Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Pogo]

[turzovka] So who cares anyway? All you are doing is arguing semantics.
Atheism may not be a religion but it is a belief.

[pogo] No it is not. It's a non-belief. Theism is a belief.
Do you "believe in" the Easter Bunny? Assuming no, is that a "belief"?

Yes it is a belief. So what? What are you so afraid of? It is semantics! And nothing more. The fact remains atheists do not believe in God. Now whether you want to call that a belief or non-belief or an item of disinterest or a non-starter or a matter of fact or whatever the hell else… does not matter to me, to Christians or to you --- for all intents and purposes. This “position” still drives words and actions the part of the beholder.

So ---- what's your point?
(btw please just use the quote button. This red text inserted quote thing is a PITA and removes our reference links - TIA)

----------------------

[turzovka] And on that belief many atheists order their lives. They surely do not stop from sexual sinning because they are worried about the punishments that may present themselves after they die. Ditto for many other sins.

[pogo] That would be their business, would it not? And who appointed you judge of what others are doing? Further, you seem to assume that "punishments that may present themselves after they die" is by default the only moral guideline that exists. That kind of singleminded thought, seems to me, is what atheism seeks to transcend by questioning, "is that all there is?".

I never said or implied that potential punishments after they die is the only moral guideline that exists, did I? What I said was --- that is one moral guideline that would not enter their way of thinking or governing their conscience. It certainly affects many of Christians’ decisions. (I did not follow the reasoning of your last sentence.)

Well - yeah you did. "They surely do not stop from sexual sinning because they are worried about the punishments that may present themselves after they die". Why would such a threat of torture be the only incentive for human behaviour? Sounds like you're professing that such sadism is the only such moral guideline and absent that, "they do not stop from sexual sinning" -- whatever that might mean. Why would sadistic torture be the only behavioural guideline?

-----------------------------

[turzovka] Now of course, you would not call them “sins,” so let us just refer to them as morally unacceptable practices in the eyes of many. (more semantics) And of course, atheists can be the most upstanding citizens and charitable souls, err, bodies. So I cannot deny that reality. Little do they know it, but their acts of charity, kindness and altruism is the best defense they will have when they meet their Creator after their earthly lives. (fyi)

[pogo] Maybe more to the point -- why would you want to deny it?
This sounds like a completely egocentric "I know best" kind of approach. How do you know?

I know the same way I know Jesus Christ is God and His word is truth. If I am right on those salient points, then I have a sound basis for making other moral judgments. But I am not judging anyone, I am speaking in the general and speaking of Christian theology – i.e. God judges man based on how he treats his neighbor.

No, you don't "know" that -- you believe it. We won't get into the flaws undermining that belief, we'll just leave it at the definition.
What this is getting at is the attitude that "I know what's best for you", which is I'm afraid the sort of arrogance that comes from egocentric proselytizing. That's a different question though from theism versus atheism so we won't go further down that road; suffice to say that your beliefs/opinions are no better or worse than anyone else's, and that each of us still has individual choice.

--------------------------------------

[turzovka] One thing that does ring hollow with me (to say the least) is some atheists on these boards and elsewhere who make the claim that “their people” are more generous and charitable and caring than Christians in general because the atheist knows this is the only life they have so they need to make the most of it. While Christians are all giddy about heaven to come they don’t hardly care or pay attention to what trials or suffering is going on with others in this world. That is, of course, asinine to the extreme.

[pogo] It's another strawman. Without someone actually presenting/advocating the thought it's fairly easy to describe anything as "asinine". Are you presenting it as a theory? It might be worth a shot, but it has to be presented neutrally.

Well, where have you been? That point or idea has been proffered by a number of atheists or agnostics on any number of occasions. Given the history of nations I am aware of, and the history of the Church, I find that idea or claim to be asinine.

Do you not understand what a strawman is?
Nobody here made any such point. You brought it in to knock it down. It has no advocate. It's a logical fallacy. I'm afraid "any number of" unseen imaginary speakers doesn't count.

