Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[sealybobo]

It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

It only sounds ridiculous to you because you want a free pass on what you condemn in others.

But atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM!!!! You BELIEVE there is no God. Guess what! You just defeated your own argument with your definition.

You don't have absolute proof there is no God, SO YOU HAVE FAITH WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS CORRECT.

You lose, pal!

Simply having beliefs, is not religion. Everyone has beliefs, but not everyone has religion.

Not everyone is religious. That doesn't mean their religion doesn't exist. Yours is Atheism if you believe deities do not exist.

If you simply have a non-belief in deities, you are agnostic....not Atheist.

There's no belief required to conclude your gods are of myth and legend.

It's your anger directed at those who conclude your gods don't exist that causes you such angst. While you may harbor deep seated hatreds for those who reject your gods, the majority of the planet are a-theistic regarding your version of gods. Learn to let go of the hate that causes you to behave in such a childish and petulant manner.

You are quite mistaken to think that you Atheists drive anyone to hatred. You overrate yourself. If it doesn't take belief to conclude that God doesn't exist, then you must have some proof somewhere. Where is it? Contrary to what you wish, your assertion that God does not exist takes faith on your part...just as it takes faith on my part to claim you are wrong. There is no iron clad proof either way that I am aware of. If you come up with any, please let me know. You faith in the belief that God does not exist is no different from my faith that He does. Your belief is a religious one just as is mine.

You're right. It was probably more about that guy losing his job than it was her not converting.

Oklahoma Woman Beheaded By Fired Muslim Co-Worker The Daily Caller

Don't forget the Chinese Christians who stabbed that woman for not converting. They call them a cult but they were Christians.

BBC News - The Chinese cult that kills demons

Maybe not your version of Christianity, but Christ is part of their schtick too.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I think 90% of thread is guileless equivocation. "ism" is a suffix with a wide variety of uses. The suffix "-ism" doesn't make atheism a religion any more than it makes theism a religion. It just specifies whether someone believes in gods or not.

As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief.

Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.

Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


Thanks for coming out.

If you want to use it then you use it all:

Merriam-Webster:

Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity .
See atheism defined for kids »
Origin of ATHEISM
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
First Known Use: 1546

Oxford Reference

atheism
Subject: Religion
The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos". It does not apply it to the suffix "ism". "No god" not "no belief".
The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
ism
noun \ˈi-zəm\ .
: a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix -ism
Full Definition of ISM
1
: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory

While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god. Which is why I don't like definitions that much. It implies the word creates the thing. It does not. If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:

An Atheist has no god beliefs.
I am an Atheist.
Therefore, I have no god beliefs.

While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration. I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god. In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief. So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong. It can't be both.

If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?

perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....

 

[asaratis]

As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief.

Oh what the heck, I'm bored... first hit on google says....

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Copy'n and Past'n whoowhoooooo!!!!1

Have you the balls to quote the link from which that came? I'm from Missouri..SHOW ME!

I dunno. Do you have the mental acumen to google "atheism"? It was at the top of the page, in a quote block. I didn't follow the link, cause I don't really care. But I think it was from Wikipedia. I'm from Missouri too.

I guessed you would not post the link. It does come ver batum from Wikipedia...a source that is open to editing by anyone. Your boy editor in this case was Kai Nielsen (born 1926) is professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Calgary. Before moving to Canada, Nielsen taught at New York University (NYU). He specializes in metaphilosophy, ethics, and social and political philosophy. Nielsen has also written about philosophy of religion, and is an advocate of contemporary atheism.

He has redefined it for you. The original definition comes from 1570 AD. Google that! Redefining yourselves to keep from being called a religion doesn't work. That's like the liberals redefining themselves to be progressives...instead of liberals because liberalism took on a bad name several years ago. They are still nothing more than worthless fucking liberals....and an Atheist is still just one who believes that God does not exist.

Nice try, but no cigar!

atheist
noun [C] /ˈeɪ·θi·ɪst/ us

› someone who believes that God does not exist


atheist - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

That's a great argument if you accept the premise that humanity has not advanced one step since 1570.

The definition I quoted above came from a modern day dictionary.

Cambridge Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus

The etymology of the word indicates its origin being around 1570.

Online Etymology Dictionary

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

There is no need to redefine the word just to make Atheists feel better about themselves. If you simply have a lack of belief in God, you're simply agnostic. It's really that simple, simpleton.

 

[asaratis]

I have no need to do that. You do...if you want to switch over to being honest. Pigs will fly first.

