Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Quantum Windbag]

Why taketh you my name in vain? I wasn't part of that exchange at all. I don't even read QuackumDickbag's posts.

Yet you continue to reply to them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

not really......you would have to convert the plastic back into its molecular components.......not necessary for the beaver's sticks......

Sigh.

Petroleum is organic, so are sticks, there is no more need to convert either to molecular components to make them organic.

Geochemistry Research - Organic Origins of Petroleum USGS Energy Resources Program

 

[HUGGY]

Of course not. It is man made. Invented and constructed by man as opposed to occurring naturally. Iron ore is natural. Knives are not.

What is the intrinsic difference between a beaver dam and a dam made by man? What makes one natural, and the other unnatural? Defining natural in such a way that you exclude the works of human beings is, at best, simplistic.

to be fair, if you untangle a beaver's dam you still have recognizable sticks......if you unravel cotton fabric you still have natural fibers.....if you unravel rayon, you have plastic.....

Beavers have been building dams much longer, tens of millions of years, than human beings have been building dwellings.

I wouldn't be surprised if man learned about the fort or moat concept from the beaver...and possibly the concept of changing one's environment to promote the growth of food...AKA farming.

Strangely enough I believe the best evidense that man was placed here on earth by some outside entity...god..etc...
is that man seems so obviously ill equiped physically to survive compared to just about any other animal form. We, our ancient ancestors, were slower, reproduced less often, gestated 9 months compared to most life forms dangerously much longer and had numerous other inherent dangerous dissabilities.

Looking back honestly our probability to survive was improbable...very unlikely.

It seems we must have needed some help not obvious.

Man has been making excuses and blaming or crediting unseen forces for a very long time....much longer than the existance of any organized societies.

Still all this making shit up and not a scrap of evidense to support much less prove any truth to all the mumbo jumbo.

I don't know about any god/s but why all the hulabaloo for all these millennia?

Even those old sketches on the walls of caves...what was the point?

One would think that way back then there would be no time whatsoever to do anything that wasn't directly applicable to survival.

Maybe all the wall paintings were done by women ..pregnant women. They were probably the only humans that were not forced to do anything desperately needed for the tribes to survive after the woman got real big.

Personally I think that the concept of "other" beings like gods or any number of made up beings came from the toxins in plants and animals that were meant originally to kill predators by poisoning them. Taken in smaller doses by experimentation or accidentally by curiosity these toxins can make an animal like a human believe they see all kinds of strange manifestations.

If you want to "see" god you need to go no further than a hit of LSD. The human mind under the influence of a drug like "acid" can and will cause one to "witness" and see amazing hallucinations that could easily be attributed to the will of a god showing itself.

 

[newpolitics]

Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.

No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.

 

[Pogo]

Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.

No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.

Just for a point of clarification, the posit was that atheism is not a "religion". That poster -- from like 800 posts ago -- misstated it as "faith".

 

[newpolitics]

Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.

No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.

Just for a point of clarification, the posit was that atheism is not a "religion". That poster -- from like 800 posts ago -- misstated it as "faith".

That's even easier to show, and I'm pretty sure you already did it by simply posting the definition of a religion in the OP. Can't believe this thread has gone on so long.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.

No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.

Whose unsubstantiated and insufficient claims? Mine? You have no idea whether I do or do not believe in God. But please, don't put the onus off on me, go ahead and give me your substantiated and sufficient arguments proving God doesn't exist. I'm waiting...twiddling my thumbs...listening to my dogs snore.

 

[Pogo]

Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.

No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.

Just for a point of clarification, the posit was that atheism is not a "religion". That poster -- from like 800 posts ago -- misstated it as "faith".

That's even easier to show, and I'm pretty sure you already did it by simply posting the definition of a religion in the OP. Can't believe this thread has gone on so long.

I know, right? We did so demonstrate a thousand ways from Sunday, pun intended, yet the denialists persist.

No one knows why they persist. They won't answer that question.

 

[Pogo]

Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.

No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.

Whose unsubstantiated and insufficient claims? Mine? You have no idea whether I do or do not believe in God. But please, don't put the onus off on me, go ahead and give me your substantiated and sufficient arguments proving God doesn't exist. I'm waiting...twiddling my thumbs...listening to my dogs snore.

As will we all, as this thread never was about "whether God exists". It's about the mythology that atheism constitutes a "religion". Try paying attention to the words, willya?

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.

No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.

Just for a point of clarification, the posit was that atheism is not a "religion". That poster -- from like 800 posts ago -- misstated it as "faith".

If it isn't a religion, it's certainly evangelical. Atheists never shut the hell up about their anti-theism, especially Marxists. Even in true communist states, something has to supplant God. There has to be something above and beyond the proletariat, so "the party" becomes God.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.

No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.

Whose unsubstantiated and insufficient claims? Mine? You have no idea whether I do or do not believe in God. But please, don't put the onus off on me, go ahead and give me your substantiated and sufficient arguments proving God doesn't exist. I'm waiting...twiddling my thumbs...listening to my dogs snore.

As will we all, as this thread never was about "whether God exists". It's about the mythology that atheism constitutes a "religion". Try paying attention to the words, willya?

Sounds like a weasel making an exit. Bye bye wimp.

 

[newpolitics]

Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.

No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.

Just for a point of clarification, the posit was that atheism is not a "religion". That poster -- from like 800 posts ago -- misstated it as "faith".

If it isn't a religion, it's certainly evangelical. Atheists never shut the hell up about their anti-theism, especially Marxists. Even in true communist states, something has to supplant God. There has to be something above and beyond the proletariat, so "the party" becomes God.

