Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[emilynghiem]

Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.

Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.

Please stick this out to the end.
We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.

If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.

If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
until we can get to the ones underneath? please do not give up and walk away.
I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
every step to get there.

the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.

Unlike a religion, atheism is not organized under a common doctrine (belief system). The only shared opinion among atheists is the nonexistence of a deity. There are a few common beliefs among atheists such as views regarding morality, religion and spirituality, but these beliefs vary greatly and are outside the definition of atheism and thus are not required to be an atheist.

Largely, atheism remains unorganized and as some would say, "organizing atheists is like trying to heard cats".

Yep. But directing the comments above to the more excitable of the religious folks makes them as nervous as a bunch of long-tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs.

And that ^^^^ is exemplary of the doctrine of the religion of Atheism.

You are deluded to infer that I am being hateful, emotional or overly excitable about this ongoing discussion. You don't bother me one bit. You narcissism is exposing itself.

I am simply using logic and references to accepted definitions to argue against the posit in the OP. Atheism is a religion.

When are religious beliefs involving magic and supernaturalism defined as "Logical"?

syn: See despair.
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
Desperation
any port in a storm See EXPEDIENCE.

at the end of one’s rope or tether At the end of one’s endurance or resources, out of options; exasperated,frustrated. The rope or tether is generally conceded to be that formerly attached to a grazing animal, restricting hismovement and area of pasturage.

He was at the end of his rope when he had consumed all the provender within reach.

climb walls To be stir-crazy from confinement; to feel trapped or hemmed-in; to suffer from a lack of options. Onewho is “climbing the walls” suffers from a claustrophobic feeling of confinement—physical or mental—from whichthere is no apparent relief. The image is of a person trapped in a room with no doors or windows—the only way forreleasing his pent-up energies being to climb the walls.

forlorn hope A desperate hope or undertaking; an expedition in which the survival of the participants is doubtful.This phrase is homonymously derived from the Dutch verloren hoop ‘lost troop,’ and formerly referred to the frontline of soldiers in a military confrontation:

Called the forlorn hope, because they … fall on first, and make a passage for the rest. (Gaya’s Art of Wan, 1678)

grasp at straws To seek substance in the flimsy or meaning in the insignificant; to find ground for hope where noneexists. In common use since the 18th century, the expression derives from the even older self-explanatory proverb:“A drowning man will catch at a straw.”

Strawman desperation on your part. The logical discussion of definitions of religion is not discussion of religious beliefs. You fail again.

Your references to despair, forlorn hope, climb walls, ends of ropes, any port, etc., have nothing to do with this discussion. You obviously think they apply to me. Here again, you put your narcissism on display. I'm simply having fun toying with hardshell Atheists, giving you a taste of your own shit.

Not to worry. I shall soon enough tire of it and vacate this thread. You can take that as meaning anything you wish. I'm not admitting defeat regarding the OP statement...just relieving myself of continuous replies to illogical posts.

 

[emilynghiem]

When are religious beliefs involving magic and supernaturalism defined as "Logical"?

Hi Hollie: here is some natural logic I have found taught in religions and even by atheists:
1. by forgiving ourselves and others, we detach from emotions that otherwise bias our judgment in negative ways.
When we open ourselves to positive solutions, we are more apt to attract and receive that kind of help to solve problems.

This has been called the law of attraction, the abundance mentality,
the power of positive thinking, and is the basis behind spiritual healing
and even recovery from addiction and abuse like AA and ending codependency and enabling

letting go so we don't hold on to the very negative memories and emotions
causing us suffering and stress that impedes our minds from seeing clearly and openly to solve problems

2. law of cause and effect, karma, equal justice, reciprocity

if you live by retributive justice, you get that in return
if you live by restorative justice, you invite that in return

ifyou want others to treat you with respect
it helps to treat them with respect

if you reject others they tend to reject you

what comes around goes around
you reap what you sow

The Golden Rule of Reciprocity is a universal natural law
taught in all religions and even secular laws of equal justice and equal protection of the laws:

Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions

This is consistent with plain common sense about human nature.
we tend to reciprocate, we respond to social cues from environment,
we mimic people we trust and respect and reject people we don't.

How is this illogical just because it is taught in religion?

