Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[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.

#1
I've not admitted to fraud of any sort here.

#2
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the OP claim that Atheism is NOT a religion.

#3
My arguments have linked references to support my claims. Some of them are irrefutable. Some of them can be refuted only by inserting a redefinition of a long standing definition of atheist.

You fail again.

 

[emilynghiem]

If you bind your bibles together with duct tape, they're a more formidable weapon than mere gargantuan text as a way to force your superstitious beliefs on others.

Hollie: forced faith is not faith at all but fake.

Teaching Christianity is like teaching forgiveness.
it cannot be forced or it is faked.

it can only be chosen freely in order to be real.
And only taught by example where forgiveness inspires others to forgive.

Hollie have you ever met anyone who could pretend to forgive and it would be real?
have you ever seen any case of forgiveness that was forced?

this is not possible.

I think you do not understand what Christianity means
because the only examples you have seen were false, fear based, and forced.

That is Antichrist and the opposite of what Christ means.

human nature and conscience is based on free will and reason.
anything forced on people by fear is false and not the truth which is chosen freely in order to work.

all your understanding about religion and Christianity
appears to be based on the religious abuse of it.

This is like judging math and science to be full of flaws and impossible
to make sense of by only looking at the errors and false science,
like the sun revolving around the earth or like man evolving from apes,
which is not true science but the false teachings. if you would not
judge science by the wrong way to teach it, why judge religions by the wrongs.

that is the opposite approach I don't recommend.

to correct what is wrong with religion the most effective
ways is to find the teachers within that religion who are
effective at correcting peers. then they correct it from inside that group.
just like finding the best math teachers, and letting them correct the math mistakes.
in the process you get rid of the errors and people abusing math to teach wrong answers.
those get corrected by letting the effective teachers teach the right answers instead!

 

[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.

#1
I've not admitted to fraud of any sort here.

#2
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the OP claim that Atheism is NOT a religion.

#3
My arguments have linked references to support my claims. Some of them are irrefutable. Some of them can be refuted only by inserting a redefinition of a long standing definition of atheist.

You fail again.

Does the jeebus approve of your behavior?

Really, how desperate have you become that your posts are drenched in gargantuan text? You're like a petulant child who has dropped to the floor and is kicking and stomping his feet because he's not getting the attention he thinks he deserves.

No one is suggesting that you can't believe in spirit realms and versions of supernatural entities. It's just that your false claims and distorted worldview which derive from your underlying ideology of hate cause you to make unsupportable claims.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sorry asaratis I also misread Hollie's post, and went back and revised my response.

Can we look at it this way:
1. With Buddhism, yes this is recognized as a collective belief system or religion, Hinduism also.
yet followers of spiritual laws will say they do not practice this as a religion.
So both are going on.

2. With Constitutionalism, I am aware I am part of a larger collective group that teaches this religiously
as a universal set of laws that apply to all people on some level.
yet my friends who teach the same things, do not necessarily label themselves as Constiutionalist
and do not identify with that collective group or movement. I have a Muslim friend who uses
Mohammed's principles to teach religious freedom and follows the due process in the Bible
by nature not by consciously or religiously practicing doctrine on this, etc.
so to him it is just the right way to address people, and is not part of the religion.

3. with liberal views and beliefs, some of this is tied to the Democrat party formally
and some is independent. Some do not have any allegiance or relate to the
Democrats or liberal politicians or media as a collective identity as others lump together as one huge movement.

4. with feminism or secular humanism,
some are aligned and draw authority or empowerment as a collective identity or group.

some are independent and not aligned and dont see themselves as a religious body.

Asaratis why can't it be both things?

Are all MEN members of a religious group because men's brains tend to prioritize the same way
and create a collective mindset?

Are all WOMEN part of the feminist mindset that focuses on women's perspectives?

How can you lump all Atheists together?
Not all Blacks follow some preconceived notion of the Black Movement.
Some are independent and have their own approach to empowerment of themselves
and others as members of the Black community, but they are not aligned as one identity or agenda.