I understand you're angry. That's a typical reaction from fundamentalists when they're tasked with supporting their claims to supernaturalism. Similarly, when fundamentalists are confronted with their pointless claims that others need to disprove their appeals to magic and supernaturalism, the fundamentalists typically react as you do.

Your inference that I am angry is born of your narcissism. I couldn't care less about what you believe. It's the incessant crowing and attacks on others that makes yours an angry, militant religion, geared toward the ridicule of scorn of all others. What you infer from my postings is nothing more than your mistaken opinion. It takes a lot more than what you say to bring me to anger. You overrate yourself.

If it really makes you happy, I am proud to have provided you with some comfort and joy. I bring you tidings of comfort and joy. That's cool with me! God Rest Ye Merry People All!

It's a profoundly silly comment to make such that "I couldn't care less about what you believe", yet, you spend inordinate amounts of time agonizing over those who dismiss your gawds as simply myth and legend.

Your anger and rage is palpable. You apply "religion" to atheism as a slur because you're incensed that even after all the history of pages in this thread and your continued attempts to define rejection of fear and superstition as "religion", you're still pursuing a failed argument.

You cling to the misunderstanding that I am angry. There is no anger here, no agony here. You praise yourself and other Atheists here in thinking that you are capable of driving me to anger. I honestly do not give a tinker's damn whether you believe God exists or doesn't exist. We're merely discussing the flawed posit that "Atheism is NOT a religion. You are simply following the doctrine of Atheism. It is more likely you that is pissed off. I sleep well every night with absolutely no malice toward the stupid fucking active Atheists that think they are not part of a religion. I simply wonder why you idiots object to its being defined as a religion.

You can repeat you lies 'til the cows come home...won't make them true.

But here you are still, incensed that anyone would challenge your specious opinions. It's your self-hate that causes you to spew the "atheism is a religion" canard. You consistently fail to show any connection between the rejection of fear and superstition and religious belief. That's most important as for you extremists, fear and superstition is a primary component of your religious belief.

Again you erroneous perceive that I am angry. I'm simply denying the stupid claim that Atheism is not a religion. How you translate that into anger is beyond me. You are evidently incorrigibly warped in the head,

 

[Delta4Embassy]

In a way, atheism makes even less sense than any religion. Religions claim there's a god or gods or some higher power, but they can't prove it. That's bad enough. But atheists claim there's no god whatsoever absent any evidence for that position. Until you've catalogued everything in the universe you can't say there isn't something like a god somewhere in it. And if you did have that massive store of information you'd arguably BE god rendering your original claim false.

 

[Montrovant]

I think 90% of thread is guileless equivocation. "ism" is a suffix with a wide variety of uses. The suffix "-ism" doesn't make atheism a religion any more than it makes theism a religion. It just specifies whether someone believes in gods or not.

As I have already pointed out to you, I have never said that atheism is a religion. That fact does not give anyone the right to redefine atheism as not a belief. By they way, I have posted the dictionary definition of atheism from multiple sources, all of which define it as a belief, not a lack of a belief.

Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.

Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


Thanks for coming out.

If you want to use it then you use it all:

Merriam-Webster:

Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity .
See atheism defined for kids »
Origin of ATHEISM
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
First Known Use: 1546

Oxford Reference

atheism
Subject: Religion
The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

You will notice that the greek root atheos uses the typical method of apply the prefix "a" to the root "theos". It does not apply it to the suffix "ism". "No god" not "no belief".
The suffix "ism" per Webster is:
ism
noun \ˈi-zəm\ .
: a belief, attitude, style, etc., that is referred to by a word that ends in the suffix -ism
Full Definition of ISM
1
: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory

While words may morph, the basic word means a doctrine, cause or theory that there is no god. Which is why I don't like definitions that much. It implies the word creates the thing. It does not. If the word does not accurately reflect the thing, it is the word which is wrong. It brings you to a bit of basic logic that runs:

An Atheist has no god beliefs.
I am an Atheist.
Therefore, I have no god beliefs.

While the logic here is valid, the premise must be supported by more than a declaration. I think we can go to that famous list from Dawkins on this in which he describes a strong Atheist as one who is certain there is no god. In the absence of evidence, that position can only be a belief. So either the premise is wrong or Dawkins is wrong. It can't be both.

If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?

perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....

Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?

 

[Hollie]

I understand you're angry. That's a typical reaction from fundamentalists when they're tasked with supporting their claims to supernaturalism. Similarly, when fundamentalists are confronted with their pointless claims that others need to disprove their appeals to magic and supernaturalism, the fundamentalists typically react as you do.

