Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Pogo]

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

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

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

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

Yes and no. You would have to take that thing and MAKE a "religion" or "religious ritual" out of it, where you really DO have that conviction in it.

Someone similarly complained that "addiction" was starting to be used too lightly.
A real addiction is one thing, but a colloquial expression for an overdone hobby or interest as an "addiction" is another.

I agree with you, that you don't want to use terms such as religion or addiction so broadly they lose their meaning!
That is not the point.
But it IS true that ANYTHING COULD become a religious focus or COULD become an addiction.

it is POSSIBLE.
But NO you are right, and I agree,
you don't want to call simple things addictions or religions when it isn't really to that point.

And that is NOT what I'm talking about. I'm talking about if people really do make a religion of something they believe personally. I do not mean the colloquial sense of using the term lightly.
======================================================

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

In my past conversations with you, you seem pretty adept at talking out the specific issues.
I think we had some longer exchanges about healthy foods or legalization issues or something.
I got the impression you were very specific and secular minded in how you analyze things critically.

So somewhere in there, and in your arguments here, I get the impression you pinpoint
specific issues one-on-one case-by-case, and don't make broad generalizing statements
and just defend that emotionally on face value.

When I do start preaching about Constitutional equal justice and protections of the laws,
my friends will tell me I sound like I am proselytizing propaganda, even though that's how my words come out naturally.
I don't MEAN to get religious, but what's the difference if I sound just like that?

I KNOW you do not go around "preaching" like that.
So in comparison with me, I do not see you as religious.

I admit I come across as very rightwing or Conservative [fill in the blank] to people
when actually I am a prochoice progressive liberal Democrat. I just happen to be
a Constitutionalist first. So depending on the context, I can preach back to people
using their own laws and language, whether the Bible or Bill of Rights, with as much conviction.

The only grouping I really see myself as a member of is the Constitutionalist group.
I believe I am Christian by faith, and have formally joined UU and Lutheran churches,
but whatever group I identify with is larger than those labels.

I can speak in nontheist secular terms equally as Christian or Buddhist terms.
So if I am "trilingual" in Buddhist, Christian and Constitutional terms,
what requires me to be labeled as those if I treat them as systems of laws or languages?

Why can't we be well versed in these systems and communicate freely using whatever works?

It is funny to me that the same way some people get "preachy or religious" when it comes to Christianity,
I don't in that area; but I can go to extremes preaching "Constitutionalism" to denounce government abuses.
Since I come from a more liberal secular background, I come out sounding more inclusive and prochoice
than most Constitutionalists from rightwing Christian perspectives. But since the language I use
is associated with rightwing, that's where people think I must be or should be Tea Party/Republican or Libertarian.

The last thing they expect a Constitutionalist to be is a liberal prochoice Democrat.

I don't get that impression (very right wing conservative) Emily -- actually my impression of you is quite fuzzy.

But that's politics, not in play here. However I suspect the discussion on addiction was indeed with me; that's actually a very similar exchange to what we're doing here -- hyperextending a term beyond its meaning.

I wouldn't say your rants on Constitutionalism are especially political (they are, but since we're not talking politics here I ignore that aspect) but I would describe your writing on them as "zealous". That however does not qualify it as a religion. One could wax equally zealous over a piece of music or art, a type of food, politics, philosophy, linguitics, almost anything, but that would make none of them "religions". Clearly there are adherents to every religion who are not zealots, yet they're as much of a Buddhist/Catholic/Muslim/Taoist/whatever as their fellow adherents are. This simply fails as a test to establish "religion".

 

[percysunshine]

.

Doctrinaire, dogmatic, inflexible, exclusive, and superior morals.

Yup...atheism is a religion.

.

 

[Pogo]

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?

No, they wont.

Conclusion - all gods are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition. At no time in human history have any of the gods made themselves known in any extant way.

Conclusion - religious traditions are built upon earlier traditions and many religions tend to define their gods as simply grander, more powerful versions of the gods that ruled the preceding religions. And why not? Why would a more recent religion establish itself as subordinate to a prior religion? Thus, the incorporation and inclusion of earlier traditions in mankinds formulation of newer religions.

Conclusion - nothing in the natural world indicates or even suggests supernatural forces. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.

I’ll submit that by employing evidence and reason, we can readily discriminate between which of our competing theories (mine being natural laws; yours being supernatural intervention), deserves the greater credibility. We actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that your god (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observere who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.