#1
I've not admitted to fraud of any sort here.

#2
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the OP claim that Atheism is NOT a religion.

#3
My arguments have linked references to support my claims. Some of them are irrefutable. Some of them can be refuted only by inserting a redefinition of a long standing definition of atheist.

You fail again.

 

[emilynghiem]

Does the jeebus approve of your behavior?

Really, how desperate have you become that your posts are drenched in gargantuan text? You're like a petulant child who has dropped to the floor and is kicking and stomping his feet because he's not getting the attention he thinks he deserves.

No one is suggesting that you can't believe in spirit realms and versions of supernatural entities. It's just that your false claims and distorted worldview which derive from your underlying ideology of hate cause you to make unsupportable claims.

???? Hollie may I ask where are you getting this perception?
The strongest reactions I have seen are from QW and they
are far from a child kicking and stomping.

I can see you doing indirect namecalling by throwing in references to enabling worship of a murderous god.

where is Asaratis saying something like this.
the worst he said is you were too obtuse to argue with.

I called it you projecting your views of abusive religions and Christianity
onto me and him when we are separate from that.

Hollie how can you ask Asaratis to distinguish you and other atheist thinkers
from some collective movement or identity in his mind,
if you keep associating us with some collective notion of religion or Christianity?

why not set an example of how to separate use from that collective image in your mind?
if you are going to ask Asaratis not to lump you together with other Atheists under one convenient religious label?

Can you please show Asaratis an example of how it's done?
how to separate you as the individual from the collective perception or group?

Can you please try to do that with us? Thanks Hollie
I don't think you are too obtuse, I think you are rightfully
indignant abotu religious abuses that nobody seems to be addressing;
however from my experience it takes this approach to correct those problems
with religious abuse CAUSED by lumping people together and trying to
judge or punish them collectively. the first step is to address each other one on one
and quit addressing each other as if we represent some larger group not present outside of ourselves.

 

[asaratis]

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.

Again, you are being obtuse. I don't try to force my religious beliefs on anyone. To state that Atheism is a religion is NOT a religious belief. The fact that Atheism is a religion does not mean that its doctrine must be similar to that of other religions. So far as I care, its doctrine can and will remain as it is today...to incessantly ridicule, scorn and attack other religions. I don't expect anything about Atheism and Atheists to change. I simply argue against the posit the Atheism is not a religion.

It is a religion. That has been proved here in this thread. It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless. If you claim that you have no belief in deities, then you are agnostic and not Atheist. If you claim that deities do not exist, you are an Atheist. All this Richard Dawkins bullshit about a sliding scale is just that...bullshit. The word atheist was defined centuries ago. It is only the modern day Atheists that want to change it...for what reason I do not know....save maybe that you don't even want to be associated with the word religion except to be known as religions arch enemy. I see your dilemma...don't you just hate yourself?

We're left with your whining about atheism being a religion yet you offer nothing to support that claim.

What a shame, for you, that you angry fundies are not able to force your superstitious beliefs on others.

The needle is stuck on your record player, Hollie. That's the same bullshit gibberish you posted before.

 

[emilynghiem]

We're left with your whining about atheism being a religion yet you offer nothing to support that claim.

What a shame, for you, that you angry fundies are not able to force your superstitious beliefs on others.

The needle is stuck on your record player, Hollie. That's the same bullshit gibberish you posted before.

Hi Asaratis and Hollie: can we skip the repeats and fast foward to get someplace good with this?

Can you answer this question
1. if there can be a Black Movement or a Women's Movement
and this is recognized as an organized identity or belief even loosely combined
2. can't there still be independent
Blacks or Women NOT associated with these movements
who have independent beliefs about empowering fellow Blacks
or equalizing respect for women that is NOT tied to the collective beliefs?

So can't this be true of Atheists?
Just because some people recognize a collective identity going on,
can't there be independent types who aren't part of that movement?

 

[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.

#1
I've not admitted to fraud of any sort here.

