Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[MaryL]

Religions are tax exempt, is atheism? I never bothered to ask that before. If it isn't, should it be? Or, should religion be tax exempt at all?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hi Quantuam: I don't see any need to call someone an idiot for what they believe.

I am not calling them an idiot for what they believe, I am calling them idiots for denying facts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Religions are tax exempt, is atheism? I never bothered to ask that before. If it isn't, should it be? Or, should religion be tax exempt at all?

It is when it organizes as a religion.

 

[Pogo]

Religions are tax exempt, is atheism? I never bothered to ask that before. If it isn't, should it be? Or, should religion be tax exempt at all?

That may be where Emily's trying to go with the tangents on government. And it certainly seems to be why that atheist "church" brought up earlier, seems to exist -- to address a legalistic disparity.

After all if the local authorities declare only churches get exemptions and privileges, then atheists will call themselves a "church" to get by the legal limitation. Just as if the local authorities say only men may attend stonings...

​

 

[Pogo]

Hi Quantuam: I don't see any need to call someone an idiot for what they believe.

I am not calling them an idiot for what they believe, I am calling them idiots for denying facts.

As if there's a difference...

 

[asaratis]

Religions are tax exempt, is atheism? I never bothered to ask that before. If it isn't, should it be? Or, should religion be tax exempt at all?

It is the churches of religious groups that are tax exempt, not the religion per se. Since Atheism has been classified as a religion by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, any Atheist churches formed should be tax exempt.

 

[asaratis]

BTW Open Questions if anyone wants to answer:
If Atheist beliefs can count as a religion without being centered around a deity or system of laws of how things in the world work or came to be,
can these beliefs count as a religion:

* Belief that health care is a right and govt is THE WAY to manage public health
...<snip>...

* Belief in Global Warming
...<snip>...

No and no.

IMHO, the preface of your question is misstated. Atheism concerns a deity (the belief that none exist). If deities do exist, they are supernatural as they could not have been created by man and they apparently do not exist in nature.

Whether Atheism is a religion or not has nothing to do with whether the other two things (belief that health care is a right and belief in global warming) can be counted as religions.

Whether health care is a right and whether government is the best way to manage it are political questions and have nothing to do with deities.

Global warming is measurable, subject to scientific study and has nothing to do with deities. Whether global warming is caused by man or controllable by man are both subject to debate but still do not relate to deities.

Beliefs regarding deities constitute religions solely because deities are supernatural, if they exist. Beliefs regarding other things may be either opinions or accepted facts.

 

[Pogo]

BTW Open Questions if anyone wants to answer:
If Atheist beliefs can count as a religion without being centered around a deity or system of laws of how things in the world work or came to be,
can these beliefs count as a religion:

* Belief that health care is a right and govt is THE WAY to manage public health
...<snip>...

* Belief in Global Warming
...<snip>...

No and no.

IMHO, the preface of your question is misstated. Atheism concerns a deity (the belief that none exist). If deities do exist, they are supernatural as they could not have been created by man and they apparently do not exist in nature.

Whether Atheism is a religion or not has nothing to do with whether the other two things (belief that health care is a right and belief in global warming) can be counted as religions.

Completely agree.

Whether health care is a right and whether government is the best way to manage it are political questions and have nothing to do with deities.

Completely agree.

Global warming is measurable, subject to scientific study and has nothing to do with deities. Whether global warming is caused by man or controllable by man are both subject to debate but still do not relate to deities.

Completely agree.

Beliefs regarding deities constitute religions solely because deities are supernatural, if they exist. Beliefs regarding other things may be either opinions or accepted facts.

Can't agree. Simply that they concern supernatural beings is not enough to constitute a "religion". Science fiction and horror films can also concern supernatural beings. But they have no belief structure to offer as a guide. Nor does atheism.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That may be where Emily's trying to go with the tangents on government. And it certainly seems to be why that atheist "church" brought up earlier, seems to exist -- to address a legalistic disparity.

After all if the local authorities declare only churches get exemptions and privileges, then atheists will call themselves a "church" to get by the legal limitation. Just as if the local authorities say only men may attend stonings...

​

You just insist on being stupid, don't you?

There are dozens of ways to get tax exemptions like churches do, it there weren't no museum in this country would be tax exempt.

In other words, the only real reason to declare your organization a church or a religion is because you want to.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As if there's a difference...