 

[emilynghiem]

Unlike a religion, atheism is not organized under a common doctrine (belief system). The only shared opinion among atheists is the nonexistence of a deity. There are a few common beliefs among atheists such as views regarding morality, religion and spirituality, but these beliefs vary greatly and are outside the definition of atheism and thus are not required to be an atheist.

Largely, atheism remains unorganized and as some would say, "organizing atheists is like trying to heard cats".

Yep. But directing the comments above to the more excitable of the religious folks makes them as nervous as a bunch of long-tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs.

And that ^^^^ is exemplary of the doctrine of the religion of Atheism.

You are deluded to infer that I am being hateful, emotional or overly excitable about this ongoing discussion. You don't bother me one bit. You narcissism is exposing itself.

I am simply using logic and references to accepted definitions to argue against the posit in the OP. Atheism is a religion.

Dear Asaratis: please do not take Hollie's rejection as a personal affront to you.
She is also rejecting what I say because of her complete disdain and distrust of religion particularly Christianity.
She is not as forgiving or objective about that as you and I are.
Her bias is based on fearing and not forgiving the abuses and atrocities associated with reliigions like this.

So of course she is projecting this reaction to past injustice
on you and me, for arguing anything that appears to be enabling negative behavior.

Hollie cannot even hear what we are saying
until this barrier is removed or loosened up.

I tried to post things that show the positive things taught in religion
that are universal and even common sense practical wisdom.
Yet she is convinced that religion is all unnatural superstition for false motives
that are abused and do not serve any good purpose.

Until she lets go of that block of unforgiveness for what religions have
done andmean to her, she cannot even hear anything else.

It does not make sense to her given her understanding and experience
that religions only mean negative cultish things for control and manipulation.

We might as well be telling a rape victim who is afraid of all men as inherently violent and evil
that some men are good and protective not rapists.

As long as they fear it is all propaganda to allow more men to rape,
they are not going to understand the exceptions to the rule i their minds.

Forgiveness is the key
and if Hollie is too afraid that religion is abused to harm people
she is not going to forgive something that looks like more enabling of collective abuses,
and projecting blame on people like her who reject for valid reasons.

If I were her I would object for the same reasons she
is explaining as honestly as she can. I commend her for that
and still believe this is workable with, as long as you and she
continue to explain as honestly and transparently as you are .

that is all we can do, and that is enough to sort this out.
just beig honest. thanks for that.

 

[Hollie]

Unlike a religion, atheism is not organized under a common doctrine (belief system). The only shared opinion among atheists is the nonexistence of a deity. There are a few common beliefs among atheists such as views regarding morality, religion and spirituality, but these beliefs vary greatly and are outside the definition of atheism and thus are not required to be an atheist.

Largely, atheism remains unorganized and as some would say, "organizing atheists is like trying to heard cats".

Yep. But directing the comments above to the more excitable of the religious folks makes them as nervous as a bunch of long-tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs.

And that ^^^^ is exemplary of the doctrine of the religion of Atheism.

You are deluded to infer that I am being hateful, emotional or overly excitable about this ongoing discussion. You don't bother me one bit. You narcissism is exposing itself.

I am simply using logic and references to accepted definitions to argue against the posit in the OP. Atheism is a religion.

When are religious beliefs involving magic and supernaturalism defined as "Logical"?

syn: See despair.
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
Desperation
any port in a storm See EXPEDIENCE.

at the end of one’s rope or tether At the end of one’s endurance or resources, out of options; exasperated,frustrated. The rope or tether is generally conceded to be that formerly attached to a grazing animal, restricting hismovement and area of pasturage.

He was at the end of his rope when he had consumed all the provender within reach.

climb walls To be stir-crazy from confinement; to feel trapped or hemmed-in; to suffer from a lack of options. Onewho is “climbing the walls” suffers from a claustrophobic feeling of confinement—physical or mental—from whichthere is no apparent relief. The image is of a person trapped in a room with no doors or windows—the only way forreleasing his pent-up energies being to climb the walls.

forlorn hope A desperate hope or undertaking; an expedition in which the survival of the participants is doubtful.This phrase is homonymously derived from the Dutch verloren hoop ‘lost troop,’ and formerly referred to the frontline of soldiers in a military confrontation:

Called the forlorn hope, because they … fall on first, and make a passage for the rest. (Gaya’s Art of Wan, 1678)

grasp at straws To seek substance in the flimsy or meaning in the insignificant; to find ground for hope where noneexists. In common use since the 18th century, the expression derives from the even older self-explanatory proverb:“A drowning man will catch at a straw.”