#2
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the OP claim that Atheism is NOT a religion.

#3
My arguments have linked references to support my claims. Some of them are irrefutable. Some of them can be refuted only by inserting a redefinition of a long standing definition of atheist.

You fail again.

Does the jeebus approve of your behavior?

Really, how desperate have you become that your posts are drenched in gargantuan text? You're like a petulant child who has dropped to the floor and is kicking and stomping his feet because he's not getting the attention he thinks he deserves.

No one is suggesting that you can't believe in spirit realms and versions of supernatural entities. It's just that your false claims and distorted worldview which derive from your underlying ideology of hate cause you to make unsupportable claims.

With that, dear child, you absolutely take the cake of incorrigibility. You are beyond help by anyone other than a professional clinical psychologist. Should one happen to read this thread he/she would likely want to meet you in person to see if you really can't keep up.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Again, you are being obtuse. I don't try to force my religious beliefs on anyone. To state that Atheism is a religion is NOT a religious belief. The fact that Atheism is a religion does not mean that its doctrine must be similar to that of other religions. So far as I care, its doctrine can and will remain as it is today...to incessantly ridicule, scorn and attack other religions. I don't expect anything about Atheism and Atheists to change. I simply argue against the posit the Atheism is not a religion.

It is a religion. That has been proved here in this thread. It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless. If you claim that you have no belief in deities, then you are agnostic and not Atheist. If you claim that deities do not exist, you are an Atheist. All this Richard Dawkins bullshit about a sliding scale is just that...bullshit. The word atheist was defined centuries ago. It is only the modern day Atheists that want to change it...for what reason I do not know....save maybe that you don't even want to be associated with the word religion except to be known as religions arch enemy. I see your dilemma...don't you just hate yourself?

We're left with your whining about atheism being a religion yet you offer nothing to support that claim.

What a shame, for you, that you angry fundies are not able to force your superstitious beliefs on others.

The needle is stuck on your record player, Hollie. That's the same bullshit gibberish you posted before.

It was a further refutation of your baseless screeching. For all your frantic and really pathetic attempts to force your beliefs on others, you're now reduced to screeching with gargantuan fonts.

How sad that you're unwilling to accept that the entirety of your false arguments, now discredited, results in your silly rants and tantrums.

 

[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.

#1
I've not admitted to fraud of any sort here.

#2
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the OP claim that Atheism is NOT a religion.

#3
My arguments have linked references to support my claims. Some of them are irrefutable. Some of them can be refuted only by inserting a redefinition of a long standing definition of atheist.

You fail again.

Does the jeebus approve of your behavior?

Really, how desperate have you become that your posts are drenched in gargantuan text? You're like a petulant child who has dropped to the floor and is kicking and stomping his feet because he's not getting the attention he thinks he deserves.

No one is suggesting that you can't believe in spirit realms and versions of supernatural entities. It's just that your false claims and distorted worldview which derive from your underlying ideology of hate cause you to make unsupportable claims.

With that, dear child, you absolutely take the cake of incorrigibility. You are beyond help by anyone other than a professional clinical psychologist. Should one happen to read this thread he/she would likely want to meet you in person to see if you really can't keep up.

And for all your whining, your attempts at argument are thoroughly discredited.

Pathetic personal attacks are all you have left.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Hollie: How is Asaratis posting his statement that Atheism is a religion
any different from you posting that God has proven not to exist?

If you have both failed to see any proof otherwise,
that is up to you. If it is not your responsibility if Asaratis
has provided no proof of his statement that makes sense to you,
what about your statement that is not proven in a way that makes sense to others either?

doesn't trying to prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of God
rely on agreement or understanding between people what we mean by God?

Doesn't trying to prove or disprove that Atheism is a religion or not
depend on agreement or understanding what each person means by religion?

How is this not relative?

And for all your whining, your attempts at argument are thoroughly discredited.

Pathetic personal attacks are all you have left.

 

[asaratis]

Does the jeebus approve of your behavior?