Your inference that I am angry is born of your narcissism. I couldn't care less about what you believe. It's the incessant crowing and attacks on others that makes yours an angry, militant religion, geared toward the ridicule of scorn of all others. What you infer from my postings is nothing more than your mistaken opinion. It takes a lot more than what you say to bring me to anger. You overrate yourself.

If it really makes you happy, I am proud to have provided you with some comfort and joy. I bring you tidings of comfort and joy. That's cool with me! God Rest Ye Merry People All!

It's a profoundly silly comment to make such that "I couldn't care less about what you believe", yet, you spend inordinate amounts of time agonizing over those who dismiss your gawds as simply myth and legend.

Your anger and rage is palpable. You apply "religion" to atheism as a slur because you're incensed that even after all the history of pages in this thread and your continued attempts to define rejection of fear and superstition as "religion", you're still pursuing a failed argument.

You cling to the misunderstanding that I am angry. There is no anger here, no agony here. You praise yourself and other Atheists here in thinking that you are capable of driving me to anger. I honestly do not give a tinker's damn whether you believe God exists or doesn't exist. We're merely discussing the flawed posit that "Atheism is NOT a religion. You are simply following the doctrine of Atheism. It is more likely you that is pissed off. I sleep well every night with absolutely no malice toward the stupid fucking active Atheists that think they are not part of a religion. I simply wonder why you idiots object to its being defined as a religion.

You can repeat you lies 'til the cows come home...won't make them true.

But here you are still, incensed that anyone would challenge your specious opinions. It's your self-hate that causes you to spew the "atheism is a religion" canard. You consistently fail to show any connection between the rejection of fear and superstition and religious belief. That's most important as for you extremists, fear and superstition is a primary component of your religious belief.

Again you erroneous perceive that I am angry. I'm simply denying the stupid claim that Atheism is not a religion. How you translate that into anger is beyond me. You are evidently incorrigibly warped in the head,

It's fine to deny your anger. It's also fine that you have an insensate need to assign the "religion" label to rational and reasoned conclusions that have no connection to religion or a religious belief.

It will cause you further anger and angst but those who conclude that magic and supernaturalism is not a requirement for existence has no connection with any religious belief. It's a shame that you extremist Christians become incensed at others concluding that fear and superstition are the harbingers of a maladjusted personality.

For all your saliva-slinging tirades wherein you insist that atheism is a religion, you have never made any argument showing a common connection with religious beliefs, rituals, traditions, etc., that are a common theme shared by religions but are totally absent among those who conclude that your gods are no more real or extant than the Egyptian gods.

 

[Hollie]

In a way, atheism makes even less sense than any religion. Religions claim there's a god or gods or some higher power, but they can't prove it. That's bad enough. But atheists claim there's no god whatsoever absent any evidence for that position. Until you've catalogued everything in the universe you can't say there isn't something like a god somewhere in it. And if you did have that massive store of information you'd arguably BE god rendering your original claim false.

Not true at all. Religious belief carries a lot of baggage with it. Concluding that Leprechauns, gods, Invisible Pink Unicorns, etc., don't exist is fairly low yield in comparison to the wars, atrocities and suffering imposed by various religious entities in their quest to convert those of the other, competing religions.

Unfortunately, the religious perspectives have been the prime antecedent of 10,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants-Gregorian and otherwise, magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated books, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!

But none of them make the absolute case of authority -- hence, I select the default position of atheism until such time as there is a clear defining reason to select one over the other.

 

[sealybobo]

Oh what the heck, I'm bored... first hit on google says....

Copy'n and Past'n whoowhoooooo!!!!1

Have you the balls to quote the link from which that came? I'm from Missouri..SHOW ME!

I dunno. Do you have the mental acumen to google "atheism"? It was at the top of the page, in a quote block. I didn't follow the link, cause I don't really care. But I think it was from Wikipedia. I'm from Missouri too.

I guessed you would not post the link. It does come ver batum from Wikipedia...a source that is open to editing by anyone. Your boy editor in this case was Kai Nielsen (born 1926) is professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Calgary. Before moving to Canada, Nielsen taught at New York University (NYU). He specializes in metaphilosophy, ethics, and social and political philosophy. Nielsen has also written about philosophy of religion, and is an advocate of contemporary atheism.