Conclusion - The universe is immensely old. That is in direct contradiction to biblical tales and fables and contradicts other religious tales.

In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?

Understand from the beginning that I am not a Christian. I do not consider the Bible a science book. At best it has some historical significance. If you wish to argue Christianity, you will need to find someone else.

But I am willing to take your belief sets. I don't know if Pogo will or not.

1- all god are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition.
This is a pretty direct statement that gods are not real. They do not exist but are entirely imaginary. I really don't see how your statement could be taken any other way. So, please present your evidence to support this conclusion. And if you are going to use the argument that they have not made themselves known, you are going to have to explain your position that if they existed they would make themselves known. Otherwise, it is irrelevant.

2- Religious institutions are built on earlier traditions.
I'll grant you that and would consider this a valid statement based upon objective evidence. I am not clear on how that matters. If you could clarify that for me I would appreciate it.

3- Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force.
I am not aware of anything which does. OTOH, I am not aware of anything which suggests it doesn't. The current theory (at least I think it is) is a singularity expanded to create the universe. I am aware of nothing which indicates the origination of the singularity or the cause of the expansion. Nor any current theory as to why the natural forces you speak of exist at all. I stipulate they are there, but why they are there is a matter of speculation. So, do you have any objective evidence that supernatural (I really dislike that word) forces were not involved?

Keep in mind that what I am attempting to do here is determine the nature of your conclusions, not whether or not they are true. You have as much chance of getting it right as I do.

I didn't really look into that list until now -- first impressions will be a bit dicey...

#2 first, as the simplest: agreed, religious institutions are built on earlier cultural traditions.
On #1 and 3, it would depend on what we mean by "gods" and "supernatural". Not sure if we want to really go down this road, mired as we are already... but just as an intro, "gods" is a word necessarily limited by our own traditions and culture -- where we begin with our concept of a single anthropomorphized sky-being (complete with beard and interestingly, gender), creator of all, which we call "God" and then try to fathom other religious traditions by comparison to that benchmark.

But in doing that we have already limited ourselves to that modality. It muddles along bumpily through studies of ancient Greece, but once we get to the spiritual realms of Native America, Asia and Africa we find ourselves speaking an entirely different conceptual language. In the religious traditions of Santeria/Candomblé/Voodoo for instance, what our studies would term "gods" (Xangó, Exu, Oxun et al) are simply not perceived in the anthropomorphized modality Europeans conceived "God" or "gods" -- these are rather forces of Nature, the "character" if you will of those unknowable spiritual dynamcs; moreover that spirit world is conceived not as a hierarchy 'up there' in the sky but as part of the tangible world with which it intersects.

This is a very long and twisted road to go down in a simple thread about the definition of atheism. A fascinating one but perhaps so tangential as to be of questionable practical value....

But again --- different modality. There are many many paths. Theism is but one vehicle to traverse them.

 

[Pogo]

.

Doctrinaire, dogmatic, inflexible, exclusive, and superior morals.

Yup...atheism is a religion.

0 for 5 with five strikeouts. In baseball that's called the "golden sombrero".

Of course that post itself is the equivalent of walking into the world's greatest restaurant and asking the world's greatest chef for a Big Mac and a side of fries to go while complaining there's no drive-up window. Thanks for uh, breaking a sweat.

smh...

 

[sealybobo]

.

Doctrinaire, dogmatic, inflexible, exclusive, and superior morals.

Yup...atheism is a religion.

.

Number 24

Why there is no god

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.

Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.” – Geoff Mather

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Number 24

Why there is no god

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.

Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.” – Geoff Mather

Calling atheism a lack of belief when you actively argue against someone else's belief is like calling idiots geniuses.

 

[asaratis]

Calling atheism a lack of belief when you actively argue against someone else's belief is like calling idiots geniuses.

Atheists give idiots a bad name!

 

[Hollie]

Number 24

Why there is no god

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.

Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.” – Geoff Mather

Calling atheism a lack of belief when you actively argue against someone else's belief is like calling idiots geniuses.

That was as pointless and idiotic as your usual drivel.

Religious faith (belief in supernaturalism / mysticism), is not equally valid to scientific consensus / rationalism. People may be equally free to embrace any religious belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.

There are valid conclusions which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., religious claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs always are attended by the exoneration from you religious extremists "Well, you can't prove it ain't.

Nope. I'm under no obligation to "prove it ain't". That doesn't make it true.

 

[asaratis]

........
That was as pointless and idiotic as your usual drivel.