Really, how desperate have you become that your posts are drenched in gargantuan text? You're like a petulant child who has dropped to the floor and is kicking and stomping his feet because he's not getting the attention he thinks he deserves.

No one is suggesting that you can't believe in spirit realms and versions of supernatural entities. It's just that your false claims and distorted worldview which derive from your underlying ideology of hate cause you to make unsupportable claims.

???? Hollie may I ask where are you getting this perception?
The strongest reactions I have seen are from QW and they
are far from a child kicking and stomping.

I can see you doing indirect namecalling by throwing in references to enabling worship of a murderous god.

where is Asaratis saying something like this.
the worst he said is you were too obtuse to argue with.

I called it you projecting your views of abusive religions and Christianity
onto me and him when we are separate from that.

Hollie how can you ask Asaratis to distinguish you and other atheist thinkers
from some collective movement or identity in his mind,
if you keep associating us with some collective notion of religion or Christianity?

why not set an example of how to separate use from that collective image in your mind?
if you are going to ask Asaratis not to lump you together with other Atheists under one convenient religious label?

Can you please show Asaratis an example of how it's done?
how to separate you as the individual from the collective perception or group?

Can you please try to do that with us? Thanks Hollie
I don't think you are too obtuse, I think you are rightfully
indignant abotu religious abuses that nobody seems to be addressing;
however from my experience it takes this approach to correct those problems
with religious abuse CAUSED by lumping people together and trying to
judge or punish them collectively. the first step is to address each other one on one
and quit addressing each other as if we represent some larger group not present outside of ourselves.

Emily,
I do hate to point out a flaw in your post. You are such a polite poster. However, I do not lump all Atheists together. I do not lump all (insert a defined group of similar people) together. I firmly believe in the bell shaped curve. It applies to all large samples of seemingly identical beings.

Draw a big circle and imagine that if contains all Atheists. Draw a smaller circle within that circle and imagine that it contains religious Atheists only. It does not matter to me which Atheists claim not to be within the smaller circle. They are still within the large circle.

The fact that Atheism itself is a religion, does not mean that all Atheists are religious.

You might also draw an even smaller circle within the small circle and imagine it contains all religious Atheists that are members of an Atheist church. Within that third circle, you might draw a miniscule circle to contain all of the religious Atheist church members that actually attend church services.

The above can be applied to any religion. Not all Baptists are religious. Not all Jews are religious. Not all Catholics are religious. Not all Christians are "fundies". Not all Christians deny evolution.

None of the above changes the fact that Atheism is a religion.

 

[emilynghiem]

It was a further refutation of your baseless screeching. For all your frantic and really pathetic attempts to force your beliefs on others, you're now reduced to screeching with gargantuan fonts.

How sad that you're unwilling to accept that the entirety of your false arguments, now discredited, results in your silly rants and tantrums.

Dear Hollie:
What about your statements about Christianity that sound like forcing your beliefs on others?
Did you not assume and portray Christianity as worship of some murderous god?

I don't believe it is true to teach anything in Christianity or religion in that way.
So I disagree this is the correct meaning of Christianity.

Do you agree to drop this, or just say that some people are misteaching Christianity
as false worship of a false concept of God?

If I don't agree or believe in teaching Christianity by your limited definition,
aren't you forcing your beliefs on others
the same way you say Asaratis is forcing the "belief" that Atheism is a religion,
based on how he sees or prioritizes things?

If his way counts as forcing beliefs on others,
what about your beliefs concerning the Christian God as murderous?

 

[emilynghiem]

Great! this helps and thank you for the clarification.
Now can we take it a step further,
that just because some people fit in these two groups
doesn't mean either of these applies to a third group
that is neither religious about it nor sees themselves as religious
in the definition or terms you provide. they don't relate to either one.

Is that okay also?

