted in the first place.

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. That, like it or not, is something.

Yes and no.

Some people BELIEVE there is "no god."
Others just DON'T BELIEVE or think in those terms.

Because this is so confusing, over who is a real ATHEIST
and who is agnostic, I tend to use the term NONTHEIST.

So regardless what you believe or don't believe,
if you THINK in "nontheistic" terms, and don't personify
Justice as Jesus or the forces of Life/Nature as a PERSONAL God,
that means you use "secular" terms, natural laws and science to communicate truths as you understand them.

If you are THEIST and use the Bible, Quran, Buddhist or Jewish or any other scriptures
you believe are sacred authority as your laws, then you will use THOSE laws or religions to reach
agreement on principles and concepts with people.

The real issue is what terms/languages/laws you use to communicate
And then to reconcile with people using different laws or languages,
that is where forgiveness and reconciling meanings comes into place.

if we cannot forgive each other's terminology, we'll never get to the meanings
and concepts behind them where we could communicate and reach agreement.

Instead of arguing who is or what is an Atheist or religion or what,
why not just listen to what each other is trying to say, using whatever terms THEY use.
And don't argue about the terms we DON'T agree on or agree to use.

What ARE we talking about and what DO we agree to call those things?

"Nontheist" seems like a good term, since "non" implies something simply "not present" which is the whole idea (really, non-idea). But then again that's what "atheist" also means and that's being morphed out of shape, for reasons yet to be addressed, so forgive me if I don't have a lot of confidence in its efficacy.

Atheism is a conclusion derived of a logical train of thought, arrived at after considering theism. That's all it is. What we have here is attack on that conclusion by a phalanx of logical fallacies -- strawmen, biased samples, composition and circular reasoning. You can't deconstruct logic with illogic. Hence the logicjam.

(hee hee "logicjam" -- I kill me

)

The value of theism in one theist: one.
The value of theism in one atheist: zero.
That's it. That's all there is.

It seems some of our friends either have trouble with, or else pretend to have trouble with, the concept of "zero".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's the same colloquial sense I just finished describing. And as you're devolving to your usual ad hom tantrums, you're back on ignore.

I apologize to the thread for feeding the troll in his glorious Second coming.

Pointing out that Pogo is wrong is a personal attack on Pogo because he never admits he is wrong.

 

[emilynghiem]

So now you would have this Court believe that any belief about anything constitutes a "religion"?

Or did you mean to type "non-belief" with a hyphen? i.e. that the absence of belief is itself a belief?

It depends.

* Some people believe "God does not exist" or is "made up" by people.
That is a BELIEF that people are teaching God exists for other reasons, and that this is not true.

* Some people "do not believe in the description of God that is taught a certain way"
but believe in nature or natural laws and forces. Some people BELIEVE this is reconcilable
with "God" and some people do NOT believe it is reconcilable.

So if I acknowledge that other way of seeing God is real for that person but not for me,
that is NOT rejecting God, as in having a religious belief that "God does not exist"
I am merely acknowledging our ways are different and I don't believe in THAT way.

NOTE: There are as many different ways of believing or not believing as there are people on this planet.
I find it easier to listen to what each person says they believe or understand or don't, and
not focus on trying to argue or debate things that don't fit into their system.

If we were scientists, and we could either study and find the cure to a disease we DO agree to focus on,
why waste all our time and resources arguing over the things we DON'T believe,
and trying to prove why that isn't important to us? why not just take it on face value
that if you said you don't want to study or work on that, but want to focus on curing another disease,
why not just focus on what we AGREE is important?

 

[Carla_Danger]

You can't "question" nothingness. There is no "dogma" since atheism is not a thing or concept; it's simply the dearth of a concept. In the same way that dark is not a "thing" but the dearth of light and silence is not a "thing" but the dearth of sound. Second, you can't "blaspheme" something you never accepted in the first place.

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. That, like it or not, is something.

Is "something" a religion?

 

[emilynghiem]

That's the same colloquial sense I just finished describing. And as you're devolving to your usual ad hom tantrums, you're back on ignore.

I apologize to the thread for feeding the troll in his glorious Second coming.

Pointing out that Pogo is wrong is a personal attack on Pogo because he never admits he is wrong.

I think it is the adversarial approach setting both of you off
is what is going wrong here.

When I debate or discuss with you separately, I find you are each able to explain where we are talking past each other, or saying the same thing, etc.

So when the two of you clash, it is from too much other defensiveness or clashing perceptions causing interference.

You are both level headed, articulate, intelligent people.
Sometimes we clash online, but please don't take that as a reason to judge each other for it.

You are both better than that, and I have seen plenty of points and discussions where you are clearly above
any need for namecalling or ignoring.

Sorry you don't bring out the better sides of each other.
If you can drop that and start with points we agree on,
I'd like to finish this conversation successfully and come to helpful solutions.

Pogo seems to respond to the term nontheist better, and quit arguing what is or what is not an atheist
since there are too many different views of that anyway. Let's just stick to what we believe
and how to explain that to each other, and that's good enough for me.

Thank you!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is "something" a religion?

That would depend. It is, however, the opposite of nothing, so my point stands.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think it is the adversarial approach setting both of you off
is what is going wrong here.

When I debate or discuss with you separately, I find you are each able to explain where we are talking past each other, or saying the same thing, etc.

So when the two of you clash, it is from too much other defensiveness or clashing perceptions causing interference.

You are both level headed, articulate, intelligent people.
Sometimes we clash online, but please don't take that as a reason to judge each other for it.

You are both better than that, and I have seen plenty of points and discussions where you are clearly above
any need for namecalling or ignoring.

Sorry you don't bring out the better sides of each other.
If you can drop that and start with points we agree on,
I'd like to finish this conversation successfully and come to helpful solutions.

Pogo seems to respond to the term nontheist better, and quit arguing what is or what is not an atheist
since there are too many different views of that anyway. Let's just stick to what we believe
and how to explain that to each other, and that's good enough for me.

Thank you!

If Pogo had a better side he would admit he is wrong when he was presented with irrefutable proof of his errors. The fact that he chooses to run away instead is why I treat him with contempt.

And frankly, I don't take his adversarial nature personally because I actually have a better side. I have even warned people who I always argue with when they do things really stupid, like post personal information by accident. That gets me a lot more respect from them then pretending that I am not who I am.