Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Hollie]

Your false claim that atheism is a belief is simply the ranting that you and the other fundie extremists rattle on with, utterly unsupported and indefensible.

That others reject your polytheistic traditions is no excuse to use your beliefs to promote lies and falsehoods.

Excuse me?

Do you know what belief means?

An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists​

You have repeatedly asserted that you accept the statement that god does not exist as true. That means you have a belief. You might like to pretend you do not, but the rest of the universe knows you do.

There's no excuse for you.

Sorry, but your being incensed that others conclude your gods are no more true than tales and fables of other inventions of gods is something you will have to learn to live with.

You're in denial of that objective reality but such is the case for so many religious extremists.

 

[Hollie]

You're welcome.

Per standard windbaggery, you can't refute the claim so you're left to stutter and mumble.

Did you make a claim? I must have missed because of the tears in my eyes from laughing at your post.

Did you write a coherent comment? That's a rhetorical question because your pointless babble never gets beyond spam.

 

[sealybobo]

Your false claim that atheism is a belief is simply the ranting that you and the other fundie extremists rattle on with, utterly unsupported and indefensible.

That others reject your polytheistic traditions is no excuse to use your beliefs to promote lies and falsehoods.

Excuse me?

Do you know what belief means?

An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists
​

You have repeatedly demonstrated that you accept the statement that god does not exist as true. That means you have a belief. You might like to pretend you do not, but the rest of the universe knows you do.

She doesn't believe. Doesn't. No belief. Nada. Semantics really.

 

[sealybobo]

Your false claim that atheism is a belief is simply the ranting that you and the other fundie extremists rattle on with, utterly unsupported and indefensible.

That others reject your polytheistic traditions is no excuse to use your beliefs to promote lies and falsehoods.

Excuse me?

Do you know what belief means?

An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists​

You have repeatedly asserted that you accept the statement that god does not exist as true. That means you have a belief. You might like to pretend you do not, but the rest of the universe knows you do.

There's no excuse for you.

Sorry, but your being incensed that others conclude your gods are no more true than tales and fables of other inventions of gods is something you will have to learn to live with.

You're in denial of that objective reality but such is the case for so many religious extremists.

Thank god(s) for the internets huh? I would have never been able to do the amount of research on this subject as I have now that we have the net. My friend showed me a million great atheist debates, blablabla.

Without the net it wouldn't be this easy to share stuff like this:

 

[Carla_Danger]

You're welcome.

Per standard windbaggery, you can't refute the claim so you're left to stutter and mumble.

Did you make a claim? I must have missed because of the tears in my eyes from laughing at your post.

Did you write a coherent comment? That's a rhetorical question because your pointless babble never gets beyond spam.

We don't call him Windbag for nothing. LOL!

 

[sealybobo]

You make a number of false statements. As usual, your hate and intolerance won't allow you to make rational judgments outside of your cult's indoctrination.

Your religion fits the definition of a cult, BTW.

Christianity is by definition, a cult. CULT - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top.

Catholicism falls prey to this. It has a Pope and a structure of Bishops and priests, each a lower level of authority with all the teaching "at the top". By definition, it is a cult.

Let me toss out Scientology here, where all its teaching comes from L Ron Hubbard (Scientology has been decreed a bona fide religion based on .... finances and headcount). I bring this up because its Leader is dead but still the teaching comes from one person at the top.

All Christianity is a cult as well under these strictures. There is a hierarchy of authority not in any way different from Scientology. Jesus is the authority who is dead, as well as the apostle Paul (who really established the founding of Christianity as a religion). But the authority still comes from the "top" through these two individuals who are no more or less dead than L Ron Hubbard (except they have been dead a lot longer). That the religion confers a special status to these two authorities is of no consequence, as Scientologists confer a special status to their "spiritual leader" as well. Neither this fact nor the antiquity of the Christian folk being dead (or for that matter Mohammed or David Koresh or Jim Jones, etc.) is in anyway legitimized one over the other.

BTW, each of these men have made grandiose claims of self-importance, each claiming those who follow different paths are doomed to eternal torment.

That was hilarious, thanks for the laugh.

Now I see your problem. I used to think this too about atheists:

In Theistic Satanism, Satan is considered a positive force and deity who is either worshipped or revered

Are you confusing us atheists with them?