 

[asaratis]

THE RELIGIOUS ATHEIST...COMING TO A CHURCH NEAR YOU...IN THE NEAR FUTURE!!
If some of you know-it-all proponents of falsehoods would do a bit of research, you might not make so many outrageous, misinformed claims. Atheism is a religion(.) <<<< Period!

(snip) [TBODY] [/TBODY]

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I can tell ya right now, no one in the world is going to invest their next two days reading all that. If there's a point in there, dissect it.

Here's maybe a more pertinent question:
Why do you need so desperately to redefine a rejection of a belief (a negative) into a belief (a positive)? What does it gain you? What's the big disadvantage to accepting a simple definition?

Shall we now define "silence" as a "sound" as well?
I mean when Paul Simon wrote "The Sounds of Silence" it's intentionally intended as an oxymoron. That's what gives the phrase its power -- a direct juxtaposition of opposites. Sound: silence. Day: night. On: Off. Theism: Atheism.

I'm sorry. Your density is exceeding great.

 

[Pogo]

I never understood why so many atheists get so upset about something they don't believe in.

I don't think there is a god but I fall into the more agnostic camp where I think we just don't know if there is a supreme being or race of beings out there and even if there are we still may never understand them.

That said IDGAF if someone says the word god or that some people pray at public meetings or in a school as long as it's not forced on anyone.

Perhaps the answer lieth in the last phrase.

Tell me how in god we trust on our currency is forcing someone to participate in a religion or worship said god.

BTW it does neither but for some reason atheists who say they do not believe in said god get their panties in a wad over it.

So I'll ask again, how can one be offended by something in which they do not believe?

It's like being offended by Bugs Bunny

Strawman. I made no reference to money.

I suppose if Bugs Bunny (specifically) were rammed down my throat every time some public meeting took place, every time the seventh inning of a big baseball game came up, on all my money, in the Pledge of Allegiance, bellowed from street corners by bullhorn-wielding preachers, hawked by anonymous other accosters, invoked in every oath in the legal system, screamed from the top of her natural ampitheater by my wacko neighbor, hammered into every wedding and funeral and most of all woven into the social mores of my culture 24/7 as a psychological-warfare guilt tool, that would get a bit tiring -- particularly if my country had been founded on the basis of freedom of choice in cartoon characters.

Your mileage may vary.

Strawman to your strawman

If someone in your presence invokes the deity it is not being "rammed down your throat"
If the owners of a ball park want to broadcast a 7th inning prayer they have every right to just as you have the right to ignore it or put your fingers in your ears and say LA LA LA.

All I get from your post is that you must extremely thin skinned if the mere mention of an entity that you do not think exists can be such a source of torture to you..

Then why are you the one morphing my post into something about "rights"?
There is defensiveness here but it ain't on my end. And taking single items out of an aggregate as if not part of an interrelated whole is another morph. Not very honest.

 

[Pogo]

I never understood why so many atheists get so upset about something they don't believe in.

I don't think there is a god but I fall into the more agnostic camp where I think we just don't know if there is a supreme being or race of beings out there and even if there are we still may never understand them.

That said IDGAF if someone says the word god or that some people pray at public meetings or in a school as long as it's not forced on anyone.

Perhaps the answer lieth in the last phrase.

Tell me how in god we trust on our currency is forcing someone to participate in a religion or worship said god.

BTW it does neither but for some reason atheists who say they do not believe in said god get their panties in a wad over it.

So I'll ask again, how can one be offended by something in which they do not believe?

It's like being offended by Bugs Bunny

Strawman. I made no reference to money.

I suppose if Bugs Bunny (specifically) were rammed down my throat every time some public meeting took place, every time the seventh inning of a big baseball game came up, on all my money, in the Pledge of Allegiance, bellowed from street corners by bullhorn-wielding preachers, hawked by anonymous other accosters, invoked in every oath in the legal system, screamed from the top of her natural ampitheater by my wacko neighbor, hammered into every wedding and funeral and most of all woven into the social mores of my culture 24/7 as a psychological-warfare guilt tool, that would get a bit tiring -- particularly if my country had been founded on the basis of freedom of choice in cartoon characters.

Your mileage may vary.