Religious faith (belief in supernaturalism / mysticism), is not equally valid to scientific consensus / rationalism. People may be equally free to embrace any religious belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.

There are valid conclusions which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., religious claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs always are attended by the exoneration from you religious extremists "Well, you can't prove it ain't.

Nope. I'm under no obligation to "prove it ain't". That doesn't make it true.

This (the above in bold) is true. You are also under no obligation to ridicule and attack others for not agreeing with your atheism. You do so in support of your belief that "it ain't true". Your religion of atheism causes you to attempt to convince others that you are correct. You have less proof (none) that God doesn't exist than the believers have that He does.

A silent (regarding the religions of others), non-interfering atheist is not religious. You and others like you are...as you seek comfort in the company of others.

 

[Hollie]

........
That was as pointless and idiotic as your usual drivel.

Religious faith (belief in supernaturalism / mysticism), is not equally valid to scientific consensus / rationalism. People may be equally free to embrace any religious belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.

There are valid conclusions which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., religious claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs always are attended by the exoneration from you religious extremists "Well, you can't prove it ain't.

Nope. I'm under no obligation to "prove it ain't". That doesn't make it true.

This (the above in bold) is true. You are also under no obligation to ridicule and attack others for not agreeing with your atheism. You do so in support of your belief that "it ain't true". Your religion of atheism causes you to attempt to convince others that you are correct. You have less proof (none) that God doesn't exist than the believers have that He does.

A silent (regarding the religions of others), non-interfering atheist is not religious. You and others like you are...as you seek comfort in the company of others.

Written with all the boilerplate slogans, clichés and falsehoods of the true fundie Christian.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That was as pointless and idiotic as your usual drivel.

Yet far superior to yours.

Religious faith (belief in supernaturalism / mysticism), is not equally valid to scientific consensus / rationalism. People may be equally free to embrace any religious belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.

Rationalism is hokum by another name. Rationalism rejects reality in favor of the belief that the universe ultimately is susceptible to being defined by humans, and is totally contradicted by quantum mechanics. The only real way to understand the universe is through empiricism.

There are valid conclusions which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., religious claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs always are attended by the exoneration from you religious extremists "Well, you can't prove it ain't.

You cannot claim to follow both rationalism and empiricism and make any sense. The simple fact that you do not understand that those two philosophies are totally at odds with each other explains 98% of your idiotic ramblings. the rest is attributable to simple delusion.

By the way, define real, if you can. Under the doctrine of rationalism nothing is real unless it is subject to reason, and religion is eminently subject to reason, despite your idiotic assertions to the contrary. Rationalism teaches that the universe is rationally ordered, a premise which is supported by many religions.

I suggest you learn what the fuck you are talking about before you try to explain your beliefs, you obviously do not know what the words you are saying actually mean.

Nope. I'm under no obligation to "prove it ain't". That doesn't make it true.

Funny that you feel yourself under no obligation to prove that the things you say are true.

 

[percysunshine]

.

Doctrinaire, dogmatic, inflexible, exclusive, and superior morals.

Yup...atheism is a religion.

.

Number 24

Why there is no god

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.

Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.” – Geoff Mather

Hitchhiking the universe again?

.

.

 

[Hollie]

That was as pointless and idiotic as your usual drivel.

Yet far superior to yours.

Religious faith (belief in supernaturalism / mysticism), is not equally valid to scientific consensus / rationalism. People may be equally free to embrace any religious belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.

Rationalism is hokum by another name. Rationalism rejects reality in favor of the belief that the universe ultimately is susceptible to being defined by humans, and is totally contradicted by quantum mechanics. The only real way to understand the universe is through empiricism.

There are valid conclusions which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., religious claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs always are attended by the exoneration from you religious extremists "Well, you can't prove it ain't.

You cannot claim to follow both rationalism and empiricism and make any sense. The simple fact that you do not understand that those two philosophies are totally at odds with each other explains 98% of your idiotic ramblings. the rest is attributable to simple delusion.

By the way, define real, if you can. Under the doctrine of rationalism nothing is real unless it is subject to reason, and religion is eminently subject to reason, despite your idiotic assertions to the contrary. Rationalism teaches that the universe is rationally ordered, a premise which is supported by many religions.

I suggest you learn what the fuck you are talking about before you try to explain your beliefs, you obviously do not know what the words you are saying actually mean.

Nope. I'm under no obligation to "prove it ain't". That doesn't make it true.

