Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[PratchettFan]

....

You asked for sources and I gave some to you. That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist. So my point stands. If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.

...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion. Some are just too dense to concede.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.

What is Atheism American Atheists

It is this claim of a lack of beliefs which does you in. It is bullshit. You do not lack beliefs. If you actually did lack beliefs you would be entirely neutral on the question. Any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief. You have said you think there probably is no god, what evidence do you have to think that? If the answer is none, then it is a belief. You cannot have a belief and lack beliefs at the same time.

 

[Pogo]

....

You asked for sources and I gave some to you. That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist. So my point stands. If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.

...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion. Some are just too dense to concede.

Think so? What's it's creed? "Creed" of course meaning a set of beliefs -- not non-beliefs.
What's it's philosophy on Nature's mysteries then? What questions does it answer?

And more basically -- why are you so desperate to turn a simple logical conclusion of a single concept -- into a "religion"? You have yet to tell us that. Nor what would be the point of "preaching" nothingness.

 

[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.

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.

You asked for sources and I gave some to you. That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist. So my point stands. If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.

No, it doesn't "stand". If you're inviting us all to go join a similar discussion elsewhere that's one thing, but you can't just toss out the words of people who weren't addressing this question and don't even know it exists. That's a strawman.

Let me throw this one out ......

If atheism (note, still small A) is a "religion" ---------------------------- who founded it?

You asked for the sources and I gave you what you asked for. It is not my fault you asked for it.

Who says it must be founded by someone?

Well done grasshopper. Just wanted to see how you'd handle that.

But the sources are still nonpresent entities here. You can't fairly present somebody else's point that you already disagree with. Why don't you invite those people here and let them speak for themselves?

Anyone who wants to join in is free to. All three of them are active posters here. So we can let that go as something we are not going to agree on.

 

[Carla_Danger]

....

You asked for sources and I gave some to you. That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist. So my point stands. If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.

...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion. Some are just too dense to concede.

Then those people are treating atheism incorrectly. It is not a religion, and it's ridiculous to say that it is.

They are not treating Atheism correctly? You mean they don't follow doctrine?

There is no doctrine.

 

[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.

All I have done is ask you a series of simple questions. Excuse me for trying to get some sort of answer from you to my original question since you have yet to answer it.

Why do some atheists get so upset over the mere mentioning of an entity in which they have no belief?

Where the fuck are you seeing "upset"?

Instead of answering you post a litany of little things that in the "aggregate" amount to something being "rammed down your throat" by various "accosters" (sic)

So I guess you would just lose your shit if you were paying for an ice cream with a dollar bill that says in god we trust and someone said "Oh my god" within earshot while another person said "god bless you to an old woman who just sneezed.

That's silly. Those are cultural aspects of language, not religion. Reminds me of that girl a week ago who claimed to be "suspended" from school for saying "bless you". It's not the religious noise that might be problematic in these occasions; it's the bullshit noise. That applies to a lot of things. Religion is not a negative force. But bullshit is.

Again, if you speak of societal peer pressures as I listed in the Bugs Bunny analogy, (since AFAIK nobody's claiming a legal rights issue) we have essentially the same complaint as other PC pressures -- multiculturalism, 'offensive' words, all that stuff. That's a cultural question related to religious proselytizing. It's really not related to the topic of whether or not one personally accepts theism as a valid theory.

 

[PratchettFan]

....

You asked for sources and I gave some to you. That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist. So my point stands. If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.

...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion. Some are just too dense to concede.

Think so? What's it's creed? "Creed" of course meaning a set of beliefs -- not non-beliefs.
What's it's philosophy on Nature's mysteries then? What questions does it answer?

And more basically -- why are you so desperate to turn a simple logical conclusion of a single concept -- into a "religion"? You have yet to tell us that.

They are not non-beliefs. That's just clever word play. They are negative beliefs.

But do prove me wrong. Explain the logical conclusion and provide the objective evidence upon which it is based. And please, don't tell me the evidence is that there is no evidence unless you are prepared to describe what evidence would be required and the objective basis for establishing that as the evidence required.

And I will even explain where that is going in advance. If your conclusion is nothing but a belief but you hold it out as a non-belief, then what you have is doctrine overshadowing reality. That is the essence of dogma and it is most definitely the basis of a creed.

 

[PratchettFan]

....

You asked for sources and I gave some to you. That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist. So my point stands. If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.

...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion. Some are just too dense to concede.

Then those people are treating atheism incorrectly. It is not a religion, and it's ridiculous to say that it is.

They are not treating Atheism correctly? You mean they don't follow doctrine?

There is no doctrine.

If there is no doctrine, how can Atheism be treated incorrectly?

 

[Pogo]

You asked for the sources and I gave you what you asked for. It is not my fault you asked for it.