Strawman to your strawman

If someone in your presence invokes the deity it is not being "rammed down your throat"
If the owners of a ball park want to broadcast a 7th inning prayer they have every right to just as you have the right to ignore it or put your fingers in your ears and say LA LA LA.

All I get from your post is that you must extremely thin skinned if the mere mention of an entity that you do not think exists can be such a source of torture to you..

Toleration should be at play, but some people insist on having it their way...

If one does not believe in something it should be no trouble at all to completely ignore it.

In God We trust means about as much to me as In Unicorns We Trust.

You would think some of these people are must be some sort of mythical beast that the mere mention of a deity causes them such mental anguish.

"I believe in one Strawman, the fallacy mighty.. creator of rhetorical mirth..."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. As recently as 2005, the Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of Kaufman v. McCaughtry again ruled that Atheism is Religion. In spite of the many court rulings along that line, members of the Religion of Atheism insist they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by insisting that Christians are mental midgets for being religious and for believing in a "non-existent sky gawd."

That's incorrect. The Courts have never defined atheism as a religion, in fact, they have specifically acknowledged it as a non-religion. They have said that for the purpose of the First Amendment, atheism is equivalent to religion, So that the atheist can be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st Amendment. That's all it means.

Correct.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I never understood why so many atheists get so upset about something they don't believe in.

I don't think there is a god but I fall into the more agnostic camp where I think we just don't know if there is a supreme being or race of beings out there and even if there are we still may never understand them.

That said IDGAF if someone says the word god or that some people pray at public meetings or in a school as long as it's not forced on anyone.

Perhaps the answer lieth in the last phrase.

Tell me how in god we trust on our currency is forcing someone to participate in a religion or worship said god.

BTW it does neither but for some reason atheists who say they do not believe in said god get their panties in a wad over it.

So I'll ask again, how can one be offended by something in which they do not believe?

It's like being offended by Bugs Bunny

Strawman. I made no reference to money.

I suppose if Bugs Bunny (specifically) were rammed down my throat every time some public meeting took place, every time the seventh inning of a big baseball game came up, on all my money, in the Pledge of Allegiance, bellowed from street corners by bullhorn-wielding preachers, hawked by anonymous other accosters, invoked in every oath in the legal system, screamed from the top of her natural ampitheater by my wacko neighbor, hammered into every wedding and funeral and most of all woven into the social mores of my culture 24/7 as a psychological-warfare guilt tool, that would get a bit tiring -- particularly if my country had been founded on the basis of freedom of choice in cartoon characters.

Your mileage may vary.

Strawman to your strawman

If someone in your presence invokes the deity it is not being "rammed down your throat"
If the owners of a ball park want to broadcast a 7th inning prayer they have every right to just as you have the right to ignore it or put your fingers in your ears and say LA LA LA.

All I get from your post is that you must extremely thin skinned if the mere mention of an entity that you do not think exists can be such a source of torture to you..

Then why are you the one morphing my post into something about "rights"?
There is defensiveness here but it ain't on my end. And taking single items out of an aggregate as if not part of an interrelated whole is another morph. Not very honest.

So the owners of a ball park don't have the right to broadcast a 7th inning prayer over their privately owned PA system ?

And an aggregate is nothing but a collection of single items. If you can't figure out that what I said about one applies to all without me listing each and every little torture that you are whining about that's your problem

So tell me why the mere mention of a being you deny exists causes you such anguish.

 

[Pogo]

I never understood why so many atheists get so upset about something they don't believe in.

I don't think there is a god but I fall into the more agnostic camp where I think we just don't know if there is a supreme being or race of beings out there and even if there are we still may never understand them.

That said IDGAF if someone says the word god or that some people pray at public meetings or in a school as long as it's not forced on anyone.

Perhaps the answer lieth in the last phrase.

Tell me how in god we trust on our currency is forcing someone to participate in a religion or worship said god.

BTW it does neither but for some reason atheists who say they do not believe in said god get their panties in a wad over it.

So I'll ask again, how can one be offended by something in which they do not believe?

It's like being offended by Bugs Bunny

Strawman. I made no reference to money.