He has redefined it for you. The original definition comes from 1570 AD. Google that! Redefining yourselves to keep from being called a religion doesn't work. That's like the liberals redefining themselves to be progressives...instead of liberals because liberalism took on a bad name several years ago. They are still nothing more than worthless fucking liberals....and an Atheist is still just one who believes that God does not exist.

Nice try, but no cigar!

atheist
noun [C] /ˈeɪ·θi·ɪst/ us

› someone who believes that God does not exist


atheist - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

That's a great argument if you accept the premise that humanity has not advanced one step since 1570.

The definition I quoted above came from a modern day dictionary.

Cambridge Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus

The etymology of the word indicates its origin being around 1570.

Online Etymology Dictionary

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

There is no need to redefine the word just to make Atheists feel better about themselves. If you simply have a lack of belief in God, you're simply agnostic. It's really that simple, simpleton.

Agnostic is not sure either way. Too wishy washy for me. I'm an agnostic atheist.

I don't know if there is a god. To know that I would have to be a god myself and be able to peek inside black holes. But I'm certain enough that none of the organized religions are real so I call myself an atheist.

Lack of belief in your faith takes no faith just a brain.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh what the heck, I'm bored... first hit on google says....

Copy'n and Past'n whoowhoooooo!!!!1

Have you the balls to quote the link from which that came? I'm from Missouri..SHOW ME!

I dunno. Do you have the mental acumen to google "atheism"? It was at the top of the page, in a quote block. I didn't follow the link, cause I don't really care. But I think it was from Wikipedia. I'm from Missouri too.

I guessed you would not post the link. It does come ver batum from Wikipedia...a source that is open to editing by anyone. Your boy editor in this case was Kai Nielsen (born 1926) is professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Calgary. Before moving to Canada, Nielsen taught at New York University (NYU). He specializes in metaphilosophy, ethics, and social and political philosophy. Nielsen has also written about philosophy of religion, and is an advocate of contemporary atheism.

He has redefined it for you. The original definition comes from 1570 AD. Google that! Redefining yourselves to keep from being called a religion doesn't work. That's like the liberals redefining themselves to be progressives...instead of liberals because liberalism took on a bad name several years ago. They are still nothing more than worthless fucking liberals....and an Atheist is still just one who believes that God does not exist.

Nice try, but no cigar!

atheist
noun [C] /ˈeɪ·θi·ɪst/ us

› someone who believes that God does not exist


atheist - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

That's a great argument if you accept the premise that humanity has not advanced one step since 1570.

The definition I quoted above came from a modern day dictionary.

Cambridge Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus

The etymology of the word indicates its origin being around 1570.

Online Etymology Dictionary

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

There is no need to redefine the word just to make Atheists feel better about themselves. If you simply have a lack of belief in God, you're simply agnostic. It's really that simple, simpleton.

By that logic if you believe in God, you're agnostic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.

Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


Thanks for coming out.

Disbelief.

Webster: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:

In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.

Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that ruled it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools.

That being the case, by prohibiting an official school prayer, the Court made not having an official school prayer mandatory, which,

if atheism is a religion, means that the Court mandated that public schools practice the atheist religious belief on prayer. That would be a 1st Amendment violation as well.

Some people get the point. I'm not going to suffer at length agonizing over the fact that you don't.

Why do you idiots insist on proving you do not understand English? I said the Constitution does not ban prayer in schools anymore than it bans not praying. In an attempt to prove that you are incredibly stupid you post a reference to a case where the Supreme Court banned prayer in school that is led by a teacher or any government official. Funny thing, it doesn't say a fucking thing about student led prayer in school. which is why the See you at the Pole rally's led by students have been repeatedly upheld by courts despite the multiple challenges to them led by idiots, like you, that think they understand things that do not exist.. If you could actually prove that the Constitution banned it you would post the actual text of the Constitution that bans prayer, which only exist in the minds of delusional idiots.

You cannot do so, which means I stand unchallenged in my assertion.

Feel free to prove your ever increasing ignorance by trying to prove me wrong again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Have you the balls to quote the link from which that came? I'm from Missouri..SHOW ME!

I dunno. Do you have the mental acumen to google "atheism"? It was at the top of the page, in a quote block. I didn't follow the link, cause I don't really care. But I think it was from Wikipedia. I'm from Missouri too.

I guessed you would not post the link. It does come ver batum from Wikipedia...a source that is open to editing by anyone. Your boy editor in this case was Kai Nielsen (born 1926) is professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Calgary. Before moving to Canada, Nielsen taught at New York University (NYU). He specializes in metaphilosophy, ethics, and social and political philosophy. Nielsen has also written about philosophy of religion, and is an advocate of contemporary atheism.