Incidentally I do see Hollie as being religious anti-theist right now.
I was hoping that could change. that is not from her atheist view directly.
there are many atheists who are not anti-theist.
so this part of her that gets religious about opposing theists
does come across as religious and pushing an agenda to counteract such theism.
(the reason I don't blame this all on Hollie is that to resolve it usually takes
mutual change connected with other people; so it is a mutual responsibility
to correct this and cannot always be done by one person out of the larger context).

this anti-theism is independent of "atheism per se" but gets into political conflict, reactions,
and behavior on the curve of recovery from past incidents that attached these negative associations.

thanks for your corrections.
this helps a lot!
can we take it one more step and recognize a third group as well
that do not see themselves as affiliated with the other two groupings?

I agree all are going on, and do not negate each other
there are always some people who are independent
and this happens with any group, why not with Atheists also.

Does the jeebus approve of your behavior?

Really, how desperate have you become that your posts are drenched in gargantuan text? You're like a petulant child who has dropped to the floor and is kicking and stomping his feet because he's not getting the attention he thinks he deserves.

No one is suggesting that you can't believe in spirit realms and versions of supernatural entities. It's just that your false claims and distorted worldview which derive from your underlying ideology of hate cause you to make unsupportable claims.

???? Hollie may I ask where are you getting this perception?
The strongest reactions I have seen are from QW and they
are far from a child kicking and stomping.

I can see you doing indirect namecalling by throwing in references to enabling worship of a murderous god.

where is Asaratis saying something like this.
the worst he said is you were too obtuse to argue with.

I called it you projecting your views of abusive religions and Christianity
onto me and him when we are separate from that.

Hollie how can you ask Asaratis to distinguish you and other atheist thinkers
from some collective movement or identity in his mind,
if you keep associating us with some collective notion of religion or Christianity?

why not set an example of how to separate use from that collective image in your mind?
if you are going to ask Asaratis not to lump you together with other Atheists under one convenient religious label?

Can you please show Asaratis an example of how it's done?
how to separate you as the individual from the collective perception or group?

Can you please try to do that with us? Thanks Hollie
I don't think you are too obtuse, I think you are rightfully
indignant abotu religious abuses that nobody seems to be addressing;
however from my experience it takes this approach to correct those problems
with religious abuse CAUSED by lumping people together and trying to
judge or punish them collectively. the first step is to address each other one on one
and quit addressing each other as if we represent some larger group not present outside of ourselves.

Emily,
I do hate to point out a flaw in your post. You are such a polite poster. However, I do not lump all Atheists together. I do not lump all (insert a defined group of similar people) together. I firmly believe in the bell shaped curve. It applies to all large samples of seemingly identical beings.

Draw a big circle and imagine that if contains all Atheists. Draw a smaller circle within that circle and imagine that it contains religious Atheists only. It does not matter to me which Atheists claim not to be within the smaller circle. They are still within the large circle.

The fact that Atheism itself is a religion, does not mean that all Atheists are religious.

You might also draw an even smaller circle within the small circle and imagine it contains all religious Atheists that are members of an Atheist church. Within that third circle, you might draw a miniscule circle to contain all of the religious Atheist church members that actually attend church services.

The above can be applied to any religion. Not all Baptists are religious. Not all Jews are religious. Not all Catholics are religious. Not all Christians are "fundies". Not all Christians deny evolution.

None of the above changes the fact that Atheism is a religion.

 

[Hollie]

Does the jeebus approve of your behavior?

Really, how desperate have you become that your posts are drenched in gargantuan text? You're like a petulant child who has dropped to the floor and is kicking and stomping his feet because he's not getting the attention he thinks he deserves.

No one is suggesting that you can't believe in spirit realms and versions of supernatural entities. It's just that your false claims and distorted worldview which derive from your underlying ideology of hate cause you to make unsupportable claims.

???? Hollie may I ask where are you getting this perception?
The strongest reactions I have seen are from QW and they
are far from a child kicking and stomping.

I can see you doing indirect namecalling by throwing in references to enabling worship of a murderous god.

where is Asaratis saying something like this.
the worst he said is you were too obtuse to argue with.

I called it you projecting your views of abusive religions and Christianity
onto me and him when we are separate from that.