I suppose if Bugs Bunny (specifically) were rammed down my throat every time some public meeting took place, every time the seventh inning of a big baseball game came up, on all my money, in the Pledge of Allegiance, bellowed from street corners by bullhorn-wielding preachers, hawked by anonymous other accosters, invoked in every oath in the legal system, screamed from the top of her natural ampitheater by my wacko neighbor, hammered into every wedding and funeral and most of all woven into the social mores of my culture 24/7 as a psychological-warfare guilt tool, that would get a bit tiring -- particularly if my country had been founded on the basis of freedom of choice in cartoon characters.

Your mileage may vary.

Strawman to your strawman

If someone in your presence invokes the deity it is not being "rammed down your throat"
If the owners of a ball park want to broadcast a 7th inning prayer they have every right to just as you have the right to ignore it or put your fingers in your ears and say LA LA LA.

All I get from your post is that you must extremely thin skinned if the mere mention of an entity that you do not think exists can be such a source of torture to you..

Then why are you the one morphing my post into something about "rights"?
There is defensiveness here but it ain't on my end. And taking single items out of an aggregate as if not part of an interrelated whole is another morph. Not very honest.

So the owners of a ball park don't have the right to broadcast a 7th inning prayer over their privately owned PA system ?

And an aggregate is nothing but a collection of single items. If you can't figure out that what I said about one applies to all without me listing each and every little torture that you are whining about that's your problem

So tell me why the mere mention of a being you deny exists causes you such anguish.

Once again -- who brought up "rights"? You did. Who brought up "anguish"? You did. Who brought up "whining" and "torture"? Once again...

Matter of fact who said I was an atheist? Again that would be you. Why do you find it necessary to insert content that wasn't there?
We shouldn't be surprised that a topic on theism/nontheism drowns in strawmen. Theism itself depends on it.

 

[asaratis]

I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists.

The above essentially says that you do not believe in God because you don't see any evidence that there is a God.

This is a logical fallacy. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

To use an illustration from everyday life may help clarify the issue further and demonstrate how the argument when used in its reverse form, is most illogical. The assertion 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence' cannot be applied to any unknown discovery or else the following propositions would be true:

Since William Herschel discovered Uranus in 1781 it did not exist until then because evidence of its existence was absent.

Since Neptune was not discovered until September 23rd 1846 by Galle and Arrest it did not exist until then, since there was no real evidence.

Pluto didn't exist until 1930 when it was discovered by Clyde W. Tombaugh, since there was no evidence of its existence.

What does the phrase absence of evidence is not evidence of absence mean in relation to discoveries supporting the Bible

 

[asaratis]

THE RELIGIOUS ATHEIST...COMING TO A CHURCH NEAR YOU...IN THE NEAR FUTURE!!
If some of you know-it-all proponents of falsehoods would do a bit of research, you might not make so many outrageous, misinformed claims. Atheism is a religion(.) <<<< Period!

(snip) [TBODY] [/TBODY]

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I can tell ya right now, no one in the world is going to invest their next two days reading all that. If there's a point in there, dissect it.

Here's maybe a more pertinent question:
Why do you need so desperately to redefine a rejection of a belief (a negative) into a belief (a positive)? What does it gain you? What's the big disadvantage to accepting a simple definition?

Shall we now define "silence" as a "sound" as well?
I mean when Paul Simon wrote "The Sounds of Silence" it's intentionally intended as an oxymoron. That's what gives the phrase its power -- a direct juxtaposition of opposites. Sound: silence. Day: night. On: Off. Theism: Atheism.

You may be waiting a while. This particular poster uses the same cut n paste on a regular basis in order to bombard us with useless information.

You label all but your opinion as useless information? You and Pogo are simply too self-aggrandizing to bother with research that might prove your opinions wrong. I suggest that you read more and type less. That would be a blessing to USMB members around the globe.

 

[Pogo]

I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists.

The above essentially says that you do not believe in God because you don't see any evidence that there is a God.

This is a logical fallacy. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

No, you just changed what she said by extending to "evidence of absence". That's beyond her scope. So I'm afraid the rest of your post is irrelevant. Everything is not black/white, belief/disbelief. The component you're leaving out as inconvenient is doubt. Skepticism. Dissent.