Strawman desperation on your part. The logical discussion of definitions of religion is not discussion of religious beliefs. You fail again.

Your references to despair, forlorn hope, climb walls, ends of ropes, any port, etc., have nothing to do with this discussion. You obviously think they apply to me. Here again, you put your narcissism on display. I'm simply having fun toying with hardshell Atheists, giving you a taste of your own shit.

Not to worry. I shall soon enough tire of it and vacate this thread. You can take that as meaning anything you wish. I'm not admitting defeat regarding the OP statement...just relieving myself of continuous replies to illogical posts.

Sheesh. You are the typical, angry fundie. Although, I do commend you on the first bit of honesty you have displayed.

I'm simply having fun toying with hardshell Atheists, giving you a taste of your own shit.

The above really does encapsulate the dangers of religious extremism. Your pointless tirades are borne of your learned hatreds for anyone who reaches conclusions that contradict the fears and superstitions you embrace.

It is possible to let go of fear. Trembling before angry gods is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.

What a shame this thread was such a fraud. But honestly, that only reflects negatively on you. It seems your own self-hate and insecurities causes you to lash out at those who don't accept your trying to impose your fundamentalist beliefs as any pedestrian cultist would do.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Hollie:
To you, I may come across as enabling or endorsing religious abuse.
You also come across to me as projecting your hatred of this instead of teaching the proper use of religion
to check and prevent abuses and to promote equal respect and inclusion of all humanity as equal children under God or law.

Asaratis may come across to you as pushing his own views.
So he is saying Atheists do this, and he appears to do it, too. At least it is consistent.

If you look, all of us come across the same way we say that others are pushing.

Asaratis came out and admitted he sees holding such beliefs as a religion,
and he holds his beliefs and they look like religious adherence to others as well! consistent.

You are saying he or others are projecting, and you appear to be doing that as well. consistent.

I apologize where I come across as projecting as well.
we all have our views and don't agree where to draw the line between what constitutes a religion or not.

at least we are honest about our views. why isnt that good enough.

If I tell you that i don't use or associate with the word religion the same way as you do,
why can't we accept it doesn't line up pefectly and deal with it.

like dealing with people having different accents. and just focus on what people mean
even if we don't say things exactly clearly because of the language barriers.

if we forgive each other's accents in language, even using the wrong word or saying it backwards,
why can't we forgive when our religious terms or language conflcits with each other?

Unlike a religion, atheism is not organized under a common doctrine (belief system). The only shared opinion among atheists is the nonexistence of a deity. There are a few common beliefs among atheists such as views regarding morality, religion and spirituality, but these beliefs vary greatly and are outside the definition of atheism and thus are not required to be an atheist.

Largely, atheism remains unorganized and as some would say, "organizing atheists is like trying to heard cats".

Yep. But directing the comments above to the more excitable of the religious folks makes them as nervous as a bunch of long-tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs.

And that ^^^^ is exemplary of the doctrine of the religion of Atheism.

You are deluded to infer that I am being hateful, emotional or overly excitable about this ongoing discussion. You don't bother me one bit. You narcissism is exposing itself.

I am simply using logic and references to accepted definitions to argue against the posit in the OP. Atheism is a religion.

When are religious beliefs involving magic and supernaturalism defined as "Logical"?

syn: See despair.
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
Desperation
any port in a storm See EXPEDIENCE.

at the end of one’s rope or tether At the end of one’s endurance or resources, out of options; exasperated,frustrated. The rope or tether is generally conceded to be that formerly attached to a grazing animal, restricting hismovement and area of pasturage.

