Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
...<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.
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?
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?
I think the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far. There is no dogma, there is no set of principles.
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?
I think the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far. There is no dogma, there is no set of principles.
You see? Tap dancing but not answering the question. The definition means Dawkins is wrong, it excludes you from being an Atheist, and you still won't question it.
dog·ma
noun \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
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?
I think the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far. There is no dogma, there is no set of principles.
You see? Tap dancing but not answering the question. The definition means Dawkins is wrong, it excludes you from being an Atheist, and you still won't question it.
dog·ma
noun \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
That's where you're wrong. I was an atheist long before I looked at Dawkins examples and nothing has changed. That Dawkins list is just an example, it's neither right or wrong. That list is in no way or form a set of beliefs. Again, the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.
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?
I think the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far. There is no dogma, there is no set of principles.
You see? Tap dancing but not answering the question. The definition means Dawkins is wrong, it excludes you from being an Atheist, and you still won't question it.
dog·ma
noun \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
That's where you're wrong. I was an atheist long before I looked at Dawkins examples and nothing has changed. That Dawkins list is just an example, it's neither right or wrong. That list is in no way or form a set of beliefs. Again, the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.
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?
I think the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far. There is no dogma, there is no set of principles.
You see? Tap dancing but not answering the question. The definition means Dawkins is wrong, it excludes you from being an Atheist, and you still won't question it.
dog·ma
noun \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
That's where you're wrong. I was an atheist long before I looked at Dawkins examples and nothing has changed. That Dawkins list is just an example, it's neither right or wrong. That list is in no way or form a set of beliefs. Again, the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.
The mindless insistence that atheism must be a "religion" reflects poorly on the comprehension of those who are making that allegation. They don't even understand the terminology they use. Responding to their posts is an exercise in futility because they are incapable of learning. They have a fixed mindset that everything must fit into. Their mental straightjacket is their problem in my opinion.
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?
I think the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far. There is no dogma, there is no set of principles.
You see? Tap dancing but not answering the question. The definition means Dawkins is wrong, it excludes you from being an Atheist, and you still won't question it.
dog·ma
noun \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
That's where you're wrong. I was an atheist long before I looked at Dawkins examples and nothing has changed. That Dawkins list is just an example, it's neither right or wrong. That list is in no way or form a set of beliefs. Again, the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.
Still not responding to the question. The definition of Atheism being presented is that Atheism is an absence of belief. You have clearly shown you do not have an absence of belief. Ergo, you are not an Atheist. Dawkins' list indicates someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, which is most certainly a belief. Ergo, Dawkins is wrong. You are faced with a definition which is in direct conflict with the facts and you will not question it.
dog·ma
noun \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
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?
I think the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far. There is no dogma, there is no set of principles.
You see? Tap dancing but not answering the question. The definition means Dawkins is wrong, it excludes you from being an Atheist, and you still won't question it.
dog·ma
noun \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
That's where you're wrong. I was an atheist long before I looked at Dawkins examples and nothing has changed. That Dawkins list is just an example, it's neither right or wrong. That list is in no way or form a set of beliefs. Again, the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.
Still not responding to the question. The definition of Atheism being presented is that Atheism is an absence of belief. You have clearly shown you do not have an absence of belief. Ergo, you are not an Atheist. Dawkins' list indicates someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, which is most certainly a belief. Ergo, Dawkins is wrong. You are faced with a definition which is in direct conflict with the facts and you will not question it.
dog·ma
noun \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
That's complete BS, and useless blabber. You don't get to define who or what I am.
I think the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far. There is no dogma, there is no set of principles.
You see? Tap dancing but not answering the question. The definition means Dawkins is wrong, it excludes you from being an Atheist, and you still won't question it.
dog·ma
noun \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
That's where you're wrong. I was an atheist long before I looked at Dawkins examples and nothing has changed. That Dawkins list is just an example, it's neither right or wrong. That list is in no way or form a set of beliefs. Again, the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.
Still not responding to the question. The definition of Atheism being presented is that Atheism is an absence of belief. You have clearly shown you do not have an absence of belief. Ergo, you are not an Atheist. Dawkins' list indicates someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, which is most certainly a belief. Ergo, Dawkins is wrong. You are faced with a definition which is in direct conflict with the facts and you will not question it.
dog·ma
noun \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
That's complete BS, and useless blabber. You don't get to define who or what I am.
I am applying the definition you have accepted to the words you have written. It's not my fault you don't fit the definition.
You see? Tap dancing but not answering the question. The definition means Dawkins is wrong, it excludes you from being an Atheist, and you still won't question it.
dog·ma
noun \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
That's where you're wrong. I was an atheist long before I looked at Dawkins examples and nothing has changed. That Dawkins list is just an example, it's neither right or wrong. That list is in no way or form a set of beliefs. Again, the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.
Still not responding to the question. The definition of Atheism being presented is that Atheism is an absence of belief. You have clearly shown you do not have an absence of belief. Ergo, you are not an Atheist. Dawkins' list indicates someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, which is most certainly a belief. Ergo, Dawkins is wrong. You are faced with a definition which is in direct conflict with the facts and you will not question it.
dog·ma
noun \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
That's complete BS, and useless blabber. You don't get to define who or what I am.
I am applying the definition you have accepted to the words you have written. It's not my fault you don't fit the definition.
You're making shit up as you go along.
You see? Tap dancing but not answering the question. The definition means Dawkins is wrong, it excludes you from being an Atheist, and you still won't question it.
dog·ma
noun \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
That's where you're wrong. I was an atheist long before I looked at Dawkins examples and nothing has changed. That Dawkins list is just an example, it's neither right or wrong. That list is in no way or form a set of beliefs. Again, the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.