If I up and declare that the universe is the creation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM®, praise be upon His Holey Name, even if we're not sure what makes Him a he), you are free to dissent and decide, "naah, I think that's bullshit.". It's your choice to decide that for yourself. That's all this is.

However -- just to carry this thought through -- that assessment of yours that the FSM is bullshit does not comprise a "religion". It comprises simple dissent. Exactly the same thing.

To use an illustration from everyday life may help clarify the issue further and demonstrate how the argument when used in its reverse form, is most illogical. The assertion 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence' cannot be applied to any unknown discovery or else the following propositions would be true:

Since William Herschel discovered Uranus in 1781 it did not exist until then because evidence of its existence was absent.

Since Neptune was not discovered until September 23rd 1846 by Galle and Arrest it did not exist until then, since there was no real evidence.

Pluto didn't exist until 1930 when it was discovered by Clyde W. Tombaugh, since there was no evidence of its existence.

What does the phrase absence of evidence is not evidence of absence mean in relation to discoveries supporting the Bible

 

[Pogo]

THE RELIGIOUS ATHEIST...COMING TO A CHURCH NEAR YOU...IN THE NEAR FUTURE!!
If some of you know-it-all proponents of falsehoods would do a bit of research, you might not make so many outrageous, misinformed claims. Atheism is a religion(.) <<<< Period!

(snip) [TBODY] [/TBODY]

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I can tell ya right now, no one in the world is going to invest their next two days reading all that. If there's a point in there, dissect it.

Here's maybe a more pertinent question:
Why do you need so desperately to redefine a rejection of a belief (a negative) into a belief (a positive)? What does it gain you? What's the big disadvantage to accepting a simple definition?

Shall we now define "silence" as a "sound" as well?
I mean when Paul Simon wrote "The Sounds of Silence" it's intentionally intended as an oxymoron. That's what gives the phrase its power -- a direct juxtaposition of opposites. Sound: silence. Day: night. On: Off. Theism: Atheism.

You may be waiting a while. This particular poster uses the same cut n paste on a regular basis in order to bombard us with useless information.

You label all but your opinion as useless information? You and Pogo are simply too self-aggrandizing to bother with research that might prove your opinions wrong. I suggest that you read more and type less. That would be a blessing to USMB members around the globe.

So you're saying "shut up"?

The first step on the way to killing the children, is it?

 

[Carla_Danger]

I never understood why so many atheists get so upset about something they don't believe in.

I don't think there is a god but I fall into the more agnostic camp where I think we just don't know if there is a supreme being or race of beings out there and even if there are we still may never understand them.

That said IDGAF if someone says the word god or that some people pray at public meetings or in a school as long as it's not forced on anyone.

Perhaps the answer lieth in the last phrase.

Tell me how in god we trust on our currency is forcing someone to participate in a religion or worship said god.

BTW it does neither but for some reason atheists who say they do not believe in said god get their panties in a wad over it.

So I'll ask again, how can one be offended by something in which they do not believe?

It's like being offended by Bugs Bunny

Strawman. I made no reference to money.

I suppose if Bugs Bunny (specifically) were rammed down my throat every time some public meeting took place, every time the seventh inning of a big baseball game came up, on all my money, in the Pledge of Allegiance, bellowed from street corners by bullhorn-wielding preachers, hawked by anonymous other accosters, invoked in every oath in the legal system, screamed from the top of her natural ampitheater by my wacko neighbor, hammered into every wedding and funeral and most of all woven into the social mores of my culture 24/7 as a psychological-warfare guilt tool, that would get a bit tiring -- particularly if my country had been founded on the basis of freedom of choice in cartoon characters.

Your mileage may vary.

It's so "in your face". LOL!

 

[asaratis]

I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists.

The above essentially says that you do not believe in God because you don't see any evidence that there is a God.

This is a logical fallacy. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

No, you just changed what she said by extending to "evidence of absence". That's beyond her scope. So I'm afraid the rest of your post is irrelevant. Everything is not black/white, belief/disbelief. The component you're leaving out as inconvenient is doubt. Skepticism.