Funny that you feel yourself under no obligation to prove that the things you say are true.

It's actually comical to see the Christian zealots flailing about. Funny that the zealots continue to sidestep submitting any "pwoofs" to their claims to magic and supernaturalism and demand others disprove their invented realms.

 

[asaratis]

........
That was as pointless and idiotic as your usual drivel.

Religious faith (belief in supernaturalism / mysticism), is not equally valid to scientific consensus / rationalism. People may be equally free to embrace any religious belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.

There are valid conclusions which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., religious claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs always are attended by the exoneration from you religious extremists "Well, you can't prove it ain't.

Nope. I'm under no obligation to "prove it ain't". That doesn't make it true.

This (the above in bold) is true. You are also under no obligation to ridicule and attack others for not agreeing with your atheism. You do so in support of your belief that "it ain't true". Your religion of atheism causes you to attempt to convince others that you are correct. You have less proof (none) that God doesn't exist than the believers have that He does.

A silent (regarding the religions of others), non-interfering atheist is not religious. You and others like you are...as you seek comfort in the company of others.

Written with all the boilerplate slogans, clichés and falsehoods of the true fundie Christian.

Show me a single slogan or cliche in that post.

I realize that you consider everything I say as a falsehood. That's your way of practicing your Atheist religious doctrine of attacking and denying anything and everything said by the believers.

You seem to confuse non-belief in God with believing there is not a God....therefore you argue with the believers. If you simply had a non-belief, you would have no reason whatsoever to defend yourself by denigrating others. You are a religious atheist.

 

[indiajo]

[


Funny that you feel yourself under no obligation to prove that the things you say are true.

It's actually comical to see the Christian zealots flailing about. Funny that the zealots continue to sidestep submitting any "pwoofs" to their claims to magic and supernaturalism and demand others disprove their invented realms.[/QUOTE]

Well, Hollie, I admire your efforts. But they are pointless.
I made this experience on a German Board while disputing an admittedly very well educated (roman catholic theology, latin and ancient greek as language, literature in general) fellow.
As soon as he could not resort to the usual sidesteps of defining the single paragraphs of his faith system as allegories or misinterpretations, because I pushed his nose into the very nothing of the foundation on which his humonguous theological bubble bath is built upon, the otherwise distinguished gentleman became as aggressive as the typcal Moslem once you question Allah.

Reasoning does not help. This is hard wired. I was raised catholic myself, and if I would not have been pretty introverted as a child and had always hated to the bone the constant urge of expressing my submission publicly, probably I would not have made this "snip" experience either.

The only sense "discussions" like this have, is to raise awareness with undetermined spotters who are already in doubt and search for confirmation.
Atheistic PR, so to say.

 

[Carla_Danger]

........
That was as pointless and idiotic as your usual drivel.

Religious faith (belief in supernaturalism / mysticism), is not equally valid to scientific consensus / rationalism. People may be equally free to embrace any religious belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.

There are valid conclusions which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., religious claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs always are attended by the exoneration from you religious extremists "Well, you can't prove it ain't.

Nope. I'm under no obligation to "prove it ain't". That doesn't make it true.

This (the above in bold) is true. You are also under no obligation to ridicule and attack others for not agreeing with your atheism. You do so in support of your belief that "it ain't true". Your religion of atheism causes you to attempt to convince others that you are correct. You have less proof (none) that God doesn't exist than the believers have that He does.

A silent (regarding the religions of others), non-interfering atheist is not religious. You and others like you are...as you seek comfort in the company of others.

So, atheism is not a religion if we shuddup? LOL!

Did Jeebus preach that kind of freedumb? Where are you getting that?

I'm glad you're finally admitting that it's not a religion.

 

[Hollie]

........
That was as pointless and idiotic as your usual drivel.

Religious faith (belief in supernaturalism / mysticism), is not equally valid to scientific consensus / rationalism. People may be equally free to embrace any religious belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.

There are valid conclusions which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., religious claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs always are attended by the exoneration from you religious extremists "Well, you can't prove it ain't.

Nope. I'm under no obligation to "prove it ain't". That doesn't make it true.

This (the above in bold) is true. You are also under no obligation to ridicule and attack others for not agreeing with your atheism. You do so in support of your belief that "it ain't true". Your religion of atheism causes you to attempt to convince others that you are correct. You have less proof (none) that God doesn't exist than the believers have that He does.