Who says it must be founded by someone?

Well done grasshopper. Just wanted to see how you'd handle that.

But the sources are still nonpresent entities here. You can't fairly present somebody else's point that you already disagree with. Why don't you invite those people here and let them speak for themselves?

Anyone who wants to join in is free to. All three of them are active posters here. So we can let that go as something we are not going to agree on.

It's a logical fallacy; there's nothing to "agree" or "disagree" on -- it's simply not a valid argument. You cannot speak for someone else's position any more than I can speak for the reverse of it. Nor was whatever they wrote in response to, or in the context of, this topic.

 

[Pogo]

....

You asked for sources and I gave some to you. That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist. So my point stands. If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.

...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion. Some are just too dense to concede.

Then those people are treating atheism incorrectly. It is not a religion, and it's ridiculous to say that it is.

They are not treating Atheism correctly? You mean they don't follow doctrine?

There is no doctrine.

If there is no doctrine, how can Atheism be treated incorrectly?

You don't need a "doctrine" to misdefine something. There's plenty of it going on right here, no "doctrine" required.

If there is no doctrine, how can atheism be a religion?
And why do you keep capitalizing it?
Y'all are reaaaally stretching this to try to make it work -- same question: why do you need atheism to be a "religion"?

 

[Hollie]

....

You asked for sources and I gave some to you. That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist. So my point stands. If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.

...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion. Some are just too dense to concede.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.

What is Atheism American Atheists

It is this claim of a lack of beliefs which does you in. It is bullshit. You do not lack beliefs. If you actually did lack beliefs you would be entirely neutral on the question. Any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief. You have said you think there probably is no god, what evidence do you have to think that? If the answer is none, then it is a belief. You cannot have a belief and lack beliefs at the same time.

For the majority of non-believers I know, there is no specific "lack of belief" as there is a conclusion that the Christian gods or any other gods simply don't exist.

Promoting a position generally commences with premises that must first be shown to likely be true, and at least have some measure of testable support. Only then can you use logic to reason from those premises to a conclusion.

The only premises that religions (plural) provide are a litany of claims that only an apologist would even consider accepting. You cannot apply reason to a premise that requires belief in the supernatural to reach conclusions from. That’s ridiculous because you have assumed your entire desired conclusion based upon an assumed supernatural premise.

The claims of ALL religions requiring supernatural belief are merely repetitions of particular sectarian dogma, with no connection to supported reasoning. They are carelessly asserted and the adherents assume that others must take their word for it. Or, even more absurd that, they are requiring us to take someone else's word for it.

I don’t see that accepting reason as the criteria for perception is stripping away anything. Human emotions have their source in natural instincts we see every day in the common animal kingdom. We simply have added a vast array of texture to emotions that simpler animals do not.

 

[asaratis]

....

You asked for sources and I gave some to you. That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist. So my point stands. If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.

...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion. Some are just too dense to concede.

Think so? What's it's creed? "Creed" of course meaning a set of beliefs -- not non-beliefs.
What's it's philosophy on Nature's mysteries then? What questions does it answer?

And more basically -- why are you so desperate to turn a simple logical conclusion of a single concept -- into a "religion"? You have yet to tell us that.

Strawman again. I am not desperate in any regard. I have not turned atheism into a religion. Atheists have done that all on their own. (There's an Atheist Church you can join...even become a minister, perform weddings and such...and you get a magic decoder ring...all for free...and you can donate to the building fund...they only need $900,000...see above^^^^^Post#137) But then, you don't bother reading the information posted here...you are TOTALLY self sufficient...in your own mind.

I'm am quite simply refuting the lame argument that Atheism is not a religion....and I don't know what "logical conclusion" you mean. If it is that God does not exist because of lack of evidence for His existence, then you're arguing for an illogical conclusion. Even Einstein acknowledged there must be a God.

As to the creed of Atheism, I have no idea what it might include. I suspect that ridicule of believers is among the tenets, tacitly agreed upon by most of the self-anointed "intellectual" followers.

IMHO, atheists are just two weak minded to realize that God allowed millions of years of weather, tides, cooling of the earth, the emergence of life forms, selective breeding and adaptive evolution of plant and animal species to produce that which is described in the Bible as having happened in 7 days. The inspired writers of Genesis and the rest of the Bible had no conception whatsoever of geological time or evolution. Their stories were meant to be passed down for generations and had to be told in parables that could be understood by those living in the time. Their explanation necessarily collapsed millions of years into a single day. The one truth that they did not have to alter is that God made it all!

 

[Hollie]

....

You asked for sources and I gave some to you. That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist. So my point stands. If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.

...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion. Some are just too dense to concede.

Think so? What's it's creed? "Creed" of course meaning a set of beliefs -- not non-beliefs.
What's it's philosophy on Nature's mysteries then? What questions does it answer?