To use an illustration from everyday life may help clarify the issue further and demonstrate how the argument when used in its reverse form, is most illogical. The assertion 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence' cannot be applied to any unknown discovery or else the following propositions would be true:

Since William Herschel discovered Uranus in 1781 it did not exist until then because evidence of its existence was absent.

Since Neptune was not discovered until September 23rd 1846 by Galle and Arrest it did not exist until then, since there was no real evidence.

Pluto didn't exist until 1930 when it was discovered by Clyde W. Tombaugh, since there was no evidence of its existence.

What does the phrase absence of evidence is not evidence of absence mean in relation to discoveries supporting the Bible

You have a problem with logic and comprehension.

I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists.

I just don't see any evidence that there is a God <<<(absence of evidence)

so (therefore)

I don't live my life as if a God exists <<<(Poor Carla believes there is no God...she interprets the above absence of evidence as "evidence of absence")

 

[asaratis]

THE RELIGIOUS ATHEIST...COMING TO A CHURCH NEAR YOU...IN THE NEAR FUTURE!!
If some of you know-it-all proponents of falsehoods would do a bit of research, you might not make so many outrageous, misinformed claims. Atheism is a religion(.) <<<< Period!

(snip) [TBODY] [/TBODY]

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I can tell ya right now, no one in the world is going to invest their next two days reading all that. If there's a point in there, dissect it.

Here's maybe a more pertinent question:
Why do you need so desperately to redefine a rejection of a belief (a negative) into a belief (a positive)? What does it gain you? What's the big disadvantage to accepting a simple definition?

Shall we now define "silence" as a "sound" as well?
I mean when Paul Simon wrote "The Sounds of Silence" it's intentionally intended as an oxymoron. That's what gives the phrase its power -- a direct juxtaposition of opposites. Sound: silence. Day: night. On: Off. Theism: Atheism.

You may be waiting a while. This particular poster uses the same cut n paste on a regular basis in order to bombard us with useless information.

You label all but your opinion as useless information? You and Pogo are simply too self-aggrandizing to bother with research that might prove your opinions wrong. I suggest that you read more and type less. That would be a blessing to USMB members around the globe.

So you're saying "shut up"?

The first step on the way to killing the children, is it?

Yet another strawman! Jesus!

I said that you should read more and type less. That does not translate to "shut up".

Again I say, you have a problem with logic and comprehension. You need to READ MORE and TYPE LESS.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I hope to God that the Elks don't find out that I am an atheist.They would throw me out, and I would lose my bar privileges. I made my girlfriend swear on the Bible that she would not tell.

 

[PratchettFan]

If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.

Quite true. And if one is acting like a religious person then one is treating Atheism as a religion. Religion is about how people act and interact. Saying Atheism is not a religion by definition is ignoring the people, and people is all there is.

People here have stated categorically there is no God - faith.

Who said that?

The question is relative. See post 33. Far as I know there are no atheists here in the strict (#7) sense....

People here have stated everyone needs to stop believing in God - proselytizing.

Again, who? Where is this?

People here have stated an Atheist has no beliefs right after saying there is no God, just because that is the definition of an Atheist - dogma.

How is that not religion?

Atheism doesn't mean "no beliefs". Obviously everyone has beliefs. Atheism is simply the antithesis of theism -- taking the theory of theism and judging it to be inoperative. It isn't a "belief" in itself at all; rather it's the rejection of one particular belief.

I don't like raisins -- that doesn't mean I "believe in not-raisins" or in stamping raisins out for everyone else. It simply means I turn them down as a personal choice. It means that among the things I believe in, eating raisins is not one of them. Not that complex. Now again, if everybody around me were eating raisins at every turn and disparaging me for not eating them, well that might get a bit tiring. And it certainly wouldn't incite me to change my mind on raisins.

Seems to me the bottom line here is not a legal matter but simple respect for one's choice -- and freedom thereof.

If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.

Quite true. And if one is acting like a religious person then one is treating Atheism as a religion. Religion is about how people act and interact. Saying Atheism is not a religion by definition is ignoring the people, and people is all there is.