 

[sealybobo]

How can I make you understand? Most atheists will admit that the most logical position to have is actually an agnostic atheist. Most atheists don't claim to know for certain that there isn't a god. What we know for certain, or at least as certain as we can be, is that the organized religions stories of god are all made up, fake or lies.

Even if you are correct that most, as in more than half, of atheist will admit they don't really know, that does not change the fact that, to be an atheist, you have to believe that there is no god. I know Christians, and Muslims, that will admit they might be wrong about the existence of God or Allah, that does not change the fact that they believe.

On top of that, most is not all. That means that, even if I give you the most generous interpretation of your post possible, you are still arguing against reality.

So as far as the Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Jewish, Greek God stories? I would still call myself an agnostic atheist but only because I wasn't there. I would say 99.9999% those stories are made up. Since I wasn't there I won't say 100% but pretty freakin sure non the less. We disbelieve enough that we aren't scared into going along with the stories of hell. Lets just put it that way.

Now, as far as there being a generic "creator"? The kind that Boss talks about? The idea that "something" might have created us but has never spoke to anyone and doesn't care about you? That is possible. We don't know what is on the other side of black holes. Maybe our universe was made from god spunk when he used a black hole like a glory hole. How can we say 100% for sure that we were not created by something intelligent? We can't. But, you can't either.

So as far as all the theist stories, we give those a .000001% chance of being true.

Do you believe in magic? Do you think those magicians are really doing magic or is it a trick? If you are like most, you know those are just tricks or illusions. So, is this a religion?

Sorry, but what you said is not an expression of disbelief, it was an expression of belief. The fact that you are so stupid you don't understand that fact is not proof you are correct.

Ok I'll be honest here is my religion:

Theistic Satanism (also known as traditional Satanism or spiritual Satanism) is the belief that Satan is a supernatural being or force that individuals may contact and supplicate to

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge.

Now you think you are an expert on etymology.

Sorry Charlie, but you got that wrong.

1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-).
​

Damn, it seems like the etymology is on my side, just like the dictionary.

Want to try again?

​

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.

No, it is a belief that there are no gods, something I just demonstrated with an actual link. Funny how all you can do is post your opinion, even though it has been proven wrong multiple times.

It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.

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

Yada, yada, yada.

We are hardwired to wonder/ponder these things but the fact is you didn't come out of your moms womb believing in god and you didn't come up with it on your own either. When you were 3 or 4, you had to be told about god/jesus/mohammad. If no one ever mentioned god to you or any other child, eventually someone might come up with the concept again so while it might be true that we are hard wired to be curious/spiritual, it would not be the exact same story the next time. You may not come up with the concept of hell but someone else might. Why? Because our unintelligent ancestors sat around the fire and asked a lot of questions. What happens when you die? And someone came up with heaven. What happens if you were a bad person? Well a bad person can't also go to heaven. What would be the point? So, you might come up with hell.

That explains why the Soviet Union never had to tell anyone that God doesn't exist. Wait, it really doesn't. I once read a story about a girl who grew up the daughter of Communist Party members in the Soviet Union. She was told from the time she was 3 or 4 that God did not exist, but found herself wondering why anyone would go to that much trouble to debunk something that is not real. After all, no one has ever written a book to explain why they don't believe in the Easter Bunny or Santa Clause. She thought about it for years, and developed her own concept of what God would be like, if He actually does exist. Funny thing, when the wall came down and she got to hear about the God you insist can only be learned if someone teaches it to you, she discovered He was just like the one she imagined.

Would you accept an argument like that from someone who was trying to prove god exists?

Didn't think so.

Given that you won't accept my story, can you explain why anyone should accept yours?

Didn't think so.

You could even come up with the Budda or Hindu story. Does the fact that humans invented the Greek gods mean god exists? No.

Does the fact that both Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammad are all historical figures prove that you exist?

No, it doesn't.

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

Again with the blithering. Keep it up and you might actually convince yourself that you are right, and no longer need to defend your beliefs to others simply because they disagree with you.

Have you noticed that I have not once felt the need to defend my beliefs in this thread? Or that there are some posters who are upset that I haven't even laid them out? That is because, unlike yours, mine are all based on reality. I see no need to defend reality, I just point to it and laugh at the idiots that deny it.

Implicit atheism is defined as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". Explicit atheism is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it". Explicit atheists have considered the idea of deities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists thus either have not given the idea of deities much consideration, or, though they do not believe, have not rejected belief.