Still not responding to the question. The definition of Atheism being presented is that Atheism is an absence of belief. You have clearly shown you do not have an absence of belief. Ergo, you are not an Atheist. Dawkins' list indicates someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, which is most certainly a belief. Ergo, Dawkins is wrong. You are faced with a definition which is in direct conflict with the facts and you will not question it.
dog·ma
noun \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
That's complete BS, and useless blabber. You don't get to define who or what I am.
I am applying the definition you have accepted to the words you have written. It's not my fault you don't fit the definition.
You're making shit up as you go along.
That's where you're wrong. I was an atheist long before I looked at Dawkins examples and nothing has changed. That Dawkins list is just an example, it's neither right or wrong. That list is in no way or form a set of beliefs. Again, the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.
Still not responding to the question. The definition of Atheism being presented is that Atheism is an absence of belief. You have clearly shown you do not have an absence of belief. Ergo, you are not an Atheist. Dawkins' list indicates someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, which is most certainly a belief. Ergo, Dawkins is wrong. You are faced with a definition which is in direct conflict with the facts and you will not question it.
dog·ma
noun \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
That's complete BS, and useless blabber. You don't get to define who or what I am.
I am applying the definition you have accepted to the words you have written. It's not my fault you don't fit the definition.
You're making shit up as you go along.
Really. Which part isn't true? Did you not say you think it is probable there is no God (I am number 6)? Do you disagree with the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief?
That's where you're wrong. I was an atheist long before I looked at Dawkins examples and nothing has changed. That Dawkins list is just an example, it's neither right or wrong. That list is in no way or form a set of beliefs. Again, the Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far.
Still not responding to the question. The definition of Atheism being presented is that Atheism is an absence of belief. You have clearly shown you do not have an absence of belief. Ergo, you are not an Atheist. Dawkins' list indicates someone who is certain there is no God is an Atheist, which is most certainly a belief. Ergo, Dawkins is wrong. You are faced with a definition which is in direct conflict with the facts and you will not question it.
dog·ma
noun \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
That's complete BS, and useless blabber. You don't get to define who or what I am.
I am applying the definition you have accepted to the words you have written. It's not my fault you don't fit the definition.
You're making shit up as you go along.
Which is why I said that responding is futile to those incapable of learning. The Cyberia function works wonders. The ignorant are ignored which is as it should be and their made up shit doesn't even show up at all.
...<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.
That means Tuatara no longer follows the Unicornist doctrine, and is not affiliated with the Unicorn Church. He/she does not share the unrealistic belief in Unicorns. Tuatara in now an Unicorneist. There is no doctrine for Unicorneism.
[QUOTE="PratchettFan, post: 9828388, member: 37752"
Really. Which part isn't true? Did you not say you think it is probable there is no God (I am number 6)? Do you disagree with the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief?
...<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.
That means Tuatara no longer follows the Unicornist doctrine, and is not affiliated with the Unicorn Church. He/she does not share the unrealistic belief in Unicorns. Tuatara in now an Unicorneist. There is no doctrine for Unicorneism.
Hi Carla_Danger:
Again, I see there are MULTIPLE types, not just either/or.
I will look up this Dawkins list and see if that is what my other Atheist friend used to explain
there were different TYPES of Atheist beliefs, similar to denominations in religion and politics.
To make a simple analogy, let's look at Democrats vs. liberals.
Some people argue Liberalism is a religion, a belief and movement.
Fine, that's what it looks like to those people and there is a collective "agenda or influence"
in the "liberal media" that does seem to have a direction of its own.
You can blame it on Liberalism or Commercial media or whatever that pushes this trend.
Now, let's consider the FORMAL organized and registered Democrat PARTY.
Yes, this party has published principles, which include and Expressly State
the BELIEF that "health care is a right". So I see and say this is a Political Religion.
The Liberalism in the media is not a formal religion and cannot be traced to any one group.
The Democrat Party principles are written and can be shown to contain
the terms WE BELIEVE that health care is a right.
Now let's also consider the independent liberals running around
who are neither controlling the Liberal bias in the media, nor are formal
members or leaders of the Democrat Party.
Can we have ALL THREE going on?
This loose unnamed "liberalism" in the media going on whatever you call it or blame it on.
The FORMAL Democrat party that is prochoice yet pushes health care through govt as a mandate.
Whatever.
And the informal liberal thinkers not affiliated directly with either one.
Can you see why some people will say that all that is combined as one political religious movement?
And others will say, hell no, I am NOT connected with the Democrats, I'm an independent
and don't AGREE with what the liberal politicians are doing!
So we have Greens, atheists, independents, anarchists and socialists
who are NOT party of the Democrat elite defining this "liberal media" and "agenda"
BLAMES on "ALL LIBERALS" under "Liberalism."
Isn't the same thing true with atheists?
Some are part of organizations that do publicly lobby to push some agenda.
So what.
That does not mean all atheists believe or do that!
So there are different levels and we don't have to waste
time arguing that these are all part of "one big movement"
based on only certain people or groups, when in fact
there are many "liberals" not associated or in agreement
with the "liberalism" seen in the media or pushed by the formally organized Democrat party.
[QUOTE="PratchettFan, post: 9828388, member: 37752"
Really. Which part isn't true? Did you not say you think it is probable there is no God (I am number 6)? Do you disagree with the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief?
I don't know why you're so fixated with that Dawkins list. I just happened to come across it online. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm right in between a 5 and a 6.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical. 6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