I am sure you don't see the difference, but anyone with the ability to look at the facts and realize they were wrong about something will see it. Which, by the way, I specifically referenced idiots who reuse to accept evolution.

 

[Tuatara]

Full Definition of RELIGION
1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>

b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.

Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?

Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief. I don't belive in unicorns. That is not a belief. Seriously, think about what you write.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Full Definition of RELIGION
1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>

b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.

Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?

Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief. I don't belive in unicorns. That is not a belief. Seriously, think about what you write.

Since theists wanted to drag those free from faith into their irrational realm of fantasy and myths.

 

[asaratis]

...<snip>...

Beliefs regarding deities constitute religions solely because deities are supernatural, if they exist. Beliefs regarding other things may be either opinions or accepted facts.

Can't agree. Simply that they concern supernatural beings is not enough to constitute a "religion". Science fiction and horror films can also concern supernatural beings. But they have no belief structure to offer as a guide. Nor does atheism.

Disagree.

Firstly, I did not mean to imply that all supernatural things are deities. However, I did mean to imply that all deities would be supernatural....and that beliefs concerning deities would constitute religions....not to imply that belief in other supernatural things would constitute a religion.

Secondly, we are talking specifically about "belief in things", not the things per se.

A deity would not be a religion. Belief regarding that deity would be a religion.


Science fiction and horror films may indeed present images of contrived supernatural things and happenings, but they are not supernatural per se. They are constructs of man.

I'm not sure what you mean by "belief structure to offer as a guide".

 

[asaratis]

...<snip>...

Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief. I don't believe in unicorns. That is not a belief. Seriously, think about what you write.

It implies that you have a belief that unicorns do not exist. It is not a non-belief.

 

[PratchettFan]

I don't believe in justice - restorative or otherwise. Truth is merely that which is and is utterly neutral. If someone shoots me in the back of the head, that is truth.

You seem to be looking for some sort of coming together. Not only do I not believe that is practical, I believe it would be destructive. Conflict is good. Disagreement is good. As in anything, moderation is the key. But there is no growth without a little bit of shit on the ground.

OK but not conflict for the sake of conflict. I don't see any sense in having excess drama over a nonissue, if it can be resolved in a sensible way that satisfies the interests of all parties.

What do you believe should take place after a conflict, abuse or crime occurs?

Don't you agree that by establishing the truth of what happened, and what it takes to repair the fault or damage,
and who owes what, then there is a sense of justice and restoring good faith relations if those people work out a plan
for correction, prevention or even restitution to satisfy the needs of the people involved?

What do you can that process if you do not call it making peace by establishing truth and justice?

Yes. Conflict for the sake of conflict. Preferably not to the point of violence, but some excess drama over a nonissue is, at the very least, cathartic. It need not be resolved and probably won't be resolved. It doesn't have to be resolved and no one has to be satisfied. Sometimes just getting the opportunity to have your say is satisfaction aplenty.

What I think should happen after conflict, abuse or crime is probably not something most people would agree with, which only generates more conflict. However, I will tell you I think does happen.... more conflict, abuse and crime. Welcome to the human race.

Truth and justice? Do you think the people in the background of this picture didn't believe in truth and justice?

 

[Carla_Danger]

No. It wasn't. Calling it an apple did not make it an apple. That is what I have been saying to you. Calling a belief a non-belief does not make it a non-belief. Perhaps it would have been more direct if rather than saying "I'm an apple" it just said "I'm not a banana". Either way it's the same. If the definition does not fit reality, it is the definition that's wrong. If the definition is held out as correct despite reality, then it is dogma.

Hi PratchettFan: Can I ask you to look at my reply to Asaratis and maybe help restate that better if you can?

Do you agree we'd be better to make a distinction between:

A. Atheism as a BELIEF there absolutely is NO god or gods, with or without proof, period.
And acknowledge this is very rare, as most people will admit they are actually agnostic and don't know for sure
since we could be wrong, or what we think or know could change, etc.

B. Nontheism as not a belief but a general description of people or systems that don't personify God
but view and describe Life and the World in SECULAR terms or natural laws without religious symbolism

Why argue about A if so few people really fit this category,
and most are either B or transition in that direction?

I wouldn't argue either. I think attempting to narrowly define an entire group is both pointless and dogmatic. And, to be frank, I don't think there are any non-theists currently on this board. At least none that are posting anything. It isn't about definitions, it is about behavior. Let me expand on that and I warn you it might get a bit wordy, but it also deals with this question that was brought up earlier as to just what is in it for us.