He was at the end of his rope when he had consumed all the provender within reach.

climb walls To be stir-crazy from confinement; to feel trapped or hemmed-in; to suffer from a lack of options. Onewho is “climbing the walls” suffers from a claustrophobic feeling of confinement—physical or mental—from whichthere is no apparent relief. The image is of a person trapped in a room with no doors or windows—the only way forreleasing his pent-up energies being to climb the walls.

forlorn hope A desperate hope or undertaking; an expedition in which the survival of the participants is doubtful.This phrase is homonymously derived from the Dutch verloren hoop ‘lost troop,’ and formerly referred to the frontline of soldiers in a military confrontation:

Called the forlorn hope, because they … fall on first, and make a passage for the rest. (Gaya’s Art of Wan, 1678)

grasp at straws To seek substance in the flimsy or meaning in the insignificant; to find ground for hope where noneexists. In common use since the 18th century, the expression derives from the even older self-explanatory proverb:“A drowning man will catch at a straw.”

Strawman desperation on your part. The logical discussion of definitions of religion is not discussion of religious beliefs. You fail again.

Your references to despair, forlorn hope, climb walls, ends of ropes, any port, etc., have nothing to do with this discussion. You obviously think they apply to me. Here again, you put your narcissism on display. I'm simply having fun toying with hardshell Atheists, giving you a taste of your own shit.

Not to worry. I shall soon enough tire of it and vacate this thread. You can take that as meaning anything you wish. I'm not admitting defeat regarding the OP statement...just relieving myself of continuous replies to illogical posts.

Sheesh. You are the typical, angry fundie. Although, I do commend you on the first bit of honesty you have displayed.

I'm simply having fun toying with hardshell Atheists, giving you a taste of your own shit.

The above really does encapsulate the dangers of religious extremism. Your pointless tirades are borne of your learned hatreds for anyone who reaches conclusions that contradict the fears and superstitions you embrace.

It is possible to let go of fear. Trembling before angry gods is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.

What a shame this thread was such a fraud. But honestly, that only reflects negatively on you. It seems your own self-hate and insecurities causes you to lash out at those who don't accept your trying to impose your fundamentalist beliefs as any pedestrian cultist would do.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Wrong again. I'm not here to convince you that God exist. I don't care whether you believe in God or believe that no deities (including my God) exist. I am here simply to counter the unsubstantiated claim that Atheism is not a religion. What you believe is up to you.

So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.

No, I didn't say that. Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious. Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities. If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.

False. One can conclude that your gods don't exist without any requirement of belief.

is that what you believe?........

More of your pointlesness.

only if you fail to realize that concluding gods don't exist without the requirement of belief, in itself requires belief......

 

[Hollie]

So by your definition, anyone who has any beliefs about the concept of deities is "religious"? That seems a rather broad and empty definition, as it would include everyone who's ever considered the idea.

No, I didn't say that. Being in a group defined as a religion does not require that one is religious. Being religious is to act on the beliefs that you have regarding deities. If you argue with others that God does not exist, this is your espousal of a faith based belief (because you have no proof) and constitutes your being a religious but godless Atheist.

False. One can conclude that your gods don't exist without any requirement of belief.

is that what you believe?........

More of your pointlesness.

only if you fail to realize that concluding gods don't exist without the requirement of belief, in itself requires belief......

How did you so sweepingly miss the nonsensical nature of your prattling?

Have you not been paying attention to any of what has been written?

 

[PostmodernProph]

I have seen nothing from you worth a second glance.....

 

[emilynghiem]

Sheesh. You are the typical, angry fundie.
It is possible to let go of fear. Trembling before angry gods is a prescription for a maladjusted personality.

What a shame this thread was such a fraud. But honestly, that only reflects negatively on you. It seems your own self-hate and insecurities causes you to lash out at those who don't accept your trying to impose your fundamentalist beliefs as any pedestrian cultist would do.

^ here Hollie, here is where I feel you are projecting your own perceptions and expeirences onto Asaratis because of other people.^

1. From my expeirences with real religious fundamentalists who only discuss the Bible, and I do not even qualify as worthy to debate since I am too secular, Asaratis is far too open to discussion in secular terms to be one of these fundamentalists
who see that as compromising.

Asaratis and PF are closer to the center of the scale, where at least they can talk and explain things objectively
which the extreme fundamentalists cannot do.

So from my experience A and PF are even more secular gentile than I am. They are even more objective in explaining.

The religious fundamentalists I know would call these two allies of atheists and new age lost people who dilute the faith to include witchcraft, Buddhism and false religions to harm people. I've been accused of this.