People here have stated categorically there is no God - faith.

Who said that?

The question is relative. See post 33. Far as I know there are no atheists here in the strict (#7) sense....

People here have stated everyone needs to stop believing in God - proselytizing.

Again, who? Where is this?

People here have stated an Atheist has no beliefs right after saying there is no God, just because that is the definition of an Atheist - dogma.

How is that not religion?

Atheism doesn't mean "no beliefs". Obviously everyone has beliefs. Atheism is simply the antithesis of theism -- taking the theory of theism and judging it to be inoperative. It isn't a "belief" in itself at all; rather it's the rejection of one particular belief.

I don't like raisins -- that doesn't mean I "believe in not-raisins" or in stamping raisins out for everyone else. It simply means I turn them down as a personal choice. It means that among the things I believe in, eating raisins is not one of them. Not that complex. Now again, if everybody around me were eating raisins at every turn and disparaging me for not eating them, well that might get a bit tiring. And it certainly wouldn't incite me to change my mind on raisins.

Seems to me the bottom line here is not a legal matter but simple respect for one's choice -- and freedom thereof.

I assume you've been reading the various threads and picking through thousands of posts to give you specifics, however...

Under the Faith is born from fear thread, AtheistBuddah in post 536 said, "There is no such thing as eternal life." As statement of pure belief. --- Faith

In the same thread, Sealybobo in post 710 said, "PS. If you look at this site, you'll see it has all the arguments against Jesus and generic god(s) too. Jesus may be mentioned more than Mohammad but this site shoots down every religion.

Why there is no god" Essentially the same thing as handing out Bible tracts. --- Proselytizing

The last one gets involved but there was a long discussion in the thread Atheism is a fringe kook theory cult between myself and Derideo_Te. The basic thesis was the definition of Atheism was a lack of beliefs and therefore Atheists lacked beliefs. IOW, it is true because it is written. --- Dogma.

 

[Carla_Danger]

When you live your life under the assumption that there is no God, then the Ten Commandments do not bind you. That is why people are uncomfortable around atheists.

I don't need the Ten Commandments to know right from wrong.

That voice in your heart telling you right from wrong is the voice of God. It's called a conscience. But atheists throughout history have proven to be very good at ignoring the difference between right and wrong, i.e. Stalin, Pol Pot, Robespierre.

Now you're really starting to scare me. It sounds like you believe without God, people are going to run out and start murdering people. Tell me that's not true.

Historically, whenever a government controlled by atheists takes over, mass murder happens: the French Revolution, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, etc.

So you are saying that all the great empires of the world were atheists? There is no ancient empire that was void of religion and still had the need to slaughter and subjugate..

Religion/spirituality is a regularly recurring part of human culture. We all have some form, individually and collectively.

But this thread is about atheism, i.e. absence of belief in a monotheistic deity. Not about absence of religion. Important distinction. Religion after all does not require a deity.

I am no atheist, nor am I am religious person. I was merely trying to answer a question...I do know that there is more we do not know, than we do about the who, what, where and why we are here and the reason the entire galaxies exist and how it all started...

I kind of enjoy not knowing. It gives life just the right kind of spice!

 

[Moonglow]

I kind of enjoy not knowing. It gives life just the right kind of spice!

I had an astral projection the other night and hit my head on the ceiling....

 

[asaratis]

You too can become a member:
About the Holy Bible First Church of Atheism

Since its inception, the First Church of Atheism has amassed quite a following around the world. FCA ministers come from all walks of life. They are every race, ethnicity, age, and creed. The one thing binding every FCA minister is his or her belief in science, reason, and reality. The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority. We provide our service for free, as we believe it is every atheists right to perform these clergy functions. You maybecome a legally ordained ministerfor life, without cost, and without question.

.....


North Texas Church of Freethought
The North Texas Church of Freethought is a Fellowship of Unbelievers. We do what all the other churches do, but with one less god. Our aim is to offer atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, and freethinkers all the educational, inspirational, and social and emotional benefits of traditional faith-based churches. We do this by preaching Freethought, a rational approach to religious questions of life, love, meaning, and happiness. Our growing community of freethinkers provides a positive, affirming environment for leading a good life, free of the illogic and intolerance of other religions based on holy books and supernaturalism.