It is? By whom?

im·plic·it
: understood though not clearly or directly stated
: not affected by doubt
Full Definition of IMPLICIT
1a : capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed : implied <an implicit assumption>
b : involved in the nature or essence of something though not revealed, expressed, or developed : potential <a sculptor may see different figures implicit in a block of stone — John Dewey>
c of a mathematical function : defined by an expression in which the dependent variable and the one or more independent variables are not separated on opposite sides of an equation — compare explicit 4
2: being without doubt or reserve : unquestioning <an implicit trust>
​

How the fuck do you put a word that means that in front of another word and redefine it so that it reinforces your argument?

Please tell me again how I am twisting definitions.

Do I have anything else to say? Just that I agree with Hollie.

You agree with Hollie? Isn't she the idiot that keeps accusing me of being a YEC even though I believe the Earth is over 4 billion years old?

Thanks for proving you are just what I said you are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I believe in the ocean there are men who can breathe water. Is your lack of belief in these men a belief? Ok, then I guess me not believing in god(s) is a belief too. So what?

What makes you think I lack belief? Are you reading my mind? FYI, I know the men you referred to do not exist. That is a belief, so your entire post is, as usual, based on delusion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Now I see your problem. I used to think this too about atheists:

In Theistic Satanism, Satan is considered a positive force and deity who is either worshipped or revered

Are you confusing us atheists with them?

I think what about atheist? All I said was that Hollie's post is hilarious.

It is.

You, on the other hand, have two problems, you think you can read my mind, and you do not get the joke.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Hollie:
I think you are confusing the abuse of religion with the consistent practice of it that is mutually beneficial for all people and for humanity, which is my understanding that I support, not the abuse of any religion.

For that matter, do you consider the support of government as supporting abuse of govt to
* allow corporations to run amok destroying the environment?
the same freedoms and principles in our laws also allow for wrong to be committed and unchecked
"until due process" is gone through; so that these laws and freedom are abused too!

Are you, Hollie, going to throw out all the positive uses of our govt and secular laws
becuase of the people abusing their freedom under this democratic/capitalist system?

Look at the difference between how Asian countries execute drug dealers whereas in
the US the drug abusers and dealers are filling up our prisons.

Are you going to say that supporting the American way is EVIL because it allows such abuses to continue?

* for Christianity, are you going to say that ALL people are evil abusers who support the good principles
of "living life for the good of the whole", being selfless and putting spiritual health of people, relations
and society about one's selfish desires that become abusive when not "treating others as ourselves."

the Golden rule in Christianity is also a natural law in ALL religions.

So are you going to throw all that out because of the people who abuse it?

Please explain how you can make a distinction between the good use of law
vs. people who abuse freedom to break the law,
but you cannot do the same with teachings in Christianity.

There are some people who DO believe the Constitutional laws were all based on greed for property
by white men, and abused to enslave poor people and slaves, so they distrust those laws.

Are you like that, too? Just because the Constitutional laws and govt were used to justify
slavery and discrimination against blacks and women from voting, are you going to
be consistent with your arguments here, and just say supporting Constitutional principles
is endorsing slavery and oppression and enabling political abuse by those with more power?

What is the difference, Hollie, between abusing political authority of the govt
and abusing religious authority of the church? If you are going to reject all the church,
laws and authority because of abuses, are you going to reject all of govt and laws because
of how these are abused by people with more power taking advantage of other people?

Love to hear your answer on this Hollie.
Maybe you can explain it, as I have not heard anyone try yet.

The last person who tried to argue with me that the Christian faith was more of a problem
than any other collective institution that becomes corrupted, changed his mind. And rewrote
his 400 page book after he decided that the problem was greater than just Christianity
but existed with people in general, and wasn't just the religions doing this. All people with
political agenda were equally pushing their views and imposing and oppressing others, not just Christians.

Hollie if you are only saying that Christians are the biggest hypocrites about it, I might agree with you.
Everyone has biases and getting in groups large enough can cause collective damage and oppression.
Corporations, govts, both religious and political groups; even nonprofits commit mass fraud int eh wrong hands.

But I would agree with you that if Christians claim to have the greater responsibility for fixing all these problems,
then when Christians are caught promoting these very problems and making them worse, then that
hypocrisy hurts worse than people who never claimed to have the absolute answers.