And more basically -- why are you so desperate to turn a simple logical conclusion of a single concept -- into a "religion"? You have yet to tell us that.

Strawman again. I am not desperate in any regard. I have not turned atheism into a religion. Atheists have done that all on their own. (There's an Atheist Church you can join...even become a minister, perform weddings and such...and you get a magic decoder ring...all for free...and you can donate to the building fund...they only need $900,000...see above^^^^^Post#137) But then, you don't bother reading the information posted here...you are TOTALLY self sufficient...in your own mind.

I'm am quite simply refuting the lame argument that Atheism is not a religion....and I don't know what "logical conclusion" you mean. If it is that God does not exist because of lack of evidence for His existence, then you're arguing for an illogical conclusion. Even Einstein acknowledged there must be a God.

As to the creed of Atheism, I have no idea what it might include. I suspect that ridicule of believers is among the tenets, tacitly agreed upon by most of the self-anointed "intellectual" followers.

IMHO, atheists are just two weak minded to realize that God allowed millions of years of weather, tides, cooling of the earth, the emergence of life forms, selective breeding and adaptive evolution of plant and animal species to produce that which is described in the Bible as having happened in 7 days. The inspired writers of Genesis and the rest of the Bible had no conception whatsoever of geological time or evolution. Their stories were meant to be passed down for generations and had to be told in parables that could be understood by those living in the time. Their explanation necessarily collapsed millions of years into a single day. The one truth that they did not have to alter is that God made it all!

"..... because I say so!"

 

[turzovka]

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.

Well if I agreed with all of your contentions and conclusions then we surely would have little to disagree about. But I do not. Sorry to startle you, but ‘yes’ I do know that God is absolutely real, absolutely the One and Only, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I know this by evidence, empirical evidence, and all the reason that flows from that. So perhaps that explains my joy and also my “egocentric proselytizing” as you would have it.

What puzzles me is how easily offended unbelievers get when they hear Christians publicly preaching or sounding so sure of themselves. As though me having to listen to an atheist or agnostic scoff at them, even ridicule them, bothers me in the least. It surely does not. As though I get unnerved to hear some Muslim make just as bold claims and ridicule Christianity. Does not bother me at all. They have no legs to stand on and a civil discussion would bear that out.

So for you to say my beliefs are no better than your beliefs, I ask, how so? Maybe no better in that both of us are free to give our opinions and the listener or reader is free to choose what he wants to listen to or ignore. Sure, in that sense, no better or worse. But for you to suggest my beliefs are no better than yours because I have no more solid evidence to base them on than hearsay, or what others (unbelievers) may base theirs on --- that I call grand folly. You simply have no idea what you are claiming.

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.

Oh, please. That idea has been aired countless times. Just because not on this thread does not mean I cannot raise the issue because it is very much related to the topic. And frankly, I do not care if they say it or not. Does not bother me, but I not going to hesitate to point out the folly of it. In fact, I cannot think of anything a pagan or unbeliever might bring up or even rage against that would cause me the slightest discomfort.


And --- Sorry, I do not know how to use that "Quote" button option? So I have to copy your whole message multiple times and then delete the excess.

 

[Pogo]

....

You asked for sources and I gave some to you. That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist. So my point stands. If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.

...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion. Some are just too dense to concede.

Think so? What's it's creed? "Creed" of course meaning a set of beliefs -- not non-beliefs.
What's it's philosophy on Nature's mysteries then? What questions does it answer?

And more basically -- why are you so desperate to turn a simple logical conclusion of a single concept -- into a "religion"? You have yet to tell us that.

Strawman again. I am not desperate in any regard. I have not turned atheism into a religion. Atheists have done that all on their own. (There's an Atheist Church you can join...even become a minister, perform weddings and such...and you get a magic decoder ring...all for free...and you can donate to the building fund...they only need $900,000...see above^^^^^Post#137) But then, you don't bother reading the information posted here...you are TOTALLY self sufficient...in your own mind.

Correct. As are we all about any individual personal decision. Fatal composition fallacies notwithstanding.

I'm am quite simply refuting the lame argument that Atheism is not a religion....and I don't know what "logical conclusion" you mean. If it is that God does not exist because of lack of evidence for His existence, then you're arguing for an illogical conclusion. Even Einstein acknowledged there must be a God.

As to the creed of Atheism, I have no idea what it might include. I suspect that ridicule of believers is among the tenets, tacitly agreed upon by most of the self-anointed "intellectual" followers.

And with that imaginary "doctrine" you continue to sidestep the question -- WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT? A credo means "what you believe" -- not "what theories have you considered and declined".

Atheism is not a theroy --- theism is a theory. Atheism is simply the act of deciding that theory doesn't work.