My wife is a non-smoker. By that I mean she has never so much as taken a single drag on a cigarette. She understands all of the bad stuff that can happen, but having never smoked she has no concept at all of the good stuff. I started smoking about two weeks into my first tour in Vietnam. I put out my last cigarette at 11:59 pm 12/31/1979. I am an ex-smoker, not a non-smoker. If my wife were to take a drag it would only confirm for her that she doesn't smoke. If I were to take a drag I would be at two packs a day within a week. As an ex-smoker I not only understand what is bad but also what is good about smoking. I get the attraction. Therefore, I see cigarettes as a direct threat to me while my wife sees them as an annoyance.

My parents were Christians. I went to Sunday school, learned Jesus Loves Me, did finger paintings of the cross, etc. Around the age of 9 or 10 I actually stopped and listened to what was being said and, for the first time in my life, grasped what it was being said. I was stunned. I could not then and to this day cannot understand why anyone would believe it. It is incomprehensible to me. Not the concepts of Christianity but that anyone would believe those concepts for a second. I am a non-Christian in the same way my wife is a non-smoker. I have never believed. However, in reading the posts of the various Atheists on this board I see people who were Christians into their 40's, attending religious schools, etc. They are ex-Christians in the same way I am an ex-smoker. So they get the attraction of it and that makes it a personal threat.

So of course it has to be non-belief, because otherwise they might be engaging in the same behavior they have rejected. The problem is that belief is a human thing, not a Christian thing. We are a species of believers. If we weren't we never would have developed the scientific method. The irony is that this need for it to be non-belief is what is turning Atheism into a religion. If I just say I believe there is no God, that stops it right there. Let's go play some golf. It is this insistence that some narrow definition be followed and evidence be ignored in order to match that definition which creates the religious aspect. It's not about the belief, its all about the behavior.

Back when you could smoke in restaurants, did you tell the hostess that you'd like to sit in the ex-smoking section, or the non-smoking section?

Giving up religion is not like quitting smoking or giving up alcohol. You don't go through withdrawals, and there's no need to attend 12 step meetings for the rest of your life.

You're turning this into more than it has to be.

Some gay men get married because they were taught it's the norm. There are countless stories of gay men divorcing their wives, in order to lead a happier life in a gay relationship. These men are not bisexual, they are gay.

You can call yourself an ex smoker if you want, but you will still be sitting in the non smoking section.

 

[PratchettFan]

No. It wasn't. Calling it an apple did not make it an apple. That is what I have been saying to you. Calling a belief a non-belief does not make it a non-belief. Perhaps it would have been more direct if rather than saying "I'm an apple" it just said "I'm not a banana". Either way it's the same. If the definition does not fit reality, it is the definition that's wrong. If the definition is held out as correct despite reality, then it is dogma.

Hi PratchettFan: Can I ask you to look at my reply to Asaratis and maybe help restate that better if you can?

Do you agree we'd be better to make a distinction between:

A. Atheism as a BELIEF there absolutely is NO god or gods, with or without proof, period.
And acknowledge this is very rare, as most people will admit they are actually agnostic and don't know for sure
since we could be wrong, or what we think or know could change, etc.

B. Nontheism as not a belief but a general description of people or systems that don't personify God
but view and describe Life and the World in SECULAR terms or natural laws without religious symbolism

Why argue about A if so few people really fit this category,
and most are either B or transition in that direction?

I wouldn't argue either. I think attempting to narrowly define an entire group is both pointless and dogmatic. And, to be frank, I don't think there are any non-theists currently on this board. At least none that are posting anything. It isn't about definitions, it is about behavior. Let me expand on that and I warn you it might get a bit wordy, but it also deals with this question that was brought up earlier as to just what is in it for us.

My wife is a non-smoker. By that I mean she has never so much as taken a single drag on a cigarette. She understands all of the bad stuff that can happen, but having never smoked she has no concept at all of the good stuff. I started smoking about two weeks into my first tour in Vietnam. I put out my last cigarette at 11:59 pm 12/31/1979. I am an ex-smoker, not a non-smoker. If my wife were to take a drag it would only confirm for her that she doesn't smoke. If I were to take a drag I would be at two packs a day within a week. As an ex-smoker I not only understand what is bad but also what is good about smoking. I get the attraction. Therefore, I see cigarettes as a direct threat to me while my wife sees them as an annoyance.