Hollie how can you ask Asaratis to distinguish you and other atheist thinkers
from some collective movement or identity in his mind,
if you keep associating us with some collective notion of religion or Christianity?

why not set an example of how to separate use from that collective image in your mind?
if you are going to ask Asaratis not to lump you together with other Atheists under one convenient religious label?

Can you please show Asaratis an example of how it's done?
how to separate you as the individual from the collective perception or group?

Can you please try to do that with us? Thanks Hollie
I don't think you are too obtuse, I think you are rightfully
indignant abotu religious abuses that nobody seems to be addressing;
however from my experience it takes this approach to correct those problems
with religious abuse CAUSED by lumping people together and trying to
judge or punish them collectively. the first step is to address each other one on one
and quit addressing each other as if we represent some larger group not present outside of ourselves.

Emily,
I do hate to point out a flaw in your post. You are such a polite poster. However, I do not lump all Atheists together. I do not lump all (insert a defined group of similar people) together. I firmly believe in the bell shaped curve. It applies to all large samples of seemingly identical beings.

Draw a big circle and imagine that if contains all Atheists. Draw a smaller circle within that circle and imagine that it contains religious Atheists only. It does not matter to me which Atheists claim not to be within the smaller circle. They are still within the large circle.

The fact that Atheism itself is a religion, does not mean that all Atheists are religious.

You might also draw an even smaller circle within the small circle and imagine it contains all religious Atheists that are members of an Atheist church. Within that third circle, you might draw a miniscule circle to contain all of the religious Atheist church members that actually attend church services.

The above can be applied to any religion. Not all Baptists are religious. Not all Jews are religious. Not all Catholics are religious. Not all Christians are "fundies". Not all Christians deny evolution.

None of the above changes the fact that Atheism is a religion.

There's no fact that defines atheism as a religion.

Being an adherent to a cult that has ambiguous definitions of reality and the supernatural, we many have to excuse your inability to distinguish between the two. Let's just not pretend that you are a reliable source for determining facts when your agenda of religious fundamentalism is a bit fact challenged.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Hollie:
Totally depends on how people define religion or God for these statements to stand.
How Asaratis describes defines and uses religion to include Atheism is consistent within his system.

Likewise, with God per se,
defining God to mean Nature or forces/laws of Nature would mean God exists
provided you believe Nature or laws of Nature do exist.

If you don't agree with using God to mean that,
then there is where you argument is coming from.

Same with religion.
You and I may not agree fully with how Asaratis uses it.
To me, he explained how he uses it so that is valid for him.

I agree with you, it is going to cause conflicts with those who do not use or see it that way.
Same with why you insist God is proven not to exist,
and I keep saying it depends what you mean by God.

We could keep arguing in circles this way.
Or we could talk about what we mean and quit judging each other
if we don't use terms the same way across our different systems of dividing the spectrum.

I don't fully agree with Asaratis way, but I understand that is how he divides the spectrum.
I am trying to respect his way for him,
as I respect your way for you.

If we know we are not using the terms God and religion the same
way, at what point can we agree to talk about the contents and meaning
and not get lost in the terminology.

Do we agree there are three different levels:
1. the collective level of labeling a group a religion
2. the practical level of acting religious
3. the independent level where people do not see it as religious and do
not see themselves as acting religious, ie do not relate to either 1 or 2

If all three are going on, let's address these separately by content,
and don't get confused if someone uses religion to mean
some of these but not others.

Same with how I approach God
1. God as collective truth, wisdom, knowledge
2. God's laws as universal science, nature, etc.
3. God as unconditional love or life energy and forces in life toward good
If one person understands Wisdom and the Universal laws without personifying a creator
why argue about that. why not focus on what are the universal laws we all relate to underneath the symbolism.
Isn't that more important as the main purpose anyway, to understand the workings in life in order to seek the greatest good?

There's no fact that defines atheism as a religion.