And no, you're not "refuting that atheism (small A remember) is not a religion" -- you're making the claim that it IS.

IMHO, atheists are just two weak minded to realize that God allowed millions of years of weather, tides, cooling of the earth, the emergence of life forms, selective breeding and adaptive evolution of plant and animal species to produce that which is described in the Bible as having happened in 7 days. The inspired writers of Genesis and the rest of the Bible had no conception whatsoever of geological time or evolution. Their stories were meant to be passed down for generations and had to be told in parables that could be understood by those living in the time. Their explanation necessarily collapsed millions of years into a single day. The one truth that they did not have to alter is that God made it all!

Completely circular argument. You presuppose the existence of "God" in order to conclude "God".

 

[Pogo]

And --- Sorry, I do not know how to use that "Quote" button option? So I have to copy your whole message multiple times and then delete the excess.

In this system it's no longer "quote" -- it's "reply". Try it, it'll set you up.

 

[asaratis]

....

You asked for sources and I gave some to you. That they were not from this thread does not mean they don't exist. So my point stands. If people treat Atheism as a religion, then it becomes a religion.

...and as shown above, people treat Atheism as a religion. Some are just too dense to concede.

Think so? What's it's creed? "Creed" of course meaning a set of beliefs -- not non-beliefs.
What's it's philosophy on Nature's mysteries then? What questions does it answer?

And more basically -- why are you so desperate to turn a simple logical conclusion of a single concept -- into a "religion"? You have yet to tell us that.

Strawman again. I am not desperate in any regard. I have not turned atheism into a religion. Atheists have done that all on their own. (There's an Atheist Church you can join...even become a minister, perform weddings and such...and you get a magic decoder ring...all for free...and you can donate to the building fund...they only need $900,000...see above^^^^^Post#137) But then, you don't bother reading the information posted here...you are TOTALLY self sufficient...in your own mind.

I'm am quite simply refuting the lame argument that Atheism is not a religion....and I don't know what "logical conclusion" you mean. If it is that God does not exist because of lack of evidence for His existence, then you're arguing for an illogical conclusion. Even Einstein acknowledged there must be a God.

As to the creed of Atheism, I have no idea what it might include. I suspect that ridicule of believers is among the tenets, tacitly agreed upon by most of the self-anointed "intellectual" followers.

IMHO, atheists are just two weak minded to realize that God allowed millions of years of weather, tides, cooling of the earth, the emergence of life forms, selective breeding and adaptive evolution of plant and animal species to produce that which is described in the Bible as having happened in 7 days. The inspired writers of Genesis and the rest of the Bible had no conception whatsoever of geological time or evolution. Their stories were meant to be passed down for generations and had to be told in parables that could be understood by those living in the time. Their explanation necessarily collapsed millions of years into a single day. The one truth that they did not have to alter is that God made it all!

"..... because I say so!"

Duh! You missed the part where I inserted "IMHO"..in my humble opinion...a commonly accepted expression that the claim is subject to OPINION.

 

[asaratis]

And --- Sorry, I do not know how to use that "Quote" button option? So I have to copy your whole message multiple times and then delete the excess.

In this system it's no longer "quote" -- it's "reply". Try it, it'll set you up.

It uses both multi-quote and reply. Don't confuse our friend, turzovka.

 

[Pogo]

"..... because I say so!"

Duh! You missed the part where I inserted "IMHO"..in my humble opinion...a commonly accepted expression that the claim is subject to OPINION.

I believe the word "because" tells us it's an analysis of how you got there -- your reasoning. IOW you didn't present a logical path from premise to conclusion.

 

[Pogo]

And --- Sorry, I do not know how to use that "Quote" button option? So I have to copy your whole message multiple times and then delete the excess.

In this system it's no longer "quote" -- it's "reply". Try it, it'll set you up.

It uses both multi-quote and reply. Don't confuse our friend, turzovka.

I don't believe in multi-quote. I have no evidence that it exists.

But serially, multi-quote is more complex. You don't need it for a single response. One step at a time.

 

[PratchettFan]

You asked for the sources and I gave you what you asked for. It is not my fault you asked for it.

Who says it must be founded by someone?

Well done grasshopper. Just wanted to see how you'd handle that.

But the sources are still nonpresent entities here. You can't fairly present somebody else's point that you already disagree with. Why don't you invite those people here and let them speak for themselves?

Anyone who wants to join in is free to. All three of them are active posters here. So we can let that go as something we are not going to agree on.

It's a logical fallacy; there's nothing to "agree" or "disagree" on -- it's simply not a valid argument. You cannot speak for someone else's position any more than I can speak for the reverse of it. Nor was whatever they wrote in response to, or in the context of, this topic.

I was quoting them, that is all. You asked and I provided. Whether you think that is valid or not makes no difference.