My parents were Christians. I went to Sunday school, learned Jesus Loves Me, did finger paintings of the cross, etc. Around the age of 9 or 10 I actually stopped and listened to what was being said and, for the first time in my life, grasped what it was being said. I was stunned. I could not then and to this day cannot understand why anyone would believe it. It is incomprehensible to me. Not the concepts of Christianity but that anyone would believe those concepts for a second. I am a non-Christian in the same way my wife is a non-smoker. I have never believed. However, in reading the posts of the various Atheists on this board I see people who were Christians into their 40's, attending religious schools, etc. They are ex-Christians in the same way I am an ex-smoker. So they get the attraction of it and that makes it a personal threat.

So of course it has to be non-belief, because otherwise they might be engaging in the same behavior they have rejected. The problem is that belief is a human thing, not a Christian thing. We are a species of believers. If we weren't we never would have developed the scientific method. The irony is that this need for it to be non-belief is what is turning Atheism into a religion. If I just say I believe there is no God, that stops it right there. Let's go play some golf. It is this insistence that some narrow definition be followed and evidence be ignored in order to match that definition which creates the religious aspect. It's not about the belief, its all about the behavior.

Back when you could smoke in restaurants, did you tell the hostess that you'd like to sit in the ex-smoking section, or the non-smoking section?

Giving up religion is not like quitting smoking or giving up alcohol. You don't go through withdrawals, and there's no need to attend 12 step meetings for the rest of your life.

You're turning this into more than it has to be.

Some gay men get married because they were taught it's the norm. There are countless stories of gay men divorcing their wives, in order to lead a happier life in a gay relationship. These men are not bisexual, they are gay.

You can call yourself an ex smoker if you want, but you will still be sitting in the non smoking section.

I'm not the one turning it into more than it has to be. It is the people who absolutely insist that a particular definition must be adhered to no matter how contrary it might be to reality. They are the ones creating this dogma. I am just laying out a possible reason why. Another reason is that given the degree of indoctrination of religion they have had they tend to bring that same mindset to Atheism. As I have said, only Atheists can turn Atheism into a religion.

The claim has been made repeatedly that Atheism is the absence of belief. Dawkins says someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, and that is certainly a belief. I have asked on multiple occasions if Dawkins is wrong and while I have gotten some tap dancing on the question, not a single person has yet answered it. Not a one. Why? Because it is a conflict which can't be resolved. Either Dawkins (the person whose scale you are using) is wrong or the definition is wrong and the dogma is such that neither can be wrong. So you all just pretend the question isn't there. You can't just say "It is God's will" so you don't say anything at all.

Atheism is a belief and it can't be anything but a belief. But by insisting upon this absurd position that it is an absence of belief, you are turning it into a religion. Don't blame the rest of us. It is all you.

 

[Carla_Danger]

No. It wasn't. Calling it an apple did not make it an apple. That is what I have been saying to you. Calling a belief a non-belief does not make it a non-belief. Perhaps it would have been more direct if rather than saying "I'm an apple" it just said "I'm not a banana". Either way it's the same. If the definition does not fit reality, it is the definition that's wrong. If the definition is held out as correct despite reality, then it is dogma.

Hi PratchettFan: Can I ask you to look at my reply to Asaratis and maybe help restate that better if you can?

Do you agree we'd be better to make a distinction between:

A. Atheism as a BELIEF there absolutely is NO god or gods, with or without proof, period.
And acknowledge this is very rare, as most people will admit they are actually agnostic and don't know for sure
since we could be wrong, or what we think or know could change, etc.

B. Nontheism as not a belief but a general description of people or systems that don't personify God
but view and describe Life and the World in SECULAR terms or natural laws without religious symbolism

Why argue about A if so few people really fit this category,
and most are either B or transition in that direction?

I wouldn't argue either. I think attempting to narrowly define an entire group is both pointless and dogmatic. And, to be frank, I don't think there are any non-theists currently on this board. At least none that are posting anything. It isn't about definitions, it is about behavior. Let me expand on that and I warn you it might get a bit wordy, but it also deals with this question that was brought up earlier as to just what is in it for us.

My wife is a non-smoker. By that I mean she has never so much as taken a single drag on a cigarette. She understands all of the bad stuff that can happen, but having never smoked she has no concept at all of the good stuff. I started smoking about two weeks into my first tour in Vietnam. I put out my last cigarette at 11:59 pm 12/31/1979. I am an ex-smoker, not a non-smoker. If my wife were to take a drag it would only confirm for her that she doesn't smoke. If I were to take a drag I would be at two packs a day within a week. As an ex-smoker I not only understand what is bad but also what is good about smoking. I get the attraction. Therefore, I see cigarettes as a direct threat to me while my wife sees them as an annoyance.