A silent (regarding the religions of others), non-interfering atheist is not religious. You and others like you are...as you seek comfort in the company of others.

Written with all the boilerplate slogans, clichés and falsehoods of the true fundie Christian.

Show me a single slogan or cliche in that post.

I realize that you consider everything I say as a falsehood. That's your way of practicing your Atheist religious doctrine of attacking and denying anything and everything said by the believers.

You seem to confuse non-belief in God with believing there is not a God....therefore you argue with the believers. If you simply had a non-belief, you would have no reason whatsoever to defend yourself by denigrating others. You are a religious atheist.

Yet another post of boilerplate slogans and cliches'.

 

[asaratis]

........
That was as pointless and idiotic as your usual drivel.

Religious faith (belief in supernaturalism / mysticism), is not equally valid to scientific consensus / rationalism. People may be equally free to embrace any religious belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.

There are valid conclusions which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., religious claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs always are attended by the exoneration from you religious extremists "Well, you can't prove it ain't.

Nope. I'm under no obligation to "prove it ain't". That doesn't make it true.

This (the above in bold) is true. You are also under no obligation to ridicule and attack others for not agreeing with your atheism. You do so in support of your belief that "it ain't true". Your religion of atheism causes you to attempt to convince others that you are correct. You have less proof (none) that God doesn't exist than the believers have that He does.

A silent (regarding the religions of others), non-interfering atheist is not religious. You and others like you are...as you seek comfort in the company of others.

So, atheism is not a religion if we shuddup? LOL!

I'm glad you're finally admitting that it's not a religion.

Your sense of logic is so fucked up. I pointed out that an atheist can choose not to be religious, just as a Jew can choose not to be religious and a Christian can choose not to be religious. Their so choosing (not to be religious) does NOT make the religion disappear.

Anyone can choose to be non-religious.

 

[asaratis]

........
That was as pointless and idiotic as your usual drivel.

Religious faith (belief in supernaturalism / mysticism), is not equally valid to scientific consensus / rationalism. People may be equally free to embrace any religious belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.

There are valid conclusions which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., religious claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs always are attended by the exoneration from you religious extremists "Well, you can't prove it ain't.

Nope. I'm under no obligation to "prove it ain't". That doesn't make it true.

This (the above in bold) is true. You are also under no obligation to ridicule and attack others for not agreeing with your atheism. You do so in support of your belief that "it ain't true". Your religion of atheism causes you to attempt to convince others that you are correct. You have less proof (none) that God doesn't exist than the believers have that He does.

A silent (regarding the religions of others), non-interfering atheist is not religious. You and others like you are...as you seek comfort in the company of others.

Written with all the boilerplate slogans, clichés and falsehoods of the true fundie Christian.

Show me a single slogan or cliche in that post.

I realize that you consider everything I say as a falsehood. That's your way of practicing your Atheist religious doctrine of attacking and denying anything and everything said by the believers.

You seem to confuse non-belief in God with believing there is not a God....therefore you argue with the believers. If you simply had a non-belief, you would have no reason whatsoever to defend yourself by denigrating others. You are a religious atheist.

Yet another post of boilerplate slogans and cliches'.

I see you're not up to the challenge.

 

[Carla_Danger]

........
That was as pointless and idiotic as your usual drivel.

Religious faith (belief in supernaturalism / mysticism), is not equally valid to scientific consensus / rationalism. People may be equally free to embrace any religious belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs.

There are valid conclusions which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency, adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., religious claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.) Notice such beliefs always are attended by the exoneration from you religious extremists "Well, you can't prove it ain't.

Nope. I'm under no obligation to "prove it ain't". That doesn't make it true.

This (the above in bold) is true. You are also under no obligation to ridicule and attack others for not agreeing with your atheism. You do so in support of your belief that "it ain't true". Your religion of atheism causes you to attempt to convince others that you are correct. You have less proof (none) that God doesn't exist than the believers have that He does.

A silent (regarding the religions of others), non-interfering atheist is not religious. You and others like you are...as you seek comfort in the company of others.

So, atheism is not a religion if we shuddup? LOL!

I'm glad you're finally admitting that it's not a religion.

Your sense of logic is so fucked up. I pointed out that an atheist can choose not to be religious, just as a Jew can choose not to be religious and a Christian can choose not to be religious. Their so choosing (not to be religious) does NOT make the religion disappear.

Anyone can choose to be non-religious.

Oh, I understood you alright...

If only we'd shuddup.