If that is your point Hollie, I understand; the difference between you and me is that I see that
for the extreme evil that is caused by any person or group, they also have to balance that by
providing proportional good in order to fulfill the laws of justice. So for every evil that you blame
on Christianity, the good that Christianity does is equal or above that, so we come out ahead by
correcting the problems and bringing out the good points and purpose in each person or group, including Christainity.

If you do not have faith that equal good comes from the bad in order to bring justice,
then that is the difference between how you see it and how I see it. I also see the evil done,
the horrible genocides and selfish destruction. But I also see how the good in Christianity
not only overcomes, but corrects, prevents and heals the root causes of where this harm comes from.

If you only see the negative side, I understand why you would respond this way.

I can only tell you that from what I have seen and experienced, it goes both ways
and for everything bad that happens, equal or more good can come from it that more than makes up for it.

There is much more good in Christianity, and any evil or abuses can be corrected
and prevented by practicing the good in it. It is like the spirit of Charity. A lot of charity events
and organizations can be fraudulent and abuse the good will of people to commit wrongs for selfish reasons.
but the number of charity outreach efforts and organizations that are good far exceeds the ones that are bad.
Christianity is the same way.
And back to the analogy of govt and laws that are abused by selfish people,
the good still outweighs the bad, and the correct use of the system is to check and prevent the bad abuses.
same with Christian laws that when used correctly can stop the abuses which I assume you are complaining about.

both church and state laws are supposed to check against abuses of their systems, even though
the problems still occur while humanity is on learning curve to prevent and correct the wrongs.

If you have more faith in the state system than in the church system,
I'd like to know why. Because both the church is made up of people
and the govt is. So it is up to people to use the laws correctly in both the church and state
and to prevent the abuses.

Frankly I think it is harder to stop abuses in the govt because the laws are mandatory
and harder to change. the changes in the church can be done directly by the people,
as Luther did or the people who merged the Unitarian and Universalist churches.
so I think there is more freedom in religion to change how we teach and do things,
and harder to correct problems in politics because of the legislative process required.

Hollie if you have more faith in the govt system, that is significant. If you believe the
corruption in politics, govt and courts can be fixed using that system without throwing
out all the laws, surely there is hope for religions to correct the abuses!

Dear Derideo_Te: Thank you for your clarifying statement.
I wish all people would EXPLAIN as you did what the problem is.
That way at least we know what is going wrong and have a chance to address it.

In this case, it may be this is just an exercise in learning to forgive unconditionally.
If Asaratis does not define your beliefs, then don't let him.
There is no need to ignore or cut him off to make this not so.

If it is truly independent, then he should be able to keep thinking what he does
and not affect you. Let him be wrong.

So this could be one of those exercises in how to really stop this nonsense of
associating people by label.
...<snip>...

My dear Emily,

My time is my own and I am under no obligation to suffer fools gladly around here. Those who prove themselves to be a complete and utter waste of my time don't deserve the privilege of wasting my time so that is why I consign them to Cyberia. The feature is there for a reason and I make good use of it because the value I place on my time far exceeds the vacuity of the posters who now reside in Cyberia.

They can still post their mindless drivel as much as they wish but it won't interfere with my time in this forum in the future. I am the one and only master of my time and when I decide that they are not worth it that is the result. I don't make this decision lightly because I consider a number of factors before I issue the one way ticket. Essentially when I see no redeeming value at all in the posts of someone I push them out of my time slot.

There is no shortage of posters either so it isn't as though I won't have anyone else to exchange ideas with. The abundance of fools though can make it tedious wading through their blather. Going by Carla's recent response to QW in this thread I am glad that he was the very first poster that I ignored when I first arrived here about 18 months ago. I must have saved many hours of my time by now not reading his claptrap.

So yes, the ignore system works perfectly. I get to control who I read and respond to and that improves the USMB experience. The Cyberians might as well be speaking another language or residing on a different planet as far as I am concerned because what they have to say is just meaningless noise since it contains nothing of any value whatsoever.

Peace
DT

Dear @emilynghiem ,

DT above expresses nothing more than self aggrandizement coupled with intentional veiling of his apparent inability to cope with those "beneath him" that logically challenge his errant postings and surreal re-definitions of terms that have been accepted for decades. This is very much akin to the liberals changing their own label from liberal to progressive in an attempt to escape the negative connotations now attached to liberal. Ignoring the opposition is also another tactic used exhaustively by liberals. It bears no resemblance to that which it precludes; productive dialog that often leads to self improvement and understanding.