^^^Apparently, this group a) calls itself a church, b) has preachers, c) compares itself to "other religions"

Therefore, I conclude (by way of evidence) that the OP posit is errant.

Atheism is a religion.

 

[Pogo]

If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.

Quite true. And if one is acting like a religious person then one is treating Atheism as a religion. Religion is about how people act and interact. Saying Atheism is not a religion by definition is ignoring the people, and people is all there is.

People here have stated categorically there is no God - faith.

Who said that?

The question is relative. See post 33. Far as I know there are no atheists here in the strict (#7) sense....

People here have stated everyone needs to stop believing in God - proselytizing.

Again, who? Where is this?

People here have stated an Atheist has no beliefs right after saying there is no God, just because that is the definition of an Atheist - dogma.

How is that not religion?

Atheism doesn't mean "no beliefs". Obviously everyone has beliefs. Atheism is simply the antithesis of theism -- taking the theory of theism and judging it to be inoperative. It isn't a "belief" in itself at all; rather it's the rejection of one particular belief.

I don't like raisins -- that doesn't mean I "believe in not-raisins" or in stamping raisins out for everyone else. It simply means I turn them down as a personal choice. It means that among the things I believe in, eating raisins is not one of them. Not that complex. Now again, if everybody around me were eating raisins at every turn and disparaging me for not eating them, well that might get a bit tiring. And it certainly wouldn't incite me to change my mind on raisins.

Seems to me the bottom line here is not a legal matter but simple respect for one's choice -- and freedom thereof.

If you go on the internet and tell people there's no God, and they're stupid if they think there is, you're acting just like a religious person who says there is a God, and you'll go to hell if you don't believe it.

Quite true. And if one is acting like a religious person then one is treating Atheism as a religion. Religion is about how people act and interact. Saying Atheism is not a religion by definition is ignoring the people, and people is all there is.

People here have stated categorically there is no God - faith.

Who said that?

The question is relative. See post 33. Far as I know there are no atheists here in the strict (#7) sense....

People here have stated everyone needs to stop believing in God - proselytizing.

Again, who? Where is this?

People here have stated an Atheist has no beliefs right after saying there is no God, just because that is the definition of an Atheist - dogma.

How is that not religion?

Atheism doesn't mean "no beliefs". Obviously everyone has beliefs. Atheism is simply the antithesis of theism -- taking the theory of theism and judging it to be inoperative. It isn't a "belief" in itself at all; rather it's the rejection of one particular belief.

I don't like raisins -- that doesn't mean I "believe in not-raisins" or in stamping raisins out for everyone else. It simply means I turn them down as a personal choice. It means that among the things I believe in, eating raisins is not one of them. Not that complex. Now again, if everybody around me were eating raisins at every turn and disparaging me for not eating them, well that might get a bit tiring. And it certainly wouldn't incite me to change my mind on raisins.

Seems to me the bottom line here is not a legal matter but simple respect for one's choice -- and freedom thereof.

I assume you've been reading the various threads and picking through thousands of posts to give you specifics, however...

Under the Faith is born from fear thread, AtheistBuddah in post 536 said, "There is no such thing as eternal life." As statement of pure belief. --- Faith

In the same thread, Sealybobo in post 710 said, "PS. If you look at this site, you'll see it has all the arguments against Jesus and generic god(s) too. Jesus may be mentioned more than Mohammad but this site shoots down every religion.

Why there is no god" Essentially the same thing as handing out Bible tracts. --- Proselytizing

The last one gets involved but there was a long discussion in the thread Atheism is a fringe kook theory cult between myself and Derideo_Te. The basic thesis was the definition of Atheism was a lack of beliefs and therefore Atheists lacked beliefs. IOW, it is true because it is written. --- Dogma.

Those are not posted in this thread. We don't even know what the premise of that thread is, so it's completely out of context here. If you'd like to invite said posters here, do so but we can't use spare parts from a Studebaker to fix a Lincoln.