My parents were Christians. I went to Sunday school, learned Jesus Loves Me, did finger paintings of the cross, etc. Around the age of 9 or 10 I actually stopped and listened to what was being said and, for the first time in my life, grasped what it was being said. I was stunned. I could not then and to this day cannot understand why anyone would believe it. It is incomprehensible to me. Not the concepts of Christianity but that anyone would believe those concepts for a second. I am a non-Christian in the same way my wife is a non-smoker. I have never believed. However, in reading the posts of the various Atheists on this board I see people who were Christians into their 40's, attending religious schools, etc. They are ex-Christians in the same way I am an ex-smoker. So they get the attraction of it and that makes it a personal threat.

So of course it has to be non-belief, because otherwise they might be engaging in the same behavior they have rejected. The problem is that belief is a human thing, not a Christian thing. We are a species of believers. If we weren't we never would have developed the scientific method. The irony is that this need for it to be non-belief is what is turning Atheism into a religion. If I just say I believe there is no God, that stops it right there. Let's go play some golf. It is this insistence that some narrow definition be followed and evidence be ignored in order to match that definition which creates the religious aspect. It's not about the belief, its all about the behavior.

Back when you could smoke in restaurants, did you tell the hostess that you'd like to sit in the ex-smoking section, or the non-smoking section?

Giving up religion is not like quitting smoking or giving up alcohol. You don't go through withdrawals, and there's no need to attend 12 step meetings for the rest of your life.

You're turning this into more than it has to be.

Some gay men get married because they were taught it's the norm. There are countless stories of gay men divorcing their wives, in order to lead a happier life in a gay relationship. These men are not bisexual, they are gay.

You can call yourself an ex smoker if you want, but you will still be sitting in the non smoking section.

I'm not the one turning it into more than it has to be. It is the people who absolutely insist that a particular definition must be adhered to no matter how contrary it might be to reality. They are the ones creating this dogma. I am just laying out a possible reason why. Another reason is that given the degree of indoctrination of religion they have had they tend to bring that same mindset to Atheism. As I have said, only Atheists can turn Atheism into a religion.

The claim has been made repeatedly that Atheism is the absence of belief. Dawkins says someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, and that is certainly a belief. I have asked on multiple occasions if Dawkins is wrong and while I have gotten some tap dancing on the question, not a single person has yet answered it. Not a one. Why? Because it is a conflict which can't be resolved. Either Dawkins (the person whose scale you are using) is wrong or the definition is wrong and the dogma is such that neither can be wrong. So you all just pretend the question isn't there. You can't just say "It is God's will" so you don't say anything at all.

Atheism is a belief and it can't be anything but a belief. But by insisting upon this absurd position that it is an absence of belief, you are turning it into a religion. Don't blame the rest of us. It is all you.

No, actually it is you, because it is what it is. There is no dogma in atheism. No, atheist cannot turn atheism into a religion, because it's not one.

There's no tuning a non religious person into a religious person. You are the one attempting to do that, because you keep saying something is, that isn't.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion


Full Definition of RELIGION
1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>

b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.

Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?

Have you ever noticed that you can't define these "beliefs" that you erroneously allege that atheists have?

Do you even know what the definition of the term belief?

Did you even think through what you were posting before you hit reply?

Did you understand that you would assume the onus of having to prove not only these "beliefs" but that atheists actually have them?

So now that you have covered your face with egg how do you intend to wipe it off?

 

[PratchettFan]

No. It wasn't. Calling it an apple did not make it an apple. That is what I have been saying to you. Calling a belief a non-belief does not make it a non-belief. Perhaps it would have been more direct if rather than saying "I'm an apple" it just said "I'm not a banana". Either way it's the same. If the definition does not fit reality, it is the definition that's wrong. If the definition is held out as correct despite reality, then it is dogma.

Hi PratchettFan: Can I ask you to look at my reply to Asaratis and maybe help restate that better if you can?

Do you agree we'd be better to make a distinction between:

A. Atheism as a BELIEF there absolutely is NO god or gods, with or without proof, period.
And acknowledge this is very rare, as most people will admit they are actually agnostic and don't know for sure
since we could be wrong, or what we think or know could change, etc.