They aer very liberal minded and inclusive on my scale of having dealt with true fundamentalists who would not even want to associate for fear that they would be misled and fall out of favor.

2. as for fear and hatred, I see this in your projections against religion as well.

A, PF and I are very openminded and inclusive in comparison with raving fundies, and yet you are associating us with fundamentalists who would not even have this conversation at all. so that is project fear from something else in the past.

Can we be honest that mutual projection is going on?
we all have our beliefs we are projecting as biases?

from my experiences, I see A and PF as more liberal.
from your experiences we look like fundies!

 

[Hollie]

I have seen nothing from you worth a second glance.....

Then what prompted your prattling?

 

[PostmodernProph]

my first glance....it showed my you didn't realize that the statement of what you believed didn't require belief.....

 

[emilynghiem]

How did you so sweepingly miss the nonsensical nature of your prattling?

Have you not been paying attention to any of what has been written?

Nor have you, Hollie, responded to anything I posted about Christianity and religions
that is based on universal natural laws and common sense about human nature
and does not require any faith in anything supernatural.

If you respond to that, and admit there is something more there than what you originally assumed,
maybe more people would respond to valid points in what you are saying, instead of assuming it is projected rhetoric.

Again the rule of reciprocity. If you want to be heard and respected,
it helps to hear and respect what other ppl are trying to say too!

the more we open up to hear each other, we benefit mutually and these walls come down
that are otherwise preventing us from communicating effectively. Thanks Hollie
I appreciate your directness, your intellectual honesty in saying exactly what you see and feel is going on.
this is completely workable with, it may take trial and error, but we are all committed to correcting the error.
if we continue there are only so many errors and we can resolve those and get to the points that do hit their targets. thanks!

 

[asaratis]

Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.

Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.

Please stick this out to the end.
We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.

If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.

If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
until we can get to the ones underneath? please do not give up and walk away.
I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
every step to get there.

the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.

Emily,
I've not left yet. However, all things must come to an end....eventually. It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.

The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:

• dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
• use strawman arguments
• infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
• post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
• either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
• incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say

These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here. While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults. It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger. It takes a lot to piss me off. No poster here has ever come close.

I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan. Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.

 

[Hollie]

Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.

Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.

Please stick this out to the end.
We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.

If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.

If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
until we can get to the ones underneath? please do not give up and walk away.
I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
every step to get there.

the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.

Emily,
I've not left yet. However, all things must come to an end....eventually. It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.

The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:

• dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
• use strawman arguments
• infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
• post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
• either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
• incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say

These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here. While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults. It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger. It takes a lot to piss me off. No poster here has ever come close.

I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan. Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.

There's not a great of logic behind your admitted fraud as the purpose of this thread.

Not surprisingly, your bulleted items precisely define your failed attempts to bolster your religious dogma as opposed to actually furthering a defendable argument.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Asaratis: Hollie for one is still projecting her anti-theist views.
we cannot even discuss the differences between atheism, agnosticism, and nontheism
if she is still not over the anti-theism which has the most emotional attached associations with
negative negative negative.

Sealybobo also has negative biases against theism, but is able to put that aside better than Hollie
who is not over ranting and projecting onto anyone who appears to be supporting any theist view.

Can we try to work with Sealybobo to get Hollie closer to where SB and DT are?
DT does not project as much, but tends to stay objective and address the points not attack the person.

I do not recommend trying to assess or judge Hollie's responses while she is still in such a state
of distrusting religion and anyone appearig to be on the side of religionists known to attack atheists.

in other threads I have found Hollie to be as honest in explaining as possible.

it is this damn bias against theists and theism that keeps distracting her from even getting to the other points
you bring up.

how can we remove that barrier? I want to see what she thinks and says underneath
MINUS that projection of bullets and defensiveness aimed at anyone theist or protheist she thinks are anti-atheist.

she does not respond to my posts which means I may be on ignore.
Can you take some of the things I said and reply to them to Hollie to see if you can explain it better than I did.

Thanks A
DT is one of the more open and workable people on here, and Sealybobo is somewhre between
DT and Hollie. So maybe Sealybobo can help bridge some of these gaps where anti-theist bias is blocking
us from even discussign this other content.