Being an adherent to a cult that has ambiguous definitions of reality and the supernatural, we many have to excuse your inability to distinguish between the two. Let's just not pretend that you are a reliable source for determining facts when your agenda of religious fundamentalism is a bit fact challenged.

 

[PratchettFan]

[QUOTE="PratchettFan, post: 9828388, member: 37752"
Really. Which part isn't true? Did you not say you think it is probable there is no God (I am number 6)? Do you disagree with the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief?

I don't know why you're so fixated with that Dawkins list. I just happened to come across it online. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm right in between a 5 and a 6.

5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical. 6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.

And once again, not answering the questions. You said I was making shit up and I asked you to point out where. You presented the list, not me. Don't blame me for what you did. You said you were a 6 and I took you at your word. Don't blame me if you didn't mean it. I have asked you if the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief and you have never once said it isn't. In fact, you have never yet acknowledged the question.

Did you say you were a 6 on the Dawkins scale? yes or no
Do you agree the definition of Atheism is an absence of belief? yes or no

I'll bet I don't get an answer. Please prove me wrong.

You're asking for something that isn't black and white, as you'd hoped. Yes, I did say I was a 6, but now I think I'm between a 5 and 6, because this Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far. The Dawkins list is not going to fit every atheist like a glove, because all atheist are different. No, I do not agree that the definition of atheism is an absence of belief. I think it's a disbelief or doubt that there is a God/God's.

It was black and white because you claimed I had made it up. I didn't. And you were able to give me yes or no answers. Not hard at all.

It doesn't matter to me where you fall on the scale. Let's say you're a 5.5. Sealybobo looks to be a 6.9. I'm probably a 3.8. All that shows is that Atheism is not a narrow concept as Pogo claims. For that matter, neither is Theism. Atheism entails a wide variance of belief from "eh" to "not a chance". I'm at "yeah, I think there might be but I don't particularly give a damn". There is nothing wrong with the belief at all. It is just as valid as any theistic belief. Nor does that belief make it a religion.

What makes something a religion is not the belief but the construct built around the belief. If I say that I am certain there is no God, that is a statement of pure belief but that doesn't make it a religion. However, if I say I am certain there is no God and anyone who thinks there might even be a chance there is a God isn't a true Atheist, then I am turning Atheism into a religion. I am creating dogma.

That's totally incorrect, because religion is the belief and worship of a superhuman power. What you're saying is that religion is simply a belief, which is ridiculous. You're making up your own definition.[/QUOTE]

Religion is not a belief.... it is an action.

 

[emilynghiem]

Religion is not a belief.... it is an action.

Hi PF can't we acknowledge 3 different levels
1. belief on a purely abstract level
2. belief that is communicated in writing or spoken expression
where agreement or disagreement is manifested i nRELATIONS between
either people or with institutions
3. acting practicing or exercising those beliefs, or what you say is the action

I agree that technically govt should not be policing beliefs on a private level,
but when it comes to, say, exercising sacrifice of animals or people, or
having sex with children or multiple wives as part of one's beliefs,
those actions may conflict with criminal or civil laws and becomes an issue of the state.

However, what if I believe in consensus on policies in order to have equal protection and representation.
Isn't the current system of favoring only major political parties limiting the choice of
beliefs to just those ideologies, and precluding any room to exercise consensus?

What if as some prochoice and prolife people argue, the other views are imposing
so much that it is precluding and infringing on their ability to exercise their own beliefs?

if people do not agree how a law is WRITTEN that they already argue is
biased prolife or prochoice, the actions the law governs have not happened yet.
we are arguing on the other two levels of interpretation and legislation.

so those are also important to rsolve conflicts here, on those other levels
that are not physical actions of exercising one's beliefs yet.

in fact, in order to prevent conflicts on the level of action,
we would need to address beliefs on the other two levels.

if the state can only police actions, it is up to the people
to resolve the other levels privately ourselves. the level of
thought belief or interpretation and the level of written
and spoken perception and language in how we express these
in relationships or institutions that do influence other people.