B. Nontheism as not a belief but a general description of people or systems that don't personify God
but view and describe Life and the World in SECULAR terms or natural laws without religious symbolism

Why argue about A if so few people really fit this category,
and most are either B or transition in that direction?

I wouldn't argue either. I think attempting to narrowly define an entire group is both pointless and dogmatic. And, to be frank, I don't think there are any non-theists currently on this board. At least none that are posting anything. It isn't about definitions, it is about behavior. Let me expand on that and I warn you it might get a bit wordy, but it also deals with this question that was brought up earlier as to just what is in it for us.

My wife is a non-smoker. By that I mean she has never so much as taken a single drag on a cigarette. She understands all of the bad stuff that can happen, but having never smoked she has no concept at all of the good stuff. I started smoking about two weeks into my first tour in Vietnam. I put out my last cigarette at 11:59 pm 12/31/1979. I am an ex-smoker, not a non-smoker. If my wife were to take a drag it would only confirm for her that she doesn't smoke. If I were to take a drag I would be at two packs a day within a week. As an ex-smoker I not only understand what is bad but also what is good about smoking. I get the attraction. Therefore, I see cigarettes as a direct threat to me while my wife sees them as an annoyance.

My parents were Christians. I went to Sunday school, learned Jesus Loves Me, did finger paintings of the cross, etc. Around the age of 9 or 10 I actually stopped and listened to what was being said and, for the first time in my life, grasped what it was being said. I was stunned. I could not then and to this day cannot understand why anyone would believe it. It is incomprehensible to me. Not the concepts of Christianity but that anyone would believe those concepts for a second. I am a non-Christian in the same way my wife is a non-smoker. I have never believed. However, in reading the posts of the various Atheists on this board I see people who were Christians into their 40's, attending religious schools, etc. They are ex-Christians in the same way I am an ex-smoker. So they get the attraction of it and that makes it a personal threat.

So of course it has to be non-belief, because otherwise they might be engaging in the same behavior they have rejected. The problem is that belief is a human thing, not a Christian thing. We are a species of believers. If we weren't we never would have developed the scientific method. The irony is that this need for it to be non-belief is what is turning Atheism into a religion. If I just say I believe there is no God, that stops it right there. Let's go play some golf. It is this insistence that some narrow definition be followed and evidence be ignored in order to match that definition which creates the religious aspect. It's not about the belief, its all about the behavior.

Back when you could smoke in restaurants, did you tell the hostess that you'd like to sit in the ex-smoking section, or the non-smoking section?

Giving up religion is not like quitting smoking or giving up alcohol. You don't go through withdrawals, and there's no need to attend 12 step meetings for the rest of your life.

You're turning this into more than it has to be.

Some gay men get married because they were taught it's the norm. There are countless stories of gay men divorcing their wives, in order to lead a happier life in a gay relationship. These men are not bisexual, they are gay.

You can call yourself an ex smoker if you want, but you will still be sitting in the non smoking section.

I'm not the one turning it into more than it has to be. It is the people who absolutely insist that a particular definition must be adhered to no matter how contrary it might be to reality. They are the ones creating this dogma. I am just laying out a possible reason why. Another reason is that given the degree of indoctrination of religion they have had they tend to bring that same mindset to Atheism. As I have said, only Atheists can turn Atheism into a religion.

The claim has been made repeatedly that Atheism is the absence of belief. Dawkins says someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, and that is certainly a belief. I have asked on multiple occasions if Dawkins is wrong and while I have gotten some tap dancing on the question, not a single person has yet answered it. Not a one. Why? Because it is a conflict which can't be resolved. Either Dawkins (the person whose scale you are using) is wrong or the definition is wrong and the dogma is such that neither can be wrong. So you all just pretend the question isn't there. You can't just say "It is God's will" so you don't say anything at all.

Atheism is a belief and it can't be anything but a belief. But by insisting upon this absurd position that it is an absence of belief, you are turning it into a religion. Don't blame the rest of us. It is all you.

No, actually it is you, because it is what it is. There is no dogma in atheism. No, atheist cannot turn atheism into a religion, because it's not one.

There's no tuning a non religious person into a religious person. You are the one attempting to do that, because you keep saying something is, that isn't.

An excellent example of dogma in practice. You responded to none of my points, just kept repeating the dogma. But let's try again... Is Dawkins wrong or is the definition wrong?