I dont see it as Hollie's fault; there aren't enough Christians or theists correcting the poblems with religious abuse so it looks like a big ploy to keep the same old control games going abusing religion to do it. I can't blame her for distrusting that.

Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.

Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.

Please stick this out to the end.
We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.

If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.

If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
until we can get to the ones underneath? please do not give up and walk away.
I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
every step to get there.

the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.

Emily,
I've not left yet. However, all things must come to an end....eventually. It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.

The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:

• dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
• use strawman arguments
• infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
• post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
• either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
• incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say

These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here. While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults. It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger. It takes a lot to piss me off. No poster here has ever come close.

I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan. Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.

 

[asaratis]

Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.

Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.

Please stick this out to the end.
We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.

If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.

If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
until we can get to the ones underneath? please do not give up and walk away.
I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
every step to get there.

the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.

Emily,
I've not left yet. However, all things must come to an end....eventually. It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.

The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:

• dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
• use strawman arguments
• infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
• post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
• either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
• incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say

These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here. While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults. It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger. It takes a lot to piss me off. No poster here has ever come close.

I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan. Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.

There's not a great of logic behind your admitted fraud as the purpose of this thread.

Not surprisingly, your bulleted items precisely define your failed attempts to bolster your religious dogma as opposed to actually furthering a defendable argument.

I've not tried to bolster religious dogma. I've tried to stay on the topic of whether Atheism is a religion or not. I really, actually, honest to God do not give a tinker's damn whether you adopt any dogma at all. Atheism is a religion and you are just too goddamned hard headed to agree.

 

[emilynghiem]

I've not tried to bolster religious dogma. I've tried to stay on the topic of whether Atheism is a religion or not. I really, actually, honest to God do not give a tinker's damn whether you adopt any dogma at all. Atheism is a religion and you are just too goddamned hard headed to agree.

Hi Asaratis where you and Hollie may be talking past each other:
1. if the spirit of your intent "COMES across" as trying to show fault in Atheists as a group, that takes away the focus from the content of your post.
if you get sidetracked at all addressing someone like Hollie personally, it can come across as opposing each other as "theist vs. atheist" instead of sticking to the content.
I don't intend this either, but the distrust can make me look this way to others.
2. likewise Hollie keeps replying to you and me as pro-theists with some agenda
other than what you are stating. this happens with me, too, though it is not my intent.

so let's remove that pro-theist and anti-theist chip from the equation

if we truly agree to focus on objecting only to points within the content and not the perceived affiliation or agenda of the person,
can we finish hashing out hte content without sidetracking on what we think of each other's affiliations or groupings?

Maybe if you and I make sure we do not come across as being anti-atheist
then Hollie would not waste her posts objecting to that and coming across as anti-theist.

Can we agree to drop that part mutually and see if that helps? thanks!

 

[Hollie]

Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.

Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.

Please stick this out to the end.
We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.

If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.

If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
until we can get to the ones underneath? please do not give up and walk away.
I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
every step to get there.

the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.

Emily,
I've not left yet. However, all things must come to an end....eventually. It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.

The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:

• dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
• use strawman arguments
• infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
• post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
• either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
• incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say

These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here. While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults. It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger. It takes a lot to piss me off. No poster here has ever come close.

I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan. Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.

There's not a great of logic behind your admitted fraud as the purpose of this thread.

Not surprisingly, your bulleted items precisely define your failed attempts to bolster your religious dogma as opposed to actually furthering a defendable argument.

I've not tried to bolster religious dogma. I've tried to stay on the topic of whether Atheism is a religion or not. I really, actually, honest to God do not give a tinker's damn whether you adopt any dogma at all. Atheism is a religion and you are just too goddamned hard headed to agree.

You confuse your nonsensical "... because I say so", meme as a valid argument. That may work at your madrassah with a captive audience of like-minded, slack-jawed types but honestly Bunky, your attempts to force your religious beliefs on others is a waste of your time.

I know, right. There was a time when mere rumor or speculation was enough to send a Christian mob on a mission to do gawds work and burn me at the stake for refusing your forced religion.

Most of the world has grown up. Try it.

 

[dblack]

Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.

Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.

Please stick this out to the end.
We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.

If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.

If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
until we can get to the ones underneath? please do not give up and walk away.
I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
every step to get there.

the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.