What does the deification of the state in the context of communism, have to do with more generic atheism (not affiliated with a communist movement) being evangelical? I don't think you have much of an argument here. You don't even have an argument within the context of historic communist states. They didn't evangelize. They held people at gunpoint. There's a difference, and that's not a comment on atheism, but on totalitarianism. It is incidental that it happened to be atheistic regimes doing it, since their aims were political, not religious.

 

[Pogo]

Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.

No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.

Whose unsubstantiated and insufficient claims? Mine? You have no idea whether I do or do not believe in God. But please, don't put the onus off on me, go ahead and give me your substantiated and sufficient arguments proving God doesn't exist. I'm waiting...twiddling my thumbs...listening to my dogs snore.

As will we all, as this thread never was about "whether God exists". It's about the mythology that atheism constitutes a "religion". Try paying attention to the words, willya?

Sounds like a weasel making an exit. Bye bye wimp.

Sounds like a concession from an Einstein who misstated the topic eight hundred posts ago, then finally came back and misstated it again.

 

[Pogo]

Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.

No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.

Just for a point of clarification, the posit was that atheism is not a "religion". That poster -- from like 800 posts ago -- misstated it as "faith".

If it isn't a religion, it's certainly evangelical. Atheists never shut the hell up about their anti-theism, especially Marxists. Even in true communist states, something has to supplant God. There has to be something above and beyond the proletariat, so "the party" becomes God.

Strawman. Covered at least seven hundred posts ago. Political red herring.

Off topic too.

Other than that -- hey great post.


Wimp.

 

[newpolitics]

Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.

No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.

Whose unsubstantiated and insufficient claims? Mine? You have no idea whether I do or do not believe in God. But please, don't put the onus off on me, go ahead and give me your substantiated and sufficient arguments proving God doesn't exist. I'm waiting...twiddling my thumbs...listening to my dogs snore.

I don't care what you believe, just what you attempt to argue, so don't act like a POSSIBLE assumption of mine about your theological disposition makes my counter-argument any less valid. It is only rational to assume you are theistic when you insult atheists, unless you are a theological non-cognitivist. Are you demanding a counter-argument to claims you don't actually make? That makes no sense. You are a theist who can't support his own claims, and so passes your burden of proof onto atheists, arrogantly presuming that your belief is true in the process without showing it. We are back to square one. You have no arguments for god.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is."

Actually this is ludicrous, as it fails as an argument from ignorance fallacy. That no one has proven 'god' as perceived by theists doesn't exist doesn't mean it does, nor does it 'prove' being free from faith is a 'religion.'

Moreover, those free from faith don't 'browbeat' anyone into anything, as that fails as a hasty generalization fallacy.

It's also telling the desperation of some theists as they seek to propagate the lie that to be free from faith is a 'religion,' where some theists unwittingly attempt to portray those free from faith as being as irrational as they.

​

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.

No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.

Just for a point of clarification, the posit was that atheism is not a "religion". That poster -- from like 800 posts ago -- misstated it as "faith".

If it isn't a religion, it's certainly evangelical. Atheists never shut the hell up about their anti-theism, especially Marxists. Even in true communist states, something has to supplant God. There has to be something above and beyond the proletariat, so "the party" becomes God.

What does the deification of the state in the context of communism, have to do with more generic atheism (not affiliated with a communist movement) being evangelical? I don't think you have much of an argument here. You don't even have an argument within the context of historic communist states. They didn't evangelize. They held people at gunpoint. There's a difference, and that's not a comment on atheism, but on totalitarianism. It is incidental that it happened to be atheistic regimes doing it, since their aims were political, not religious.

Ha! The evangelical nature of the communist party is a recurring theme in many of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's
books. He talks of tens of thousands of communist party members, condemnened to death by the party in various purges, marching dutifully to the executioner's chamber knowing that they were "dying for the party". How fucking sick is that? They couldn't rationalize death in terms of God, could they?

'Ivan's War: 'Life and Death in the Red Army, 1939-1945' by British historian Catherine Merridale is interesting if for no other fact than that she addresses this phenomenon in "the first atheist army in Russian history". The party became God for the proles, since no other Gods were allowed.

 

[Pogo]

News flash: this is not a politics thread.

Who knew?

Oh wait, that's right -- everybody.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.

No theist has produced a sound and valid syllogism for god's existence, and as long as that is the case, atheism if justified. Saying atheism is a faith is begging the question, because it presumes that your conclusions are true without showing them to be. Atheism is not even close to faith, as it is the rational rejection of your unsubstantiated and insufficient claims.

Whose unsubstantiated and insufficient claims? Mine? You have no idea whether I do or do not believe in God. But please, don't put the onus off on me, go ahead and give me your substantiated and sufficient arguments proving God doesn't exist. I'm waiting...twiddling my thumbs...listening to my dogs snore.

I don't care what you believe, just what you attempt to argue, so don't act like a POSSIBLE assumption of mine about your theological disposition makes my counter-argument any less valid. It is only rational to assume you are theistic when you insult atheists, unless you are a theological non-cognitivist. Are you demanding a counter-argument to claims you don't actually make? That makes no sense. You are a theist who can't support his own claims, and so passes your burden of proof onto atheists, arrogantly presuming that your belief is true in the process without showing it. We are back to square one. You have no arguments for god.

"...you are a theological non-cognitivist" A what? A who?

 

[PostmodernProph]

not really......you would have to convert the plastic back into its molecular components.......not necessary for the beaver's sticks......

Sigh.

Petroleum is organic, so are sticks, there is no more need to convert either to molecular components to make them organic.

Geochemistry Research - Organic Origins of Petroleum USGS Energy Resources Program

so you're argument is that "natural" simply means "organic"?........if a dog's turd on your lawn contains chemical preservatives from the food its been fed, does that make it unnatural?......