He has redefined it for you. The original definition comes from 1570 AD. Google that! Redefining yourselves to keep from being called a religion doesn't work. That's like the liberals redefining themselves to be progressives...instead of liberals because liberalism took on a bad name several years ago. They are still nothing more than worthless fucking liberals....and an Atheist is still just one who believes that God does not exist.

Nice try, but no cigar!

atheist
noun [C] /ˈeɪ·θi·ɪst/ us

› someone who believes that God does not exist


atheist - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

That's a great argument if you accept the premise that humanity has not advanced one step since 1570.

The definition I quoted above came from a modern day dictionary.

Cambridge Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus

The etymology of the word indicates its origin being around 1570.

Online Etymology Dictionary

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

There is no need to redefine the word just to make Atheists feel better about themselves. If you simply have a lack of belief in God, you're simply agnostic. It's really that simple, simpleton.

Agnostic is not sure either way. Too wishy washy for me. I'm an agnostic atheist.

I don't know if there is a god. To know that I would have to be a god myself and be able to peek inside black holes. But I'm certain enough that none of the organized religions are real so I call myself an atheist.

Lack of belief in your faith takes no faith just a brain.

The way they're trying to define atheism is based on a general 'principle' that anything is possible, therefore the atheist is committing an act of faith by not believing in God, because the possibility of God can't be ruled out.

lol, or something like that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then amend the Constitution.

Why? It works just fine the way it is, which is why you idiots cannot get rid of student led prayer in schools despite your best efforts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that ruled it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools.

That being the case, by prohibiting an official school prayer, the Court made not having an official school prayer mandatory, which,

if atheism is a religion, means that the Court mandated that public schools practice the atheist religious belief on prayer. That would be a 1st Amendment violation as well.

Some people get the point. I'm not going to suffer at length agonizing over the fact that you don't.

Why do you idiots insist on proving you do not understand English? I said the Constitution does not ban prayer in schools anymore than it bans not praying. In an attempt to prove that you are incredibly stupid you post a reference to a case where the Supreme Court banned prayer in school that is led by a teacher or any government official. Funny thing, it doesn't say a fucking thing about student led prayer in school. which is why the See you at the Pole rally's led by students have been repeatedly upheld by courts despite the multiple challenges to them led by idiots, like you, that think they understand things that do not exist.. If you could actually prove that the Constitution banned it you would post the actual text of the Constitution that bans prayer, which only exist in the minds of delusional idiots.

You cannot do so, which means I stand unchallenged in my assertion.

Feel free to prove your ever increasing ignorance by trying to prove me wrong again.

You're claiming no prayer has been constitutionally banned. You're wrong. You're retarded.

 

[Hollie]

Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionairies are the most referenced dictionaries. Let's see what they say shall we.

Merriam-Webster - Atheism : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford - Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


Thanks for coming out.

Disbelief.

Webster: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:

In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.

Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?

Better still, it's abundantly clear that disbelief is not a religion. Cutting and pasting dictionary definitions is pointless and time wasting when religious belief systems have elaborate systems of rituals, customs and practices.

What are the elaborate systems of rituals, customs and practices associated with "disbelief" in gods, Leprechauns and other silly inventions of man?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?

What we have seen, as usual, is that there are multiple definitions of atheism.

The word is not adoctrine, it is atheist.

FYI, I just destroyed your post in in 8 words.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're right. It was probably more about that guy losing his job than it was her not converting.

Oklahoma Woman Beheaded By Fired Muslim Co-Worker The Daily Caller

Don't forget the Chinese Christians who stabbed that woman for not converting. They call them a cult but they were Christians.

BBC News - The Chinese cult that kills demons

Maybe not your version of Christianity, but Christ is part of their schtick too.

He was fired because he wanted to stone women.

Damn, I guess that proves it wasn't about religion, doesn't it? And it was just a coincidence that the only people he attacked were women.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?

No, it would not. Are you another one of those religious fanatics that insist that the only valid universe is the one that they believe in?

 

[Hollie]

Then amend the Constitution.

Why? It works just fine the way it is, which is why you idiots cannot get rid of student led prayer in schools despite your best efforts.

Student led prayer is not the issue of fundamentalist Christianity which you ID'iots are trying to shoe-horn in on the public schools.

Do what you usually do and waste a lot of time and bandwidth cutting and pasting dictionary definitions. Do that for "wedge strategy", intelligent design creationism, etc.