Emily,
I've not left yet. However, all things must come to an end....eventually. It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.

The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:

• dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
• use strawman arguments
• infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
• post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
• either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
• incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say

These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here. While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults. It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger. It takes a lot to piss me off. No poster here has ever come close.

I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan. Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.

I can't be sure what your motives are, but most here are responding to the political movement to have atheism categorized as a religion. It's possible to construct a religion around atheistic views, and some have done this, but your claim that having any belief concerning the existence of deities constitutes a religion is specious. When this claim has been challenged, you dodge it and throw out diversions instead.

I feel like I've given you the benefit of the doubt but, unlike emily, I don't respect your views and I don't think your discussion here is in earnest. You're either here to further the campaign to treat atheism as religion for political reasons, or you're just plain trolling for attention.

 

[asaratis]

Hi Asaratis: Hollie for one is still projecting her anti-theist views.
we cannot even discuss the differences between atheism, agnosticism, and nontheism
if she is still not over the anti-theism which has the most emotional attached associations with
negative negative negative.

Sealybobo also has negative biases against theism, but is able to put that aside better than Hollie
who is not over ranting and projecting onto anyone who appears to be supporting any theist view.

Can we try to work with Sealybobo to get Hollie closer to where SB and DT are?
DT does not project as much, but tends to stay objective and address the points not attack the person.

I do not recommend trying to assess or judge Hollie's responses while she is still in such a state
of distrusting religion and anyone appearig to be on the side of religionists known to attack atheists.

in other threads I have found Hollie to be as honest in explaining as possible.

it is this damn bias against theists and theism that keeps distracting her from even getting to the other points
you bring up.

how can we remove that barrier? I want to see what she thinks and says underneath
MINUS that projection of bullets and defensiveness aimed at anyone theist or protheist she thinks are anti-atheist.

she does not respond to my posts which means I may be on ignore.
Can you take some of the things I said and reply to them to Hollie to see if you can explain it better than I did.

Thanks A
DT is one of the more open and workable people on here, and Sealybobo is somewhre between
DT and Hollie. So maybe Sealybobo can help bridge some of these gaps where anti-theist bias is blocking
us from even discussign this other content.

I dont see it as Hollie's fault; there aren't enough Christians or theists correcting the poblems with religious abuse so it looks like a big ploy to keep the same old control games going abusing religion to do it. I can't blame her for distrusting that.

Your posts will be easier to reply to if you will type below what you quote rather than above it. Just saying....

Bold text below is copied from your quoted post^^^^.


Hi Asaratis: Hollie for one is still projecting her anti-theist views.
we cannot even discuss the differences between atheism, agnosticism, and nontheism
if she is still not over the anti-theism which has the most emotional attached associations with
negative negative negative.
That is a problem that we will likely never overcome. Her modus operandi was described above in my bullet item post.

Sealybobo also has negative biases against theism, but is able to put that aside better than Hollie
who is not over ranting and projecting onto anyone who appears to be supporting any theist view.
This is true. I did have one exchange with Sealybobo in my somewhat related thread asking why Atheists insist that Atheism is not a religion. She seems much more level headed and capable of carrying on adult conversation than does Hollie and some of her ilk.

Can we try to work with Sealybobo to get Hollie closer to where SB and DT are?
DT does not project as much, but tends to stay objective and address the points not attack the person.
You can try.

I do not recommend trying to assess or judge Hollie's responses while she is still in such a state
of distrusting religion and anyone appearig to be on the side of religionists known to attack atheists.
Assessment and judging of posts is what this forum is all about.

in other threads I have found Hollie to be as honest in explaining as possible.

it is this damn bias against theists and theism that keeps distracting her from even getting to the other points
you bring up.
She may be paranoid...thinking that I and Oral Roberts are out to get her.

how can we remove that barrier? I want to see what she thinks and says underneath
MINUS that projection of bullets and defensiveness aimed at anyone theist or protheist she thinks are anti-atheist.
That would be nice, but I suspect it will be long after she grows up.

she does not respond to my posts which means I may be on ignore.
Can you take some of the things I said and reply to them to Hollie to see if you can explain it better than I did.
Have you tried sending her a PM?


...<SNIP>...