Just as does hatred, ignoring people has little effect on the target.

Regards,

asaratis

Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.

Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.

 

[sealybobo]

Soviet Union never had to tell anyone that God doesn't exist. Wait, it really doesn't. I once read a story about a girl who grew up the daughter of Communist Party members in the Soviet Union. She was told from the time she was 3 or 4 that God did not exist,

.

So someone told her about god when she was 3 or 4? Long story short is she wants to believe. It is possible she might even have the religious gene in her. Just like there is a conservative gene or liberal gene.

The rest of what you wrote was just drivel.

 

[sealybobo]

Now I see your problem. I used to think this too about atheists:

In Theistic Satanism, Satan is considered a positive force and deity who is either worshipped or revered

Are you confusing us atheists with them?

I think what about atheist? All I said was that Hollie's post is hilarious.

It is.

You, on the other hand, have two problems, you think you can read my mind, and you do not get the joke.

I was joking too.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I was joking too.

I wasn't joking, Hollie's post was hilarious.

Like I said, you don't get the joke.

 

[sealybobo]

I was joking too.

you don't get the joke.

I get you.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Sealybobo and Hollie:
From YOUR focus on what atheism means literally, I agree with you that just "not believing" does not constitute a religion.

However, I do agree with others there are other levels that do become religious
1. For those who make an organized movement to push a BELIEF there is no god, that is the same as with a traditional religion.
2. For those who PERSONALLY hold onto the BELIEF there is no god, they can make a personal religion out of it, such as a strongly held belief that affects their whole approach to life.

For Sealybobo and Derideo_Te I see more of a nontheistic viewpoint where you are simply secular in thinking.

For Hollie I see an anti-theist angle, where if I show support for Christianity she criticizes this as endorsing or enabling
abuses associated with Christianity. So that is anti-religious and being against the abuse of religion that is biasing Hollie's approach. Carla may have this also.

Sealybobo I see a little in you, when you argue with people like QW, but I do not bring it out so much. With Hollie, yes, she started criticizing me personally for not condemning Christianity as false and abusive.

If we can resolve the anti-theist bias that is skewing how we talk with each other,
then after that is isolated, maybe it will be easier to talk about atheism and nontheism
and not confuse the "anti-theist reaction to religion" with "pushing an atheist belief."

Can we put aside the factor of "anti-theism" that is coming across as religious?

I would like to see how we can communicate without that "anti-theism" getting in the way.
What seems most to cause the perception of atheists being religious it is the defensive sentiment in anti-theist statements.

Since I do not see this antitheism when I debate with Sealybobo and Derideo_Te,
I do not think it is inherent but in reaction to QW and others who are rejecting people and then get rejected in return.

I am curious if I can resolve this with Hollie so we can communicate without this "antitheism" getting in the way. Also with Carla who seems to take issue with me as Hollie does because of some past grievances with Christianity or other theists. I apologize for coming across wrong,
but am sincerely trying to resolve and stop the abuse of religion and Christianity by working within these groups.

I think that backlash from theist and abuse of theism
can be addressed separately, and quit confusing it with the idea that all atheists are pushing a religion.

Most defensiveness is from past abuse and rejection by theists, and is a natural reaction, but not a permanent part of
someone's beliefs.

Can we resolve that factor first, before we try to understand the beliefs
without that defensive reaction coloring and clouding the picture.
Sorry for this!

 

[PostmodernProph]

Christianity is by definition, a cult. CULT - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top.

Apple Computers?....

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Hollie and QuantumWindbag:
I think it was both Asaratis and PratchettFan who may have said it best, I lost track.
I thought it was their posts that basically acknowledged that both cases can be true.

There are atheists who do not make a religion of their way of seeing the world nontheistically.
There are atheists who do make a FORMAL religious push and agenda out of their beliefs (mostly
anti-theist, where their real focus is counteracting false religion; since to them they don't believe there is god, what
they are really preaching against is theism and theists teaching this is an absolute)
There are atheists who don't make it formal, but do have a personal belief they believe in religiously
where it is their way of living and looking at life.
There are those who do not.

Hollie and QW the only difference I see here is that you
have no tolerance or openness to the idea that some people
MAY fit the description you oppose.

You both seem bent on arguing there is only ONE way.
So the other way must be wrong.

Instead I support whoever was posting that more than one approach can be going on with different people.
I think it was asaratis and also PF who both said something similar, sorry if it was other people instead.