 

[Carla_Danger]

[QUOTE="PratchettFan, post: 9828388, member: 37752"
Really. Which part isn't true? Did you not say you think it is probable there is no God (I am number 6)? Do you disagree with the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief?

I don't know why you're so fixated with that Dawkins list. I just happened to come across it online. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm right in between a 5 and a 6.

5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical. 6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.

And once again, not answering the questions. You said I was making shit up and I asked you to point out where. You presented the list, not me. Don't blame me for what you did. You said you were a 6 and I took you at your word. Don't blame me if you didn't mean it. I have asked you if the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief and you have never once said it isn't. In fact, you have never yet acknowledged the question.

Did you say you were a 6 on the Dawkins scale? yes or no
Do you agree the definition of Atheism is an absence of belief? yes or no

I'll bet I don't get an answer. Please prove me wrong.

You're asking for something that isn't black and white, as you'd hoped. Yes, I did say I was a 6, but now I think I'm between a 5 and 6, because this Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far. The Dawkins list is not going to fit every atheist like a glove, because all atheist are different. No, I do not agree that the definition of atheism is an absence of belief. I think it's a disbelief or doubt that there is a God/God's.

It was black and white because you claimed I had made it up. I didn't. And you were able to give me yes or no answers. Not hard at all.

It doesn't matter to me where you fall on the scale. Let's say you're a 5.5. Sealybobo looks to be a 6.9. I'm probably a 3.8. All that shows is that Atheism is not a narrow concept as Pogo claims. For that matter, neither is Theism. Atheism entails a wide variance of belief from "eh" to "not a chance". I'm at "yeah, I think there might be but I don't particularly give a damn". There is nothing wrong with the belief at all. It is just as valid as any theistic belief. Nor does that belief make it a religion.

What makes something a religion is not the belief but the construct built around the belief. If I say that I am certain there is no God, that is a statement of pure belief but that doesn't make it a religion. However, if I say I am certain there is no God and anyone who thinks there might even be a chance there is a God isn't a true Atheist, then I am turning Atheism into a religion. I am creating dogma.

That's totally incorrect, because religion is the belief and worship of a superhuman power. What you're saying is that religion is simply a belief, which is ridiculous. You're making up your own definition.

Religion is not a belief.... it is an action.[/QUOTE]



That's a new one. Is jumping a religion?

Ridiculous.

 

[PratchettFan]

Religion is not a belief.... it is an action.

Hi PF can't we acknowledge 3 different levels
1. belief on a purely abstract level
2. belief that is communicated in writing or spoken expression
where agreement or disagreement is manifested i nRELATIONS between
either people or with institutions
3. acting practicing or exercising those beliefs, or what you say is the action

I agree that technically govt should not be policing beliefs on a private level,
but when it comes to, say, exercising sacrifice of animals or people, or
having sex with children or multiple wives as part of one's beliefs,
those actions may conflict with criminal or civil laws and becomes an issue of the state.

However, what if I believe in consensus on policies in order to have equal protection and representation.
Isn't the current system of favoring only major political parties limiting the choice of
beliefs to just those ideologies, and precluding any room to exercise consensus?

What if as some prochoice and prolife people argue, the other views are imposing
so much that it is precluding and infringing on their ability to exercise their own beliefs?

if people do not agree how a law is WRITTEN that they already argue is
biased prolife or prochoice, the actions the law governs have not happened yet.
we are arguing on the other two levels of interpretation and legislation.

so those are also important to rsolve conflicts here, on those other levels
that are not physical actions of exercising one's beliefs yet.

in fact, in order to prevent conflicts on the level of action,
we would need to address beliefs on the other two levels.

if the state can only police actions, it is up to the people
to resolve the other levels privately ourselves. the level of
thought belief or interpretation and the level of written
and spoken perception and language in how we express these
in relationships or institutions that do influence other people.

No. We can't. I am talking about the nature of religion itself, which is a human action. Belief is only an attribute of religion, it is not religion itself. It is not even a particularly important attribute.