With Sealybobo, he brought up how this happens with the gay issue.
Again QW seems to convey the absolute stance that none are born that way but it is a choice.

And again, I have found that more than one way can explain different people:
some are spiritually born transgender or homosexual the same way I was spiritually born heterosexual.
this is not just genetic. I have spiritual gifts, tendencies and karma that did not come from my family
but are connected with my spiritual path beyond my physical family line; some of it is national karma.
so the same things can be explained spiritually:
some are born a certain way
some can change as part of their spiritual path
some cannot change because of their spiritual path

so there is no need to argue that it has to be all one way and the other ways are wrong.

I find there are some cases that fit the different descriptions

the peope who argue and cannot resovle it
are usuall those who hold on to one way and argue the other ways are wrong.

surprise
what if the answer is all the above are possible cases
and there are real life examples of each

same with atheism, I have seen just about every version
so if you only take one description and try to say it applies to all people,
you will find someone who contradicts that rule

Hollie and QW you are both right that the other person is wrong to make such a generalization
you are only right when you are talking about atheists who actually follow the description you say is the only one
there are many others who are doing otherwise

 

[asaratis]

Dear Derideo_Te: Thank you for your clarifying statement.
I wish all people would EXPLAIN as you did what the problem is.
That way at least we know what is going wrong and have a chance to address it.

In this case, it may be this is just an exercise in learning to forgive unconditionally.
If Asaratis does not define your beliefs, then don't let him.
There is no need to ignore or cut him off to make this not so.

If it is truly independent, then he should be able to keep thinking what he does
and not affect you. Let him be wrong.

So this could be one of those exercises in how to really stop this nonsense of
associating people by label.
...<snip>...

My dear Emily,

My time is my own and I am under no obligation to suffer fools gladly around here. Those who prove themselves to be a complete and utter waste of my time don't deserve the privilege of wasting my time so that is why I consign them to Cyberia. The feature is there for a reason and I make good use of it because the value I place on my time far exceeds the vacuity of the posters who now reside in Cyberia.

They can still post their mindless drivel as much as they wish but it won't interfere with my time in this forum in the future. I am the one and only master of my time and when I decide that they are not worth it that is the result. I don't make this decision lightly because I consider a number of factors before I issue the one way ticket. Essentially when I see no redeeming value at all in the posts of someone I push them out of my time slot.

There is no shortage of posters either so it isn't as though I won't have anyone else to exchange ideas with. The abundance of fools though can make it tedious wading through their blather. Going by Carla's recent response to QW in this thread I am glad that he was the very first poster that I ignored when I first arrived here about 18 months ago. I must have saved many hours of my time by now not reading his claptrap.

So yes, the ignore system works perfectly. I get to control who I read and respond to and that improves the USMB experience. The Cyberians might as well be speaking another language or residing on a different planet as far as I am concerned because what they have to say is just meaningless noise since it contains nothing of any value whatsoever.

Peace
DT

Dear @emilynghiem ,

DT above expresses nothing more than self aggrandizement coupled with intentional veiling of his apparent inability to cope with those "beneath him" that logically challenge his errant postings and surreal re-definitions of terms that have been accepted for decades. This is very much akin to the liberals changing their own label from liberal to progressive in an attempt to escape the negative connotations now attached to liberal. Ignoring the opposition is also another tactic used exhaustively by liberals. It bears no resemblance to that which it precludes; productive dialog that often leads to self improvement and understanding.

Just as does hatred, ignoring people has little effect on the target.

Regards,

asaratis

Concluding that your promotion of fear and superstition (which you call "christianity"), is a reasonable and rational conclusion.

Concluding that Leprechauns are a product of fear and superstition is no different than a similar conclusion reached in connection with your multi-gods.

Get a load of this, oh brilliant one. I don't really promote Christianity. I don't really care what you believe. I did in my younger years, but the older I get, the less I care what you believe or why you believe it.

 

[asaratis]

Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".

She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.

Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".

Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.

The fact that you continue to argue what your beliefs actually are definitively establishes the fact that you actually have a belief.

A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.

Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.

A tree is not a deity. Religions deal with deities. Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.

DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.

No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs. Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist. DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster. Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.

If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic. If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist. The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.

Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion. I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God. I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me. If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.

You're right, religions deal with deities, atheism does not. Hope that helps.

Of course it does! You believe they do not exist.